1956-03-16

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1956
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 16, 1956


[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short statement about arms shipments. In accord with the policy of the government to give consideration to all applications for arms shipments as they come forward, as I have stated in the house on more than one occasion is being done, yesterday the cabinet approved three such applications for Israel. Those applications were considered in the light of the tensions now existing in the Middle East, as I said they would be when they came before the cabinet, and it was felt that although the basic tensions remained there has been in the last few days some easing of the apprehensions that existed when Sir John Glubb was removed from control of the Arab legion and when there were being some clashes on lake Tiberias. There are now discussions going on as to how the United Nations might intervene effectively in the interest of facilitating a peaceful solution of the problem.
The first of the applications approved was for 1,754 units of 25-pounder ammunition which had been before the cabinet for some time and which has been referred to more than once in this house.
Two other applications were submitted to the cabinet yesterday for defence equipment for Israel and were approved with export permits being granted. One concerned a small order for electronic equipment valued at $1,200 consisting of 40 units for converting wireless sets from direct to alternating current. The other covers $136,361.59 worth of spare parts for Sherman M-IV tanks.
The history of this order is that in 1954 an export permit was granted for an order for Israel valued at $565,071.36 for tank parts without breech blocks or arms. This order has been referred to already on earlier occasions, on January 24 and January 26, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Pearson). Full delivery did not take place during the validity of this permit which expired on July 16, 1955. A new permit with a validity for six months only was approved on July 26, 1955, to cover the undelivered portion of the order originally placed in 1954. The second permit expired on January 26, 1956, with delivery still uncompleted.
Hon. members will remember that in the meantime there was a temporary suspension of all shipments to the Middle East which was imposed on January 20. Application was made on February 3 for a permit to cover the unshipped balance amounting in value to $136,361.59 and it was that application which was referred yesterday to the cabinet and approved.
ILatenl



MIDDLE EAST


[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. In view of the fact that the government has announced this morning a decision in regard to arms shipments, will the Prime Minister tell the house whether there are any other applications pending from any of the countries in the Middle East at this time and, if so, what countries and what applications they are?
Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime
Minister): There are two applications from the government of Israel which came before the cabinet yesterday and with respect to which decision was deferred. If and when a decision is made on those applications, an immediate announcement will be made to the house.


George Alexander Drew: I wish to ask a supplementary question in regard to that. Has the government now adopted a policy of dealing with shipments of arms and military equipment by order in council?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: As I stated to the house, Mr. Speaker, whenever there appear to be political repercussions involved in an application, it is referred to the whole council for consideration.


George Alexander Drew: Does that mean that it is political considerations that guide the government in determining how the decision will be made?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is the
international political situation.


George Alexander Drew: Then could we now take it that there is a policy under which the government will not ship arms or equipment unless the cabinet has decided and there is an order in council dealing with it?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: No, Mr. Speaker, there are no orders in council dealing with it, but there is consideration given by the cabinet to all those matters, and there is a minute of a decision when it is made by the cabinet.


Mr. G. R. Pearkes (Esquimalt-Saanich):: May
I ask a supplementary question? Does that policy apply to arms sold by the government as well as arms sold by private manufacturing concerns?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: With respect to arms that are sold from government supplies, under the Financial Administration Act they have to be released by the treasury board and the treasury board will refer to council generally any such matter that may appear to affect the international situation.


Mr. Knowles:: Can the Prime Minister state what document it is that actually authorizes shipment? Is it the minute of the cabinet or is it the signature of the Minister of Trade and Commerce?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is the
permit that is issued after a decision has been reached.



SAINT PATRICK'S DAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of special privilege. We would like to extend to you greetings a day ahead of time and wish you a happy St. Patrick's day. We would also like to thank the Prime Minister (Mr. St. Laurent) for giving us a free St. Patrick's day without any parliamentary doings so we can celebrate without restriction to our hearts' content.
[Mr. Drew.)



INQUIRY AS TO INVESTIGATION AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of 'the day:
Mr. M. J. Coldwell (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Will the federal government take the initiative in calling a special conference of federal, provincial and municipal representatives to consider what specific steps can be taken to reduce the shocking loss of life in this capital area, particularly of children, and to consider also what may be done in regard to the elimination of these substandard homes where so many of these fires occur?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter
within the jurisdiction of the provinces and their organs, the municipal corporations. We shall give, of course, and we have been giving, consideration to what the hon. gentleman rightly refers to as a shocking situation. We have all been, I think, very much disturbed by the news of these calamities which probably are a consequence of the fact that there are being installed in premises electrical equipment that overloads the capacity of the wiring, and so forth, and I think it is a matter that is deserving of serious consideration.


Major James William Coldwell: I would not have made the suggestion except for the fact that it seems to me the gravity of the situation warrants some unusual action. I know this is largely a provincial matter but, since this is the capital city and 39 lives were lost, action is required.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



INQUIRY AS TO VARIETY LICENSED AS &quot;PARKLAND&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. G. McCullough (Moose Mouniain):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, arising out of the announcement that a new variety of barley known as "Parkland" has been licensed. Can the minister state whether any of this variety will be available for distribution this year and whether or not this variety is suitable for use in the various provinces?


Right Hon. J. G. Gardiner (Minister of Agriculture):: The hon. member for Moose
Mountain was kind enough to give me notice of his question. I wish to state that seed of "Parkland" barley, developed at the Brandon experimental farm, will not be available for general distribution for seeding this year. The

quantity of seed now in existence is about 4,000 bushels. It will be evident from this that a general distribution of that kind could not be made. This will be used for increase on experimental farms and under contract with registered seed growers. It is expected that general distribution will be made in time for seeding in 1957. After this year's production is known, details as to prices and procedure for obtaining supplies will be announced. "Parkland" barley is suitable for use in the three prairie provinces and is particularly well adapted to the black soil zones.



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF FINAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister yet in a position to say when the final payment will be made on the 1954 wheat crop and if it can be made in time to help the farmers finance their seeding operations?


Right Hon. C. D. Howe (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not ready at the moment.


Hazen Robert Argue: I wonder whether the minister can say when he anticipates he will be able to make an announcement?


Clarence Decatur Howe: I do not know the date but I will promise to inform the house as soon as a decision has been reached.



REPORTED INCREASE IN PRICES FOR LOW GRADES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward George McCullough: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister state whether or not any consideration has been given by the Canadian wheat board to increasing the price of low-grade wheat since it has been announced that demand has exceeded available supply?


An hon. Member:: Demand?


Clarence Decatur Howe: Prices have been increased recently, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence or, in his absence, to his parliamentary assistant. In view of the reports of Russian 67509-140J
Inquiries of the Ministry scientific activities among the Arctic islands, are any precautions being taken or can the minister or his parliamentary assistant tell us whether or not these Russian polar expeditions are entering Canadian waters among the Arctic islands?


Mr. P. T. Hellyer (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should be expected to answer that question.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Do I take it from the answer of the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence that he will take my question as notice or that there will be no answer?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not think I should be expected to answer the question.


Mr. Fulton:: Mr. Speaker, we are entitled to know from the parliamentary assistant, despite the lack of training he appears to be receiving, whether he intends to bring the question to the attention of the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -so that the minister may decide and look into the matter and be in a position to give an answer to the house.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will be pleased to bring it to the attention of the minister. I believe the white paper will be brought down in due course which will outline defence policy, and when the department's estimates are before the house members can go into these matters just as thoroughly as security precautions will permit.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Possibly I might redirect the same question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am wholeheartedly in accord with the answer just given by the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence.



MINTO ARMOURIES, WINNIPEG    INQUIRY AS TO RECONSTRUCTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of National Defence. Is he prepared to answer the question of which I gave notice to the minister the other day asking the minister if he would give a statement to the house concerning the fire which occurred at Minto armouries in Winnipeg during the month of January, at which time he said he did not have a report ready? Second, have plans been

Inquiries of the Ministry made to rebuild Minto armouries or is consideration being given to vacating the present site and build an armoury elsewhere in the greater Winnipeg area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, army headquarters has received the report of the board of officers inquiring into the fire at the Minto armoury on January 22 last.
The fire was apparently caused by an unextinguished cigarette or other smoker's ash which ignited a chesterfield in the sergeant's mess. The preliminary estimate of the cost of restoring the building to its original condition is $470,000; the loss of public stores and equipment is estimated at $50,000; but no estimate has yet been made of the loss of non-public stores and equipment.
The present intention is to restore the armoury to full use. A civilian consultant firm in Winnipeg has been engaged to report on the extent of the work required for this purpose. It will, however, be some time before this report is received and final arrangements made.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a further question of the parliamentary assistant? Is he now prepared to give a report to the house with regard to the accident that occurred to four R.C.A.F. planes in Europe about two weeks ago?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I am not prepared to make a report. The air force officials have received a report which indicated that this extremely unfortunate accident took place during aerobatic practice. There is little that I can add to what has already been made public on the subject.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John B. Hamilton (York Wesi):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house whether jet aircraft on speed runs have been banned from the air space used by regular traffic as reported in the press yesterday?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minisier of Transport):: I shall take my hon. friend's question as notice and give him an answer when I am in a position to do so.
IMr. Churchill.]



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can he tell the house whether the Bluenose is in operation?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare and the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings, representing six counties in all, have, I know, a great interest in the subject of the Bluenose. I can merely say what I said to the hon. gentleman the other day, that as soon as I am in a position to make a statement with respect to when operations are to be resumed I shall make it.


An hon. Member:: Who knows?



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other questions? If not, may I say this. I want hon. members to be quite at ease. I am not relating any remarks I am going to make now to any of the hon. members who have asked questions today. I am speaking generally.
I want to tell hon. members that I think that between their conception of what should be asked at question time and mine there is now such a wide difference that I am afraid we are not pulling in the same direction. I think it is well for me to establish the position which I consider is the one which is now in force. I will not quote all these citations but I will refer hon. members to the following ones in Beauchesne's third edition: 137, 140, 295, 297, 298, 299, 300, 301, 302, 303, 304, 305, 306, 307, 308, 309, 310 and 311; also to Bourinot's fourth edition, pages 310 to 315. I know that hon. members will read those quotations at the first opportunity and will govern themselves accordingly. But for the purpose of my argument today I should like hon. members to bear with me when I read citation 140 which is as follows:
140. A question which could be inserted on the order paper is not allowed on the orders of the day being called.
Then citation 297:
297. A certain number of oral questions are permitted in practice by members, without notice, before the orders of the day are called: but these are merely allowed by courtesy in connection with the business of the house or with very urgent and important matters of public concern. They are

always brief, no debate being permitted, and the replies are as concise as possible. The minister interrogated may reply at once or may direct that the usual notice be given. Such questions are governed by the same rules of order as questions of which notice has been given.
In other words, if a question could not be inserted on the order paper, a member cannot ask it before the orders of the day are called.
Then citation 303 reads:
Questions addressed to ministers should relate to the public affairs with which they are officially connected, to proceedings pending in parliament, or to any matter of administration for which the minister is responsible. Within these lines an explanation can be sought regarding the intentions of the government, but not an expression of opinion upon matters of policy.
It is not in order to ask merely whether certain statements made in a newspaper, are true; but attention may be drawn to such statements, if the member, who puts the question, makes himself responsible for their accuracy.
In so far as those last two lines are concerned-"if the member, who puts the question, makes himself responsible for their accuracy"-I confess I do not know what that means. If a member makes himself responsible and it happens the statement is not accurate, what can happen? In my view, that part is meaningless.
Then citation 307 reads:
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
An answer to a question cannot be insisted upon, if the answer be refused by the minister on the ground of the public interest; nor can the question be replaced on the notice paper. The refusal of a minister to answer on this ground cannot be raised as a matter of privilege.
Now, I said that these were the basic rules. I have dug into the various statements and discussions that have taken place, on points of order regarding these rules, which appear in Hansard, and I should like to refer hon. members to them. I will not read these excerpts but I should like hon. members to read the discussion between the Hon. Mr. King and the Hon. Mr. Bennett in 1937, which appears in Hansard, of February 1, pages 422424; another intervention on January 29, pages 258-259 of volume 1, 1939; another one in 1940, volume 2, July 12, pages 1569-1571; volume 2, July 15,	1940, pages 1596-1597;
Journals, July 15, 1940, pages 216-218; another one on March 12, 1942, page 1243; volume 2, March 19, 1942, page 1441; a statement by Mr. Speaker Glen which appears in Journals of March 15, 1943, pages 160-161; another statement in the same year, Hansard for May 28, volume 4, page 3126; then again on June 10 of the same year, pages 3494-3496; then
Business of the House
on January 16, 1944, pages 547-549; another on July 25, 1946, pages 3831-3834; again in 1947, February 24, pages 701-702; volume 1, March 5, 1930, page 293; a statement by Mr. Speaker Macdonald on May 29, 1951, page 427 of Journals. I will simply quote this last one.
There is another matter to which I think reference should be made at this time. It is with respect to the procedure regarding the asking of questions. I would refer hon. members to standing order No. 44 which is now our standing order 39. This standing order provides for the placing of questions on the order paper, which is the usual procedure, and should be followed whenever possible.
It has nevertheless been the practice in our house to allow a certain number of oral questions and it is not my purpose to discourage members from asking questions of the proper type as I feel that these questions create a more lively interest in the business of the house.
These oral questions are asked when the orders of the day are called and are frequently asked without notice. I would, however, emphasize that these oral questions should be asked only in connection with very urgent and important matters of public concern and only if it would not be in the public interest to place them on the order paper and receive answers in accordance with the method provided for in the standing orders. They should always be brief. No debate is permitted and the replies should be as concise as possible. The questions should not be prefaced by the reading of letters, telegrams, newspaper extracts or preambles of any kind.
He concluded by asking for the co-operation of hon. members in the observance of these rules. Now, if I were to tell hon. members that not long ago supplementary questions were considered to be prohibited, many hon. members would ask me, "What is the basis for saying that?" Mind you, during the war, in 1943, in a time of emergency and when questions were considered to be of great importance, Mr. Speaker Glen, in discussing a question-which incidentally had been asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), so he will remember it-said:
That is hardly a question that can be asked on the orders of the day and certainly it should not be put. I must point out further that a practice is coming into vogue in the house of putting supplementary questions to elicit answers in addition to those given by ministers. If the rules permitted it, that would be entirely proper; but the rules do not permit of supplementary questions being asked. I have allowed a number of these questions where explanations or statements by ministers might reasonably be requested, in circumstances where the minister would no doubt wish to have his remarks made as clear as possible. But I must point out that the rule is as I have stated.
This was in 1943. I would say about half of the membership of this house was in that parliament of 1943. My arithmetic may not be very good but there is a substantial number of hon. members here today who were in the parliament of 1943. I hope that hon. members will read carefully all the

Business of the House
citations I have given and I feel confident that they will do so knowing their interest in the matter. They will see that not only has it been the opinion of prime ministers but also of leaders of the opposition when they have occupied one side or the other during their careers, that questions before the orders of the day are called should be limited to questions of an urgent and important character and should be asked on the orders of the day only if they could not be placed on the order paper without some prejudice being suffered.
I said earlier that hon. members are moving in a direction which is contrary to that which I understand to be the right one because as hon. members know the rules are not being changed by the Speaker. If hon. members wish that the rules be changed there is a proper method to be adopted and that is to have a committee on rules, have the matter decided and have a report made to the house. Were I to receive such a report I can assure you that I would try to interpret the new rules as faithfully as I could. As it is, hon. members are trying to move in the direction of having a question period which is almost similar to that which exists in the United Kingdom without adopting the proper safeguards and without giving more authority to the Speaker to intervene whenever he feels that a question is not in order and also without adopting the method of giving notice which is in vogue in the United Kingdom.
As hon. members know in the United Kingdom there is no such thing as a question without notice. They have a question with two days' notice which is written and the answer may be either oral or written, and arising out of oral questions hon. members may put supplementary questions and it is at the discretion of the Speaker to decide what could be done with the number of supplementary questions. There is also a type of question which is known as a private notice question which is not allowed unless it is authorized by the Speaker and unless, after it has been authorized by the Speaker, notice is given to the minister who is called upon to answer, and even after this procedure has been followed with respect to an urgent question, the minister can still ask for two days' notice after private notice has been given.
Here we have these oral questions which, if I may say so, are sometimes not asked in order to obtain information but are meant to check the day to day operations of the government. According to our rules that type of question should not be asked.
Perhaps the one who has most thoroughly looked into our system of rules and who is thoroughly acquainted with the United King-

dom system is Mr. Harry W. Walker, research worker at the Institute of Local Government, Queen's University, Canada, who wrote an article in "Parliamentary Affairs" at the request of the Hansard Society, at page 461 under the heading, "Question Time in Canada" in which he said:
A specific example of a procedural device that has been developed from British practice, yet differs radically from current Westminster usage, is the question period in the Canadian House of Commons.
Then later, talking about oral questions before the orders of the day, he said:
. . . the other is sanctioned solely by custom and usage and probably would be disallowed if attempted at Westminster.
Further down he said:
The rules governing the kinds of questions that can be asked are the same for both procedures, except that questions asked before the orders of the day are called must refer to "very urgent and important matters of public concern". The definition of "urgent" questions depends upon the ruling of Mr. Speaker. Government ministers claim that too broad an interpretation of urgency is allowed by the Speaker. On the other hand, private members in opposition party ranks complain that too strict a meaning is attached to the adjective "urgent".
Then later he said:
In Canada, the complexity of the question procedure and its lack of definitiveness usually results in an annual altercation on the floor of the house.
And hon. members are witnesses to that. Then he says:
Habitually, Mr. Speaker makes a short statement-
I apologize for making mine so long.
-during the early stages of the parliamentary session to remind the members of the differences between the two procedures to be outlined below. The Speaker tries to discourage the use of too many questions being asked "on the orders of the day being called".
Mr. Walker wrote this in 1951.
Two general rules lor both procedures are that all questions must seek information and there shall be no debate on the answer given. The applicable standing order and a whole line of Speakers' rulings have tended to institutionalize this mild bit of sophisticated hypocrisy inherent in the first rule. It is patent that the main reason for the asking of questions is not pure scientific or academic interest. The truth is that members want to embarrass the government ministers by making the latter reveal, in their answers, governmental ineptitude, mismanagement, and corruption -in short, to put the government party on trial.
As a matter of fact some questions are not designed to seek information from the government but are designed, as one hon. member recently pointed out to me, to "get at the government". On page 464 he refers to supplementary questions concerning which he says they are "taboo" and have been discouraged by a whole line of Speakers'

rulings. If he were to come back today I think he would have to correct what he said in 1951, regarding supplementary questions because they are now being asked. He concludes this article by saying:
No doubt as demands made upon the national government for further intervention into economic and social realms increase, there will be a tendency to place more emphasis on the value of the question time procedural technique as a weapon both to embarrass the government and to maintain watch and ward over the political executive and civil service.
The tendency which he foresaw has certainly existed. I want to tell hon. members that the tendency is being accentuated to the point where we are pulling in two different directions. I have my rules of Beau-chesne and Bourinot which hon. members expect me to enforce and yet hon. members are pulling in the direction of the practice which exists in the United Kingdom under different rules. Hon. members should not be surprised if I frequently intervene-perhaps in their view unduly but in my view quite rightly-and if I appear in my interventions to be quite drastic but by virtue of the rules I am supposed to enforce I can assure hon. members that I have been so lenient since I have been in office in relation to those rules that I should not be asking hon. members today for anything but their forgiveness.


An hon. Member:: Granted.


Mr. Speaker:: Having said that, I simply express the hope that hon. members will look into this problem themselves because I think a problem does exist and the Speaker is put in an impossible position. In view of the situation which has existed some hon. members who have been elected in recent years feel that the practice as it exists today is the right one. They feel that the Speaker is completely off the track when he intervenes on some occasions, and perhaps quite rightly, with the result that we get what I read in this morning's Montreal Gazette where this headline appears, "Speaker Blocks PC Query". I am not blocking P.C. or C.C.F. or Liberal queries. I block a question when it is out of order. In this article there is the implication that I intervene unduly. I am not dealing with the point which was raised yesterday concerning the question of the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) because he is not here today. In any event Hansard speaks for itself.
I ask hon. members to judge the situation and ask themselves if it is a fair position in which to put their Speaker. That is what I ask them. I have no objection if hon. members want to go in a certain direction,
Business of the House
but they cannot expect me to give them my blessing with the rules that I have to follow. If they want to change them I suggest that they know what procedure to take.


George Alexander Drew: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the explanation which has been given will the Prime Minister consider setting up a committee on rules as soon as possible so that the problem may be considered?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: There was a committee on rules that sat for quite-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Ten years.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: -a long period and which made recommendations that were approved by the house as recently as last year. I would suggest that we try to conform with those rules as closely as we can. If we find that they are too restrictive no doubt there will be discussions among hon. members as to the advisability of having a committee set up to consider them. The government will place no obstacles in the way of hon. members because it is not the government that determines what should be the rules of the house, it is the membership of the house itself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might make a suggestion.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My suggestion arises out of the remarks made by Your Honour. First of all, may I say that I am glad you have raised what might be called a question of privilege on your own behalf. Whatever we may think of your administration of the rules I do not think the press should picture you as an ogre trying to prevent parliament from carrying on with its business.
However, my suggestion is that those who study this matter by reading the citations and references which you have indicated might also read what Sir Edward Fellowes, K.C.B., C.M.G., M.C., Clerk of the House of Commons at Westminster, has said on the matter of questions. His statement is recorded in a summary of the proceedings of the fourth parliamentary course held at Westminster in May, 1955. These proceedings are contained in a mimeographed document which has been made available to all members of this house who are members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. I shall not take time to read it all, but perhaps I would be permitted to read one or two sentences since Your Honour has already indicated publicly what I said to you privately yesterday.

Supply-Transport
Sir Edward Fellowes says that questions, although "ostensibly for obtaining information and asking for action, were really a way of 'getting at' the government". Dealing with supplementary questions Sir Edward said:
It was by this means that the private members could criticize the government on matters of administrative action and on points of policy which seemed to them unsatisfactory.
I felt it was only fair that this side of the picture should also be on the record today. I am sure we all agree with you that the whole point might be given further study.


Mr. Speaker:: With regard to that conception of the use of questions as a means of getting at the government, I think in fairness hon. members should also read "A Question in Parliament", which also appeared in "Papers on Parliament", published by the Hansard Society in 1949. This was prepared by a gentleman who had been 20 years in the parliament of the United Kingdom, sitting on both sides of the house, Sir Herbert Williams, M.Sc., M.Eng., A.M.I.C.E. He said:
Quite obviously it would be grossly unfair to expect a minister to answer any one of many thousands of questions affecting his department unless he has notice of it.
And then later:
In order, therefore, that a minister should be in a position to answer questions he must have notice, and the procedure of the House of Commons provided, in the ordinary way, that he was to have a clear twenty-four hours' notice.
In 1946, on a motion by the Right Hon. Herbert Morrison, the time of notice was increased from one day to two days. If notice is given it would be in accordance with the system in the United Kingdom, but I repeat, and these are my last words, if I were to enforce the rules rigidly as they are and thus gain for myself the reputation of being tough I am sometimes given, if I were to be rigid in my interpretation of the rules, I would cut off supplementary questions, I would cut off all questions on policy, I would cut off all questions containing argumentative material. When questions start with "Is the minister aware?" or "Will the minister take action to the end or in order that, etc?" those are all argumentative questions containing debatable matters and should be disallowed.

The house' in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
435. Departmental administration, $1,777,100.


The Chairman:: Hon. members will find this item on page 69 of the book of estimates, with the details commencing on page 532.
:Mr. Knowles.]


George Carlyle Marler: Supply-Transport
canal near Iroquois on the St. Lawrence. This, admittedly, will give rise to problems as to the handling and control of traffic, but we believe it possible to provide for the satisfactory movement of traffic. So far as canal construction is concerned, departmental expenditures will be reduced by over $1 million because of the completion of certain projects, among which are included the rehabilitation of the St. Peters canal, the providing for two-way navigation near Iroquois, to which I have just referred, and certain larger items on the Welland, Sault and Trent canals.
Turning to marine matters, we have a new program for aids to navigation on the Mackenzie river in order to develop it further as an important water route to the western Arctic. We propose also to carry out some important rehabilitation work at our marine agency at Halifax, and we have plans in hand for the construction of a new marine agency and depot at Saint John, New Brunswick.
Our work in connection with marine supply and patrol in the Arctic increases each year. My officials played an important part in the development of plans for resupply of defence installations in the western Arctic and are at present engaged in studies in relation to the eastern Arctic. We continue to provide and co-ordinate the movement of government sea supply to the eastern Arctic and to send ships north for this purpose. We have been requested to provide a departmental vessel to assist in the special supply and convoy work next summer in connection with the D.E.W. line in this area. These developments account largely for the increase of $325,000 in the vote for steamers' operations.
We have also had a substantial increase in requests for special icebreaking assistance in the St. Lawrence river and gulf and in adjacent maritime areas, including Newfoundland. We have done our best to meet these widely varying requirements, although we are not equipped with enough icebreakers to be able to meet all requests. We have under construction a new medium-sized icebreaker for use in the river St. Lawrence and we expect to start the construction this spring of a similar vessel which will probably be based in Newfoundland and will serve as a marine agency supply vessel there.
We have also completed plans for a shipbuilding program that will give us, over the next four years, a more modern and up-to-date fleet of icebreakers and marine agency supply vessels. For a number of years we have been attempting to carry out an extensive program of icebreaking, northern supply work, provision and supply of aids to
(Mr. Marler.]
navigation, including lighthouses and buoys, and marine agency work generally, and we have been handicapped in our work by not having enough ships suitable for working in ice and by the fact that a number of our agency vessels are old and obsolete and in many cases were originally built for other purposes.
Because of the important responsibilities in respect of shipping that rests upon it, I believe that the department is justified in having a proper and up-to-date fleet. We plan to replace from 12 to 15 of our oldest and most unsatisfactory departmental vessels, and to add certain new vessels primarily for icebreaking purposes. We shall complete this year smaller marine agency vessels for the Victoria and Quebec agencies, a small icebreaker for work in the St. Lawrence river to replace the Lady Grey, and a new lightship for the Sambro station. In addition, we expect to start construction on a new supply vessel for the great lakes, a new, large icebreaker for northern work, and a vessel for St. John's, Newfoundland, that will be able to combine icebreaking1 and agency supply work. The last mentioned vessel is the one I referred to a little earlier in my remarks. Plans for the other replacements, which will be commenced in subsequent years, are at present under preparation.
I should add that where feasible all new vessels will be strengthened for work in ice and will, if large enough, be provided with helicopter decks that can be used as bases for helicopter operations in the event of emergency. It has now been clearly demonstrated by our experience in helicopter use on our Arctic supply missions, and by our experience this winter in keeping a helicopter on the d'Iberville, that our icebreakers should have a helicopter permanently stationed on them, as this makes possible a much more efficient and economic work program.
As part of a four year program we are calling tenders this year for a new dredging contract to continue the gradual improvement of the navigation channel in the St. Lawrence river from Montreal to below Quebec, by widening and straightening the channel. As a start, a sum of $3,282,000 is provided for the work we hope to carry out in 1956-57.
In the matter of steamship inspection, we have been actively considering the technical regulations applicable to fishing boats, and after lengthy consultations with the industry have developed regulations for fishing craft under 80 feet in length and are at present engaged in consultations with the industry regarding fishing craft over 80 feet in length. Out steamship inspection expenditures will not vary materially, although we are estimating a slight reduction.

In the field of telecommunications, we are continuing a steady and gradual expansion to meet the growing requirements of our country for these services. The vote for the telecommunications division is increased by $811,000 to a total of $17,164,000. The increase is largely with respect to operations. The first section of our transcontinental VOR airway system, from Windsor to Montreal, has been placed in operation. The second section from Toronto to Winnipeg is at present under development. Orders have been placed for equipment to cover the balance of the transcontinental system. We have also ordered for very early delivery four short-range radar sets for air traffic control at four major airports, pending delivery of a larger number of long-range radar sets, which we have ordered to provide transcontinental radar coverage on our airways for traffic control. Our work in telecommunications in the far north is also expanding rapidly as civil and military activities there give rise to the need of new communication facilities. The expected growth of intercontinental flying over northern polar routes, that has already started and seems likely to increase, adds materially to our responsibilities in this field.
So far as the administration of the Radio Act and the regulations made under the act are concerned, we are providing for a small increase in expenditure, but we do not have a sufficient staff to enable us to keep fully abreast in the field investigation of complaints regarding radio interference. We have found it difficult to recruit trained personnel for telecommunications work and are returning to the practice of providing special assistance in training personnel for our own requirements.
In the field of meteorological services, I reported last year that our meteorological staff was opening an additional major station at Banks island in the western Arctic. We hope to complete this year the construction in the Foxe basin area of another new station. When this station is established we will, we believe, have provided about as many major observation posts in the Canadian Arctic as ought reasonably to be expected for the present. We are, however, developing a plan by which the Canadian meteorological services will provide the extensive and specialized weather information that is necessary for the operation of the defence lines in northern Canada, both the D.E.W. line and the mid-Canada line. Our expenditures of $9,112,000 represent an increase of $695,000, which is attributable entirely to operations.
In the field of aviation, the rapid growth of flying, both civil and military, continues.
67509-141J
Supply-Transport Because I do not wish to detain hon. members unduly I shall not give a full description of what has been done in the past year in the way of airport and airway development, air traffic control, construction of physical facilities and installation of technical equipment. I shall merely mention the fact that we are now well advanced in our program of providing new terminal buildings at the important Canadian airports. Those of Saskatoon and Seven Islands have been completed, while new terminal buildings at Montreal, Quebec, Gander and Windsor are under construction. A start will be made in the course of the present year at Ottawa, Torbay, Regina, Stephenville and Vancouver. A temporary addition to terminal facilities is being made at Toronto and planning in connection with completely new major buildings for Toronto and Winnipeg is also in hand, although it is not intended to commence building operations in 1956. The new airport for Halifax is under construction and planning is under way for new airports for Edmonton and Prince Rupert, though construction is not likely to start before 1957. Our estimates on civil aviation construction are down $1,261,000 to a total of $15,453,000. We believe that under present conditions and with our somewhat limited staff we cannot at this time plan to carry out a more extensive program.
In the field of regulation, in order to cope better with the growing problems of airway control, we shall be doubling our present air traffic control staff, which will increase our expenditures by some $762,000, and we have opened our own traffic control schools at Winnipeg and Toronto where we are training personnel.
We have also taken other steps-in the matter of technical regulation-to promote the maximum degree of safety in the air. We still have under consideration a proposal to set aside certain altitudes on our airways which at all times, and even under good weather conditions, would be used only by aircraft, whose movements would be subject to complete traffic control. As is to be expected, some groups, particularly light plane owners, fear that they may not be able to achieve the higher standards of competency necessary to fly at these altitudes. We think that the difficulties have been somewhat exaggerated, because light aircraft do not normally use these altitudes; and though we are not indifferent to the rights of operators of light aircraft we think that we must give a high priority to all factors affecting the safety of large aircraft which carry a substantial number of passengers.
The national harbours board will be continuing its improvements in our major harbours. Heavy expenditures at Churchill will

Supply-Transport
not be repeated in 1956-57, as the extension of the grain elevator there has been finished; and expenditures at Saint John will also be somewhat lower, although they will still amount to about $845,000. Expenditures of almost $2 million at Halifax are provided for and include a sum of $1,285,000 for the continuation of a new deep-sea pier which, complete with sheds, will cost about $2,500,000. When the volume of traffic warrants it, this new pier can be doubled in length, and additional sheds constructed upon it.
In Montreal the board will continue the works that I referred to last year, namely the extension of two wharves, the raising of the level of the Sutherland pier by 14 feet, the building of a new transit shed, the extension of another transit shed and the carrying out of work on the grain conveyor gallery. The board's expenditures in the coming fiscal year on these works are expected to amount to $5,200,000. The second stage in the board's program of works calls for expenditures this year of $6,146,500 for a certain number of new projects. These consist of:
1.	The building of wharves and piers, including the construction of a new grain jetty serving elevators Nos. 1 and 2 for the unloading of the large lake vessels, the raising of the Laurier pier, and the extending of certain oil wharves.
2.	Dredging the ship channel in the upper part of the harbour and the approach channels to certain of the oil wharves.
3.	Provision of grain receiving facilities from the proposed new jetty to serve elevators Nos. 1 and 2, and changes to grain galleries to serve elevators "B" and 1 and 2, as part of the work to be done to provide for rapid unloading of large lake vessels.
4.	Certain miscellaneous items including improvements to the cold storage plant and other facilities of the harbour.
The work of providing an extra lane for highway traffic on the Jacques Cartier bridge, for which provision was made in last year's estimates, was delayed by a shortage of steel. I understand that it is expected that the work will be finished by the end of May, but it is necessary to revote $440,000 for this purpose. The estimates for the coming fiscal year also include a provision of $950,000 for the alterations to the southern approach of the bridge which will be necessary partly because of the raising of the bridge in connection with the seaway and partly in order to speed up the flow of traffic.
The total of these expenditures will be $12,736,500 of which $1,390,000 will be supplied from the board's funds, and $11,346,500 is to be appropriated by way of advances to the board.
At Quebec capital expenditures this year will be increased to $1,687,000. In addition, the harbours board have under development a plan for new facilities at Quebec. These will include accommodation for lakers, and new facilities for grain unloading and storage, including an elevator capable of storing an additional two million bushels. The total cost of this program, which will be initiated in 1957, will be over $5 million.
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that my remarks have been so tedious and have contained so many references to figures. However, it seems to me that it is perhaps desirable that we should have on the record a comparison of the expenditures by objects so that hon. members may see what is taking place in the estimates for this year. I hope that hon. members opposite will find that the credits that my department need for the approaching year are very modest, and that they will pass them with great rapidity.


Mr. Green:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure we are all grateful to the Minister of Transport for giving us this comprehensive statement today. It will be helpful in the study of his estimates. I should very much like to meet his final request. However, I am afraid he is asking too much and that we shall be obliged to have him run the gauntlet for at least a time in connection with these estimates.
Today I should like to place before him certain matters which he either did not touch at all or just barely touched. I suppose it is to be expected that the opposition would concentrate on items coming in that particular category. First, I would suggest that, in the future, steps be taken to make the annual report of the department available before the estimates are brought up for discussion. I realize that the minister tabled his report in typewritten form, I believe, some weeks ago; but unfortunately the printed report has not yet been distributed. The result is that we enter upon the discussion of these estimates without having had the opportunity to review the report of the department itself. It should be remembered that, even when they are tabled, these reports are generally a year or more out of date. The last report I have of the Department of Transport is for the year which ended March 31, 1954. That is practically two years ago. Somewhere in the way the government does business there is a grave defect in that these annual reports are not made available at an earlier date.
Then the minister said nothing about the commission which have been considering the question of coastal shipping. I understand that they have concluded their public sittings and are presumably now working on a report.

When the minister replies to the various questions that are asked of him, I hope he will tell the committee when it is expected that that report will be available and also whether the government anticipates bringing in during the present session any legislation as a result of the recommendations that are made by the commissioners.
With regard to the estimates themselves, it would be inappropriate at this stage for me to go into items in any detail. The minister has explained the figures that appear in the summary of standard objects, and it will be necessary to review his statement before we can deal with them adequately. However, I noticed one feature about these estimates. In quite a few instances there will have been a vote passed last year for, say, $1 million and the actual expenditures plus estimated expenditures to the end of the fiscal year will be, say, $500,000 of that $1 million. However, the vote in the next fiscal year is, in most cases, as high or even higher than the vote for the present fiscal year. I am wondering whether there is not some padding in the estimates of the department in connection with these particular items. Somebody in the department is just giving himself a little extra leeway to be sure he is not short of money.
This department has many more items than any other department. I think there are 67 items for the Department of Transport out of a total of some 537 for all departments. It might be that if the minister went over these items, having in mind the point I raise, it would be possible to effect considerable saving. As examples, I would give him the items which appear on page 568 of the details, having to do with construction services administration, air services. The vote last year was $961,383. The amount spent has been estimated at $860,288. This year the department is requesting a vote of $1,026,700. Another example is to be found on page 571, telecommunications division, radio aids to air and marine navigation. The vote last year was $4,236,555, and there was only $3,979,560 spent. This year the vote is $4,234,725.
Another example is found on page 573 where the vote was for $1,606,828 last year. The amount spent was $1,498,244 and the vote for the coming year is $1,691,165. There is another example on page 587 where the vote for last year was $16,715,151. The department only spent $13 million and yet it is coming back this year asking for $15,453,350. This vote is for airways and airports, construction of buildings, under the civil aviation division. There may be an explanation for each of these items. I ask
Supply- Transport
the minister to bear in mind the suggestion that he may find it would be possible to place more emphasis on what was actually spent during one year in calculating how much is going to be requested for the following year, rather than taking into account what was voted in the first year.
Then also with regard to this year's items, and dealing only with the administration item which of course is the one under discussion today, I notice that in the details on page 532 there is an increase in staff of 51. This seems to be very large. Included in that number is an increase in economists. The minister is now going to have eight economists to advise him at his headquarters whereas last year he had only one. Apparently he needs a great deal more advice this year than last. Many of these economists are quite highly paid, the grade 10 receiving from $7,600 to $8,200. I should like to know just what work all these economists are going to do at headquarters.
Another question which I think is of considerable importance is the fact that the Department of Transport does not have jurisdiction over some of the governmental activities which parliament intended should be under that department. I refer first to Trans-Canada Air Lines. Trans-Canada Air Lines is now under the control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it is one of his hobby horses. Under the act setting up Trans-Canada Air Lines we find that "minister" means the Minister of Transport. When parliament established this crown corporation the bill was introduced by the then Minister of Transport who is now the Minister of Trade and Commerce. He has hung on to this corporation ever since. For some reason or other he has been allowed to have this particular governmental activity, although in cold hard fact it should be none of his business and should be under the Minister of Transport.
We find that the Minister of Transport is responsible for Canadian National Railways. Canadian National Railways holds all the shares of Trans-Canada Air Lines. If Trans-Canada Air Lines wishes to borrow money it is given power, under the amendment of 1952-53 I think it was, to borrow from Canadian National Railways. The whole legislative tie-up is meant to place Trans-Canada Air Lines under the Minister of Transport. Why should it be taken away and given to another minister, merely because he wants to have this extra power and will not give it up? It is about time that this greed for power was checked by somebody in the cabinet. I suggest the man to do it is the Prime Minister, himself.
The Minister of Transport has to supply all the airways. He is responsible for the air

Supply-Transport
regulations to control all traffic. The air transport board comes under him, not under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The air transport board was set up primarily to advise the minister, and one would think to advise him particularly with regard to Trans-Canada Air Lines. However, the position is that the Minister of Transport has the air transport board under him and yet away over in another department across the street, under the Minister of Trade and Commerce, is Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is just about time this foolishness was stopped.
Next week the special committee dealing with Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines will be meeting. The Minister of Transport will be sitting there when Canadian National Railways affairs are under discussion. Then, when the affairs of Trans-Canada Air Lines come up, although Canadian National holds all the shares in Trans-Canada Air Lines, out goes the Minister of Transport and in comes the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


George Carlyle Marler: Or vice versa.


Howard Charles Green: The Minister of Transport may stay there, but in any event he will not have very much to say. All the talking that really counts will be done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Then, we come to pipelines. How the Minister of Trade and Commerce got into piplines, I do not know. He was here all day yesterday fighting a pipelines battle, and the legislation stands in his name. Last year when he was being questioned about pipelines he was not so anxious to have the jurisdiction. I questioned him on July 14, and I am quoting from page 6160 of Hansard. I said:
This evening I should like to place three or four questions before the minister with regard to the construction of a natural gas pipe line from Alberta to Ontario and Quebec. In order to give the background for my questions I shall have to review shortly some of the events that have taken place. As the minister knows, in 1953 he announced government policy with regard to the piping of natural gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: There is nothing in the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce having to do with the piping of natural gas, and I do not propose to answer any questions.


Howard Charles Green: Well, now, Mr. Chairman, the minister has already answered questions this afternoon having to do with natural gas.


Clarence Decatur Howe: That was this afternoon.


Howard Charles Green: This comes under the minister's
department-


Clarence Decatur Howe: It does not.
That statement he made should have been the fact but actually it is not. The Pipe Lines Act was introduced and put through this house by the Hon. Mr. Chevrier in his capacity as Minister of Transport. The board of transport commissioners, which has a wide

jurisdiction with regard to pipelines, is also under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and yet we find here again that the Minister of Transport is simply shoved off into a corner and the Minister of Trade and Commerce is taking over this power. It is another case of his seizing power to which it was never intended that he should be entitled. It is about time the Minister of Transport rose up on his hind legs and did a little howling about the way he is being cut down.
Finally, on that point, I suggest that the Minister of Transport should also look into the question as to whether or not he should be the man in charge of the crown company known as Northern Transportation Limited. He told us this morning about the amount of money he is going to spend to improve transportation on the Mackenzie river and yet the boss on the Mackenzie river is the same Minister of Trade and Commerce because he has charge of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited and it has charge of Northern Transportation Limited and the control of transportation in that great area is under this crown corporation and apparently it is not giving very much satisfaction to the residents of that particular district.
Another question to which I would like to have an answer from the Minister of Transport has to do with the control of government ships. A private person who owns a ship has to have it registered and subject to inspections as set out in the statutes, but I understand that government-owned ships are not under the same extensive control. I may be wrong in this and I hope I am, but just a few weeks ago one of the ships of the Department of Public Works, the Hilunga, foundered on the west coast. It turned out that that ship was designed for service in waters within 15 miles of the coast. At the time she actually foundered she was in the waters for which she was built, but she had been en route from Vancouver island to the Queen Charlotte islands and she was not built for that purpose. She should never have been sent on that trip. Somebody was responsible for that ship being taken into waters for which she was not built. I would like to know whether she was registered in the way other ships are registered and whether she had been subject to the regular steamship inspection to which other ships are subject, and whether the laws of the land had been complied with in respect of that vessel.
At the same time, let the minister tell us whether all government ships of other departments are treated as though they were ships owned by a private individual in so far as registration, inspection and rules for operation are concerned. It might be wise to find

out also about the ships under the minister's own department. After all, the member of a crew of a government ship is probably a person with a family, a wife and children, and his life is as valuable as the life of a person who is sailing on a ship owned by the Canadian Pacific or some other private company, and these rules are designed primarily to preserve life at sea. There is no reason why government ships should not be compelled to comply in full with all such provisions.
Another point relates to the allotment of channels; for example, for broadcasting and for television. There seems to be some difficulty in that regard. The Radio Act defines a radio station broadly enough to include a broadcasting station and a television station. It gives the Minister of Transport power to make regulations with respect to the operation of these stations. I believe it is wide enough to permit the allotting of channels. In fact, it provides wide supervision. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, however, under another act, is also given certain power and, mind you, it is supposed to deal with the Minister of Transport in some way or another in connection with these matters, but I have heard that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has now built itself up into the position where it considers that it has the supreme authority in these questions and that it should make the decisions while the Minister of Transport and his officials are supposed to run along and do what they are told. There again I hope I am wrong; the minister has his own officials qualified for this work; the law says they are to be the final authority in this field and I hope they are not allowing themselves to be supplanted by this crown corporation.
Finally, I would ask the minister to explain to the committee in detail the part that the Department of Transport is playing in connection with the installation and operation of the early warning lines. He mentioned something about it today but not sufficient to give us any real information. I think he said they had some helicopters working in connection with the D.E.W. line and something was also being done in connection with the mid-Canada line.


George Carlyle Marler: Not helicopters.


Howard Charles Green: In the latter case it was not helicopters. I believe the committee should know just how the Department of Transport fits into this picture. Here again very little information is available to hon. members of this house. I would think that the Department of Transport has quite an extensive field, because these lines involve communications.
Supply-Transport
For example, the department has charge of the northwest communications service into the Yukon and I believe also up the Mackenzie river and into other parts of northern Canada. I would think the department would have wide powers in connection with the mid-Canada and the distant early warning lines. We would like to know just what the situation is in that regard.
These are the questions which I place before the minister today and which I hope he will be able to deal with when he makes his reply on this item.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra I was interested in following the minister's explanation of the activities of his department. I think most of us realize that the activities of the minister's department are very broad, certainly too broad for any hon. member to attempt to survey in any completeness in one discussion. However, I think the minister's hope that his estimates will be speedily considered does not recognize the fact that the activities of his department vitally affect the daily lives of a large number of Canadians, perhaps in the kind of world in which we now live to a much greater extent than most of them realize. For that reason I believe that a certain amount of discussion of the activities of this department could be carried on profitably by hon. members.
We hear much more about the activities of other departments, for example the Department of National Health and Welfare, which receives a lot of consideration in this house. But I have been thinking that the activities of the Department of Transport affect almost as intimately the lives and welfare of almost as many Canadians. I have been wondering whether we should not classify this department in the civilian world with what is known in another field as the silent service. So much of what is done is under the surface and most of us are not aware of just how far the activities of the department extend in taking care of us whether we are travelling by land, sea or air, whether we are listening to our radios or watching our televisions, or whether we are doing any one of a large number of things.
I was rather interested in the reference made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra to the field of jurisdiction affecting Trans-Canada Air Lines. I am inclined to agree with the hon. member's suggestion, and this thought has crossed my mind on a number of occasions since I have been in, this house, that this particular field of transportation should be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport rather than the Minister of Trade and Commerce.

Supply-Transport
I am slightly puzzled, in view of the kind of remarks I have heard made concerning the Minister of Trade and Commerce by the hon. member and some of his colleagues, that that particular suggestion should be forthcoming from him. I would have thought, because of the views they hold in respect to the activities of some of the crown corporations, that they would have preferred to have a watchdog within the government watching the activities of some of the other ministers, and perhaps would have urged that the Minister of Transport use his powers in the field of legislation to keep a little closer tab on the activities of his colleague.
There are one or two matters I should like to bring up at this point in the discussion of the estimates and which I believe come within the purview of the Minister of Transport. One has reference to the activities of the meteorological service which has to do with matters of weather. I was quite interested to note that during the recent session of the British Columbia legislature the suggestion was put forward by one member that the meteorological service of the Department of Transport should give active consideration to what should or should not be done in the field of rain-making.
Hon. members may recall that last year on the floor of the house I raised the question of rain-making activities and some question was raised as to whether this was a matter which properly lay within the jurisdiction of parliament and whether I was in order in bringing forward that subject. As a result of the discussion last year I took it upon myself to have some conversations with the Minister of Justice during which 1 told him that I would like to know a little more about the constitutional aspects of this particular matter. Recently I had a letter from the minister which sets forth an opinion on this matter, and I shall refer to this letter in a moment or two.
Before doing so I should like to draw the attention of the committee to the fact that this matter is causing increasing and widespread concern in British Columbia. As I say, it was raised on the floor of the legislature and, if my information is correct, a resolution was passed calling for the setting up of a committee to investigate this whole matter. It appears that an increasing number of large corporations in British Columbia which operate in a field where they are dependent upon rainfall, either to operate pulp mills or to develop hydroelectric power, are engaging the services of a concern which instals and operates rain-making machines for the purpose of increasing the downfall of rain within a particular watershed.

The problem which arises in the minds of a great many people is as to the right of private concerns altering the precipitation in a particular area. They question whether a company which may hold certain forest rights should have the right to alter precipitation in such a manner that it might affect adversely the operations of a man farming within the same area or of a summer tourist resort operator in the same area. As I say, this question is coming increasingly to the fore in British Columbia at the present time.
I feel that sooner or later the question of where jurisdiction lies in respect to the operating of these machines will have to be decided, and perhaps some regulations issued or arrangements made in regard to how and when such machines can be installed and operated. The letter which I have from the Minister of Justice I perhaps should read in its entirety, because he makes a fairly balanced statement. It says:
I have no hesitation in expressing the opinion that the "weather" if it ever comes to be the subject of legislation, falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament since any such law would surely relate to the general welfare of Canada. We do, as of course you are aware, now operate meteorological services and exchange information with other countries. If any operations are ever undertaken with a view to regulating or controlling climatic conditions, such would almost certainly fall, for legislative purposes, within the exclusive jurisdiction of parliament.
However, such a generalization as I have thus made does not preclude entirely the possibility that in some circumstances the activities of "rainmakers" might be regarded as calling for legislation by a provincial legislature for local purposes, the licensing of them for example. A province could certainly not enact legislation, however, to authorize or regulate operations which might, in the least degree, affect climatic conditions outside the province.
As is frequently the case in dealing with questions relating to the distribution of legislative power under the British North America Act, it is not possible to say that certain activities or operations, actual or prospective, fall in the provincial or the federal field for legislative purposes. Such questions can only be satisfactorily dealt with by giving consideration to a concrete legislative proposal.
I am not necessarily suggesting that I think the Minister of Transport should immediately come forward with concrete legislative proposals in this field. However, inasmuch as the existing meteorological services in this country fall within the jurisdiction of his department, I feel it would be appropriate, in view of the development of this activity and in the light of the statement that the Minister of Justice has so kindly given me, that within the activities of that branch certain studies in this connection could very well be carried out. I put that idea to the minister at this time for his consideration.


Mr. Harris:: I rise on a point of order. I saw my hon. friend looking at the clock. If he has other remarks to make, I was going to ask that the committee rise and report progress and ask leave to sit again later this day, so that an announcement be made.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1956, was presented by Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Robinson (Simcoe East) in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
435. Departmental administration, $1,777,100.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at one o'clock I was about to enter on a discussion of another topic related to the estimates of the Minister of Transport and having to do with the field of telecommunications. I should like to put before the committee the results of certain discussions I have had in my constituency on this matter with particular reference to the manner in which the increasing use of various forms of radio communication is of concern to the fishermen. One of the matters that have been concerning the fishermen is the increasing congestion of the radio frequencies which have been assigned for their use, particularly the one known in British Columbia as the fishermen's band, 2318.
I think it is fair to say that as a result of my discussions I am led to believe that the fishermen themselves would welcome the exercise in some way of a greater measure of control over the use of that band than perhaps has been the case up to the present time. I refer, of course, to some of the rather unnecessary conversations that have been going out over the air waves in the coastal waters of British Columbia. However, there are some particular points I should like to
Supply-Transport
have the minister note at this time and perhaps at some point in the discussion of his estimates he might give us some indication of just what his department has in mind in this field.
Some of the fishermen, particularly those operating the smaller vessels such as the trollers and the gillnetters, object to the fact that some of the larger vessels employ quite high-powered sets and that they use these sets in the course of directing their seining operations with the result that in the immediate area those who have lower-powered sets find themselves obliterated from the air. One suggestion put forward to me by quite a number of fishermen is that if those who have high-powered sets installed require radio communication for purely local operations they should be required to instal what you might call some sort of walkie-talkie radio which would not cause the interference that is being occasioned at the present time.
Another complaint that many of the fishermen have brought to my attention is that under the present regulations those with low-powered sets are being assigned only the fishermen's band and the emergency band and that even though they are licensed to operate only on those frequencies they are still required to pay a $50 telephone deposit in addition to the $10 licence fee. They feel that in this case they are being charged for something which they are not entitled to use as a result of the limited number of bands on which they can use their sets.
There has been a good deal of dissatisfaction in the last year or two with respect to the uncertainty that has existed as to just what the licensing policy of the department is going to be. In particular, a number of those who have been handling the distribution of this equipment feel that they have been put in the position of selling goods with regard to which it was discovered later that they were not allowed to carry out the undertaking they gave to the buyer at the time of the sale. In other words, they sold sets which were capable of operating on a number of bands and discovered later that licences were only going to be issued for the two frequencies to which I referred a moment ago. The result is that they have had dissatisfied customers. I hope that this situation will be straightened out so that the dealers and the buyers of the equipment will not feel they have been placed in a compromising position.
There is another point I should like to mention while I am on this subject. A number of fishermen have told me that they are going to be required to take written examinations as operators of these sets. Their

Supply-Transport
concern arises from the fact that under present arrangements they understand they may have to make a long and in some cases expensive journey to a centre such as Vancouver or Victoria in order to write the examination, and they do not think that should be necessary. I believe this points up something to which the minister referred, namely, that the number of personnel available to carry on this work in the department is not really adequate to cope with the greatly increased use being made of radio facilities, and in my opinion consideration should be given to a fairly large increase in the arrangements and facilities that are provided. Whether that could be done in cooperation with one of the other departments of government such as the Department of Fisheries, I do not know, but I do know that the fishermen in the coastal areas have been accustomed, so far as their actual dealings with the Department of Fisheries are concerned, to having a fisheries officer somewhere within reasonable reach.
I do not need to expand on that point. 1 assume the minister understands that the Department of Fisheries has its officers stationed in the various fishing areas. If an examination system is to be instituted I believe that some arrangement should be developed whereby, through access to someone stationed permanently in the fishing area or through some arrangement whereby the appropriate officials would go to the fishermen, the necessity for taking these long journeys to a centre such as Vancouver would not arise. I have attempted to outline some of the matters that have been brought to my attention, and I would appreciate it if at some point in the discussion of the minister's estimates he would make a statement with respect to any developments taking place by way of policy in the administration of this particular aspect of his department.
This morning the minister made some reference to the program of vessel replacement which his department is carrying on. I believe he dealt principally with the matter of icebreakers, but his mention of this question brought to my mind a suggestion I should like to put forward. I suggest that consideration should be given, and I think it could be given within the confines of the Department of Transport, to the development of some sort of integrated program for the supply of government vessels.
From references I have heard, I know there are a great many types of government vessels in operation, with a great many types of engines. It appears to me that over the course of years various departments of

government have acquired vessels at different times and under different conditions. The result apparently is that, where repairs are necessary, in many cases unnecessary delays are involved because there is no central depot, no standardization of the type of motors and no arrangement whereby parts for vessels from one department are interchangeable with vessels of another department. I think that is a matter of policy that could very well come under the consideration of the Minister of Transport. He may naturally be obliged to consult with his colleagues in other departments where vessels are in operation but I feel that in that field there is an opportunity to effect a considerable saving of public funds and at the same time to increase the efficiency of the operations of the vessels that are on our coasts.
While I am not going to develop this subject at the moment I feel that consideration should be given

as I mentioned in an earlier speech in this session-to the question of having proper rescue equipment on all of these vessels operated by the various departments of the government. I know that the minister's department operates vessels-perhaps I should not dignify them by that term-which are allocated to the rescue service. I therefore believe that within his department he must have facilities for giving this particular matter some consideration.
There is one other matter upon which I should like to touch briefly, Mr. Chairman. It relates to the question that was raised by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this morning with respect to the recent loss of the Department of Public Works vessel Hilunga. The question that I should like to have answered is whether or not that vessel encountered a storm without warning when she embarked upon that particular voyage. If that is the case, I would say it points out the inadequacies of our present weather forecasting system on the Pacific coast. From my own observation I would say that the efficiency of our weather reporting on the coast has declined since the years during the war when, I imagine, a good deal of the information was being provided by various operations under the Department of National Defence. I know that last fall, I myself had a little experience of the arrival of unexpected weather. I was travelling out to one of the more exposed points on the west coast of Vancouver island in a light plane and we found ourselves faced with the onslaught of some rather gusty weather. To put it mildly, the situation was somewhat uncomfortable. The adequacy of our present facilities for detecting the onslaught of weather on the west coast comes into question when one hears of a situation like the one which

surrounded the loss of the Hilunga which apparently set forth from Bull harbour on the north end of Vancouver island across that sound. Certainly I cannot imagine the captain and the crew of that vessel doing so if they had adequate warning of the expected onslaught of that particular storm. I would hope that the minister might dwell on this question of the inadequacies or otherwise of our weather forecasting system on the western coast.
I think I have about used up my time, Mr. Chairman. I know that there will be certain matters that I shall wish to bring to the minister's attention on some of the items. But if he would take particular note of the two or three larger questions that I have raised and reply either during the discussion of this first item or at the appropriate place in the estimates, I should be glad to have him do that.


Mr. Hahn:: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport, in concluding his remarks, said he hoped that we did not find them too tedious. He apologized for making reference to many figures. He also hoped that the estimates would pass rapidly. I should like to assure him that my observation would be that I took the opposite view on each one of those particular statements. I did not find his reading tedious at all. I found it most informative; so much so, in fact, that I was wondering whether a suggestion at this time would not be amiss that possibly in future when he has copious notes, as he had in this instance, maybe at least one member of each group on this side of the house would be privileged to have a copy so that we could speak more intelligently along the lines that he pursued.
Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not too happy about the way in which the estimates are brought into the house. I am not referring to these estimates in particular. What I say applies equally to most of them. We find ourselves from time to time listening to an excellent discourse on the operations of a particular department. At its conclusion each one of us tries in his best way to bring things into focus in so far as they affect the particular riding which he represents or the dominion as a whole or even the province from which he comes, as the case may be. I would be much happier if, at the conclusion of the minister's address, he were to make a motion to adjourn and report progress so that we would have a chance of understanding more thoroughly what has been said. By the adoption of such a procedure I am satisfied that many of us would have some of our questions answered and would not be obliged to raise them again. The present procedure makes things rather awkward. I am satisfied,
Supply-Transport
in my own mind at least, that the procedure I have suggested would be the better way of doing things.
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra this morning made a point that interested me when he drew to our attention the fact that the Department of Transport was not before us at the time of bringing this estimate to the house. I too found the same thing. I phoned this morning. Last night, in fact, after I learned in a circuitous way that the minister's estimates were to be before us today, I searched my room for the 1954-55 report and did not find it, but I found that it had been tabled. This morning-


George Carlyle Marler: Not this morning; some time ago.


Frederick George Hahn: I realize that. I am beginning a new sentence. This morning I phoned the distribution office in order to discover what had happened to the report, because I could not find it. I discovered that it had been tabled, truly enough, some time ago, but that it was not available in print at this time. That fact in itself may not be such an amazing fault, in view of the fact that possibly a good number of members do not read the report. Certainly all of us who are on various committees do not have the time in which to study it thoroughly. However, there are certain parts of that report in which we would be particularly interested, and if they were made available to us they would save some time at a later date.
I find that another difficulty in connection with bringing up the estimates at this particular time is that the railways and shipping committee has not sat, and of course no reference has been made to the operations of Canadian National, Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships or Trans-Canada Air Lines. Possibly questions concerning the operations of these companies could be better answered in that committee. If the committee had completed its work we might find that our questions were answered and it would not be necessary to bring them up here again.
There was a question the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra brought up to which I take some exception. He said that he did not feel Trans-Canada Air Lines report should be referred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I can see a certain value in that. It seems to me that Trans-Canada Air Lines, or any other means of transportation for that matter, would have a certain relationship to the Department of Trade and Commerce and possibly the report should be referred to that department. I believe, Mr. Chairman, the right hand should know what the left hand is doing. Actually, that is one of the reasons

Supply-Transport
is a 30-foot ship channel. Our harbour, civic and trade bodies should resume their battle for it by every means possible.
I feel that closer co-operation should exist between the Departments of Transport and Public Works and the provincial government in assessing responsibility in respect to the erosion problem. Certainly the Department of Public Works is responsible for seeing to it that the channel is kept open at all times so that we can accept the shipping that would normally come to us. I do not hold the view held by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra in respect to T.C.A. and pipe lines. I would go so far as to suggest that the report on the river development and dredging should be sent to the Minister of Transport indicating where dredging is necessary and where it is being done. The report would necessarily come through the Department of Public Works. I am satisfied that by doing that it would be of some particular value.
I see my time is about up. There were many other things I had hoped to discuss, but I shall do that either in this committee or in the committee on railways and shipping. I submit that there should be closer liaison between the two departments.


Mr. Enfield:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to discuss a certain matter rather briefly under this heading and in doing so I will be departing from the rather excellent general nature of the remarks so far in this debate. I should like to deal with a problem of particular importance to a particular group of people. Before doing so I should like to say a complimentary word to the Minister of Transport. He does not receive too many compliments, particularly from the opposition, or when he does there is some sort of rider attached.


An hon. Member:: I do not think he needs them.


Frank A. Enfield: He may not need them, but I will express them anyway. I find myself in the odd position of speaking for the frontbenchers today, being the solitary occupant of that position. I think we all recognize the minister's ability as an administrator and in the house. Gentlemen, could I have your attention? This is important. I have found the minister extremely co-operative when meeting delegations with which I was concerned or when looking into problems concerning York-Scarborough. I am sure that all members have had this same experience.
The question I wish to discuss concerns the transportation of people rather than freight, particularly the transportation of people through, in and around our cities and large metropolitan areas. I intend to deal with the problem of the commuter. This is a very live

issue in metropolitan Toronto at this time. The problem of the commuter is a growing one in which the railways are involved because they constitute one extremely important method by which a very grave situation can be corrected. This is a national issue because the problem will continue to grow as long as our cities continue to grow.
I find it rather difficult sometimes when dealing with matters concerning railways to decide where government policy ends and where the internal management of the railways takes over. However, I think in presenting something which embodies a new concept or a new method or idea of operation I would be presenting something which falls within the purview of policy and as such would be a proper matter for the government to consider when dealing with Canadian National Railways or any other railway company.
I should like to deal with metropolitan Toronto, and perhaps hon. members will forgive me for taking this particular example. It is an area with which I am particularly familiar, but I think what I have to say will have a general application wherever this problem exists in the country.
At the present time metropolitan Toronto has a population of about 1,334,000 people, with another 60,000 or 70,000 in the area along the borders. Metropolitan Toronto covers 239 square miles. According to representations made to the royal commission on economic prospects, in 25 years or so it is expected that the population of metropolitan Toronto will double to roughly 2,800,000 people, and that the metropolis will completely occupy some 300 square miles of territory.
Every morning and night vast numbers of people move into and out of metropolitan Toronto. Thousands of these people are driving the cars of tomorrow on the roads of yesterday. Other thousands struggle to get seats on public transportation if and when that is available. In the evening the exit begins and the difficult problem of transportation is in evidence at least twice a day every day.
The metropolitan corporation has grandiose plans to solve the problem. They are considering the building of new arterial roads and subways. We have one subway which cost many millions of dollars and other subways are visualized, as well as new bridges. But the cost of all this will be fabulous. I believe it is estimated that within the next 15 years there will be expended under present plans being discussed by the metropolitan corporation a total of $1,000 million in order to provide means of ingress and egress into and out of metropolitan Toronto.

This is a lot of money and I submit that consideration should be given as to whether these financial resources could not be channelled into some other means of attacking the problem. That is what I want to discuss. It is also a matter of immediate action being taken. The building of arterial roads, bridges and highways takes time. The technical problems involved are tremendous. The problem of obtaining a right-of-way, purchasing land for the project, represents almost insuperable difficulty.
But there are rights-of-way already in existence and it is these I want to discuss. It may be that the solution lies right on our doorstep. What I have in mind would require the co-operation of Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, the metropolitan corporation, and the provincial and federal governments. There is in existence already a controlled access, protected, no speed limit right-of-way. I refer to the series of railway lines emanating from a central point in metropolitan Toronto and radiating out in all directions to cover the suburban areas. My question is: How can these be used to help solve the commuter problem?
I think it was Maclean's magazine which contained an article stating that Toronto is now the fastest growing municipality in the world. That statement may be a little ambitious, but it was stated as a fact. I know for certain that the riding of York-Scarborough is the fastest growing part of metropolitan Toronto. An hon. member, I think the hon. member for York West, suggests that it is the second fastest growing area in metropolitan Toronto. I do not know what he considers to be the fastest growing area, and perhaps he can enlighten me.
I want to refer particularly to one railway line which runs through my riding and to indicate how the areas along that line will be affected. You can start at the union station and, heading easterly and northerly, pass through the town of Leaside, a very thriving section of the city and a part of my riding, go on through Don Mills, Scar-boro Junction and up through Agincourt, Milliken, Unionville, Markham, and out to the township of Pickering on the east side. You can go north through Leaside to Thornhill, Richmond Hill, Oriole and the places to the north. There are very many lines going similarly to the municipalities in the west, in the northwest and in the north. It is incredible the number of separate areas that can be so served by these lines.
There are, of course, technical problems involved in providing these commuter services. One suggestion I have seen was made
Supply-Transport
by a person called Mr. Taylor who wrote to the newspaper called the Agincourt News. There have been many articles of this nature published in all the Toronto newspapers. His suggestion is that we use something called a rail diesel car. This is a car that holds 85 people. He says it costs 80 cents a mile to operate and has an availability rating of 95 per cent. He says the cars are suitable because they can be operated with one engineer and a conductor and they require no turnaround facilities, that is, they may be operated from either end. This is similar to the rolling stock used in our subways. The whole idea is similar to that of a subway on the surface. The cars will move very quickly, the railway crossings can be thoroughly protected, and an extremely fast and efficient service can be obtained with this type of equipment. The schedules, of course, would have to be integrated with existing services. The present services would have to be adjusted. Perhaps in the beginning it would be necessary only to adjust the existing services and have some new rolling stock, and then additional services could be added as required.
Mr. F. D. Tolchard, who was for many years general manager of the Toronto board of trade, estimated that such a commuter system could carry daily 700,000 people in metropolitan Toronto. That would, of course, be an extremely worth-while objective from the point of view of transporting these people.
Of course, the problem is: who is going to bear the cost? There seems to be something inherently unprofitable about commuter services. Apparently the equipment required is always too costly to make the services pay at any sort of reasonable rate to the public. Apparently people have not, until now, been able to pay sufficiently high rates to underwrite the costs of these commuter systems.
I understand that the attitude of the Canadian National Railways, as represented by Mr. Donald Gordon, on this particular project in metropolitan Toronto is that they are willing to discuss such a plan provided that the cost will be subsidized by the metropolitan corporation and provided, further, that if schedules are commenced and it is then found that the service is not needed, the C.N.R. will be allowed to terminate the particular service concerned. As I say, I understand that is the present attitude of the C.N.R. I do not know what the attitude of the metropolitan corporation is. Whether or not they are prepared to enter into a cost sharing or a cost underwriting arrangement or whether or not they are prepared to subsidize such a service, is hard for me to say.
How could the cost be shared? It seems to me that there are many ways in which the

Supply-Transport
problem could be handled. It seems to me there are many forms of agreement that could be entered into, any of which, of course, would have its problems. The scheme could be operated completely by the metropolitan corporation. To do this they could use the right-of-way on a rental basis. They could either construct rail lines on the present right-of-way or they could make arrangements to integrate with the present services and rent the existing rail lines. The rights of way are the key to the situation. Under such a suggestion the Toronto Transportation Commission could operate the necessary rolling stock. However, I doubt that that would be too palatable to the Canadian National Railways, or Canadian Pacific Railway, who are accustomed to running their own show and perhaps would find it impossible to consider such a method of operation. Therefore, let us consider operation by the railways. This could be done by sharing whatever deficit was incurred. There would have to be a very careful accounting of costs and very careful negotiation as to how the deficit, if any, was to be apportioned among the various parties concerned.
On the other hand, you could take the cost of operating such a system and work out the rates of fare required to underwrite the cost completely, and then the metropolitan corporation could, to the point it felt necessary, subsidize that cost. This seems to me to be the most practicable manner of handling the problem. The rates could be kept at that point at which the commuter could afford to pay. We could keep a careful cost accounting system of the operation of this particular part of the railways operation, and in that way the metropolitan corporation would be protected. It may balk at such a scheme, saying, "We would not have any control over the costs concerned", and they would also no doubt say, "Here we are entering into a continuing expense; we do not know how far it is going to go or how long it is going to last". But all transport is a continuing expense. I cannot think of anything more costly to our municipal corporation than the provision of all these roads, arterial highways, bridges, etc., they have had to build. Consideration of this type of transportation would be very worth while indeed from their point of view.
There is a corollary to such a system which perhaps I am out of order in mentioning in this debate, but I should just point out that in matters of civil defence it would be most useful. Compare the rapid, customary and controlled evacuation of thousands of people, by a system such as I have suggested, with a situation where the same thousands of people are all trying to get on to a series of highways with no control, all at the same
	. |
time. The customary feature is the important part when you are thinking along these lines, because this is an evacuation that would occur every day and could be carried out in an orderly and completely controlled fashion. The effects on civil defence would be very salutary indeed.
I do not know what the minister's thinking is on this particular subject, or if he has ever had occasion to canvass the idea. It would take a co-operative effort on a shared cost basis, and possibly it may embody a new concept for the railways. I will just conclude by urging the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway to keep an open mind on the subject. I would urge the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. to search constantly for and do research on cheaper methods of handling this type of commuter service for, of course, if such methods could be found and commuter service put on a profitable basis there would be no problem whatsoever. It would simply be a matter of growth and increase in the rolling stock of the facilities concerned. If the minister does have any words of encouragement or information on the matter I would, of course, be most happy to have the benefit of his thoughts and ideas. As I say, it is a very live issue in metropolitan Toronto and the issue will arise again and again in all our metropolitan areas in Canada because this problem of transporting people in and out of cities is with us and with us to stay.
(Translation) :


Mr. Balcer:: My remarks in this debate, Mr. Chairman, will be limited to a matter which is of particular interest to my constituents in Three Rivers as well as to the people of the surrounding district which is served through the port of that city.
This afternoon I would like to bring to the attention of the house the fantastic niggardliness of the national harbours board with regard to our port, as well as its obstinate refusal to carry out the improvements made urgently necessary by the St. Lawrence seaway project.
In a few months, this country will begin to reap benefits from the St. Lawrence seaway project. We, the people of Three Rivers and the surrounding district, are anxious to see our harbour receive its share of those benefits.
For this purpose, Mr. Chairman, the port of Three Rivers must be altered altogether and be provided for in the budget of the national harbours board.
The chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, Hon. Lionel Chevrier, stated recently in Copenhagen that the seaway

would triple the volume of traffic through the canal system of the river, i.e. would increase it from 10 to 30 million tons. Consequently, if ports below Montreal are able to handle part of that traffic, they are bound to benefit from this increase. However, in order to benefit by this improvement, a port such as that of Three Rivers must be made a transfer point. At the moment, if the national harbours board persist in treating the port of Three Rivers as they have done since they took charge of it, I doubt very much that our area will derive the advantages to which it is entitled.
At the present time, for instance, there is a lot of wheat being shipped. It is brought down to us from the lakes in very small ships and then loaded on vessels for overseas. Unfortunately, when the deep waterway is finished wheat from below Montreal will be handled by big lakers and Three Rivers does not, as yet, possess the necessary equipment to ensure harbour facilities to those large ships.
The people of Three Rivers do not want to make a show of jingoism, and, like the other towns of this country, they are glad to think that the St. Lawrence seaway project will vastly improve the economic position of all great lakes cities.
Most of the harbours on the great lakes expect a lot of business to come their way. Well, as Canadians, not only do we see nothing wrong with that, but we are glad to see this country of ours develop from one end to the other. However, we do hope that the harbours on the great lakes will not fall into the hands of the national harbours board, or at least that they will not get the treatment the Three Rivers harbour is getting at the present time from the board.
It seems to me that the coming of the deep waterway provides the national harbours board with a great opportunity as well as a justification to carry out needed improvements in the Three Rivers harbour. It surely could not be accused of wasting money if it made these vital improvements, for the Three Rivers harbour is a natural harbour which needs no maintenance work as far as dredging is concerned, as is the case with the Quebec and Montreal harbours. It is a deep-water harbour. As a matter of fact, it is from 30 to 65 feet deep. Besides there is practically no tide and the current is not very strong. Opposite Three Rivers the St. Lawrence is about a mile wide. Therefore, even the largest oceangoing ships which sail up and down the St.
Supply-Transport
Lawrence river can easily move around and even turn about, which makes for extremely easy navigation. Finally, Three Rivers harbour is one of the few ports in our country where ships do not have to be towed when mooring at the wharf or sailing out. This is a very important feature for shipping companies, and one that can mean a substantial saving for them.
As I just said, capital expenditures to improve the facilities of the Three Rivers harbour would surely not be a waste of money. The people of Three Rivers are ready to do their share in developing their harbour. We are now putting a final touch on legislation which will make it possible to put up a bridge between Three Rivers and Nicolet county. The building costs of this bridge, which will run to $12,500,000, will be carried by private enterprise, and there is no doubt that once the bridge is built, the industry of Three Rivers and the whole district will be able to use the harbour facilities of that town if they are available.
It is therefore a pity to find that the national harbours board is the only one not doing its share. This is all the more surprising since the harbour of Three Rivers is the only Atlantic port under the jurisdiction of the board, which has brought it a profit in the past few years.
Mr. Chairman, may I quote figures that I gathered in the brief submitted by the city of Three Rivers last summer to the board of inquiry on coastal shipping in Canada. I quote:
When the national harbours board took over in 1936, the accounting value of capital assets amounted to $7,547,100 and accrued surplus to $2,913,113.
Between 1936 and 1953 (table 1). the national harbours board derived from the harbour of Three Rivers an operating revenue of $4,570,086.86 and spent on administration and maintenance $730,181.45, leaving an operating profit of $3,839,905.41.
This is an enormous sum when compared with what the national harbours board is getting from other Atlantic ports.
In 1947, the surplus account is regularized and there is an increase in the books of $1,270,150.06 without the capital assets account being affected.
In 1952, the surplus account is again regularized through a decrease of $2,521,283.54, as well as the value of capital assets, which decreases from $7,897,797.03 to $5,450,921.99.
I again quote the brief of the city of Three Rivers.
An analysis of the financial statements published by the national harbours board shows that Three Rivers harbour alone-

Supp ly-Transport I repeat the word "alone".
-among all the harbours on the Atlantic and the St. Maurice, has managed to achieve a net operating surplus.
In fact the last official report published by the national harbours board in 1953 supplies the following details:
Harbour	Deficit	Surplus
Halifax	 $ 8,201,444.07
Saint John	(N.B.)	9,278,467.04
Chicoutimi	.... 2,819,897.84
Quebec	 27,060,829.33
Three Rivers	 $836,586.81<1)
Montreal	 9,282,276.24
<u A downward	adjustment of the surplus of
$2,578,613.76 in 1952 has affected the accumulated surplus.
And during that time, namely-
From 1936 to 1953, the national harbours board has invested for capital improvements in the Three Rivers harbour the sum of $594,058.
Most of which was spent two years ago for the construction of a shed.
An analysis of capital expenditures in certain harbours of Canada (Table II) for purposes of comparison for the years 1936 to 1953 is attached hereto.
It should be noted that in the harbours of Halifax, Saint John, Chicoutimi and Quebec the national harbours board has spent for capital improvements $6,692,991, $9,820,529, $68,492,	$3,942,457 respectively, against
$594,058 for Three Rivers, the only harbour showing a surplus.
A few days ago, in a dispatch from Ottawa, the Canadian Press announced the 1956 budget of the national harbours board. As far as Three Rivers is concerned, we read to our great disappointment that the national harbours board was not at all concerned with Three Rivers harbour and that it would continue in 1956 to treat it with its usual niggardliness.
Let me quote the figures stated by the Canadian press:
Amounts budgeted for the various harbours under the jurisdiction of the board are as follows:
Montreal	 $12,736,500
Halifax	 1,942,000
Quebec	 1,687,000
Saint John (N.B.)	 845,000
Vancouver	 649,000
Other ports	 200,000
Port Colborne	 80,000
Prescott	 40,000
And finally, Three Rivers is put down here for $35,000 and yet it is the only port which has returned a profit.
I should think, Mr. Chairman, that these figures clearly show that the national harbours board is not being fair in its dealing with Three Rivers harbour. This is a ridiculous situation. Here we have the national 
harbours board, making money out of Three Rivers harbour, seemingly unable to invest more than $35,000 in it, whereas the Department of Public Works is spending unquestionably justified amounts of money on docks in very small harbours which bring in no revenue whatsoever to that department. Such is the case at Blanc-Sablon where it is spending $150,000 on a dock extension, at Mechins where $100,000 are being spent on the rebuilding of the dock.


Mr. Langlois (Gaspe):: Are you opposed to those projects?


Léon Balcer: Absolutely not; I am in favour of them; I only wish the amounts were larger and, at the same time, that as much be done for Three Rivers harbour.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: You had implied that those expenses were apparently not justified because there was no return on the investment.


Léon Balcer: That is quite false and my hon. friend knows that this is not what I meant.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: It is what you said.


Léon Balcer: I definitely did not say that. I am particularly happy of this opportunity-


Mr. Lesage:: We have a good government.


Léon Balcer: -to request that our harbour at Three Rivers be treated in the same way and that the national harbours board, which makes a profit out of Three Rivers harbour, take a good look at it and see for itself in how many ways the harbour could be improved, so as to allow it to keep its rank as one of the leading harbours in Canada, especially after the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman-


Léon Balcer: And the required improvements could be carried out at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


George Carlyle Marler: I should like to ask a question of the hon. member since he intends to broach another subject. He spoke at length of the money spent at Three Rivers and on other harbours in Canada, but he has yet to point out a single improvement urgently required at Three Rivers harbour. Could he tell us what are those needs he has referred to.


Léon Balcer: I thank the minister; I was just coming to that.


George Carlyle Marler: Good, I am away ahead of you.


Jean Lesage: You are thinking of the
Shawinigan bridge.


Léon Balcer: No. In 1936, at the time the national harbours board took over the control of the Three Rivers harbour, the total length of the wharves was 7,400 feet, and there were 8 transit warehouses with an area of 175,000 square feet. In 1956 equipped wharves measured 7,650 feet, which means that from 1936 to 1956 only 250 feet were added. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it cannot be claimed that a great effort was made in those 20 years. As far as sheds are concerned, there are 229,000 square feet in 1956 compared to 175,000 square feet in 1936, which is an increase of some 50,000 square feet.


Jean Lesage: Where is the need?


Léon Balcer: Grain elevators were filled to the limit last summer, as well as an adjoining shed. From June on, Three Rivers shippers had to turn down business due to the lack of storage space and accommodation.
Again I urge that appropriate sheds be built at Three Rivers harbour. One built a few years ago is already inadequate. For instance, last year, last spring I should say, carbide was shipped by a Shawinigan Falls company and they had to use tarpaulins to shield the goods which were left on the wharves, because there was no room inside the sheds.
It does not make sense, Mr. Chairman. I protest against the national harbours board policy of always waiting until the situation has become practically desperate before making the least improvement.
I believe it would be only fair to Three Rivers stevedores, and to the manufacturers and the whole population, if those in authority went ahead and made improvements which would give a bit of favourable publicity to Three Rivers harbour and attract new customers and new shipping lines.
The minister asked a while ago, what was required to be done to Three Rivers harbour. This is one of this country's main eastern ports. However, it lacks all equipment, heavy or light, for handling cargoes. It is left to the stevedores to supply the cranes they may need.
Three Rivers harbour is the only one to show a profit, and the national harbours board should use some of this profit to equip the port and enable it to hold its own among the other national harbours once the St. Lawrence seaway project is carried out.
Supply-Transport
Up to now, Three Rivers harbour has got along and the stevedores there have not lost too many contracts. But it is precisely because the seaway project will soon be a fact, that we want to have the necessary equipment to receive the huge grain ships which we hope to see coming down to us from Montreal.
The royal commission of inquiry on coastal shipping in Canada has been holding hearings all over the country. We hope for the sake of Three Rivers that, as a result of such inquiry, coastal shipping on the great lakes will be restricted to the North American fleets, so that lakers may carry cargoes down to the ports of Montreal, Three Rivers and Quebec where they could be transshipped, so as to encourage the development of new industries in this area and bring prosperity to the cities located on the banks of the St. Lawrence below Montreal.
We wish every success to the great lakes ports, we wish them to double, treble, quadruple or even quintuple their shipping activities, but we ask for a fair treatment from the national harbours board. We ask them to show a little more foresight. We ask them to bear in mind what the situation is going to be once the St. Lawrence seaway is completed. Finally, we ask that the necessary steps be taken to ensure the prosperity of Three Rivers harbour, the only port which has shown a surplus.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I put a question to the hon. member for Three Rivers? If I understood correctly, he said a moment ago that he favours the restriction of coastal trade and wants maritime transportation to be limited to ships of Canadian registry. Shall we infer that he is stating his party's policy?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, this matter is now being considered by the royal commission on Canadian coastal trade. I simply recalled a wish expressed before that body when the corporation of the city of Three Rivers submitted its brief. I need not state my or his party's policy since the commission has not yet completed its work.


Jean Lesage: There is no need for the hon. member for Three Rivers to state our policy.
(Text):


Mr. Decore:: I should like to draw to the minister's attention a matter which I have

Supply-Transport
raised previously and which has been raised by the hon. member for Athabaska as well as other hon. members from Saskatchewan. I am referring to the Canadian National railway line which runs east from Edmonton through Redwater, Smoky Lake, St. Paul and up to a point called Heinsburg. It stops there and there is an unfilled gap of some 38 miles to a point called Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan. Then, that line continues from Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan to North Battleford and on to Saskatoon. It is very difficult for me and a lot of other people to understand why this particular gap has not been completed. The information I have is that the terrain is not at all difficult. Although I am personally not acquainted with the topography there my information is that it is typical of the topography to be found in eastern Alberta. Although it is generally expensive to build railways, this is not difficult terrain.
This railway line goes through the most thickly populated rural area in western Canada. There is a lot of mixed farming there, and the result is that a lot of the goods coming from the east has to come by way of Edmonton and back again. On the other hand, farm produce, grain and other farm products being shipped out must go west first and then back east again for hundreds of extra miles. As I say, it is difficult for me to understand why this particular gap has not been filled. This railway line goes through the Redwater oilfield which is one of the richest oil sectors in western Canada. There are salt mines there that could be developed. As I say, it is difficult for me to understand why this gap has not been filled since it does go through one of the most thickly populated areas in western Canada and it is not difficult rerrain.
I have raised this matter, as the hon. member for Athabaska and other members have in this house. I raised it for the first time when I came to this house in October, 1949. I brought it to the attention of the then Minister of Transport, Mr. Chevrier, who said, as reported on page 1233 of Hansard, volume 2, second session, 1949:
I thank the hon. member for Vegreville for his interest in the unfilled gap between Heinsburg, Alberta and Frenchman's Butte, Saskatchewan. The Canadian National Railways have been giving some careful study to this line, not only in 1949 but in 1948 and 1947; and, I must tell my hon. friend, they have it fairly high up in their priority list.
Then, the minister went on, and at the end he made this statement:


1 can tell my hon. friend that tne discovery of
the oil wells and the salt mines are two features which should add considerably to the chances of construction. They certainly should add to the economic advantages. The best I can say at this time is that the Canadian National Railways have the matter under careful review and they have it fairly high up in their priority list.
I was wondering whether, for the benefit of those people out there in Alberta, the minister could say to what extent Canadian National Railways have given this matter consideration. What is their feeling on the matter now? I was wondering whether or not the minister would think it desirable on his part to push this project and have this gap completed?


Mr. Herridge:: I listened with considerable interest to the minister's introductory remarks, but like other members who have spoken I am somewhat disappointed that we did not have a printed copy of the department's annual report before these estimates were considered. Before proceeding with what I want to mention this afternoon I must express my appreciation of the courtesy of the minister and his officials in giving consideration to any matter that I felt it wise to bring to their attention. This does not mean the minister gives you all you request, and I shall have more to say about that later on the various items, I must give the minister credit for saying no in such a way that you feel he has done you a favour.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to deal this afternoon with the concrete things that come under the Department of Transport, but rather I am going to enter the rarified atmosphere of constitutional ambiguities. I was asked to raise this question by a good number of people in my constituency who support the various parties in this house because they think it is a matter that should be corrected.
The matter I intend to raise concerns the rights of navigation on the Arrow lakes, which are an extension of the Columbia river and are about 135 to 140 miles in length. Navigation on that portion of the river which is navigable has been carried on since Thompson discovered the river in 1811, first by the Hudson's bay bateaux; then in 1866 steam navigation was commenced from Northport to north of Revelstoke. The Kootenay Steam Navigation, and later the Canadian Pacific Railway operated a fleet of ships, stern wheelers, on the river for about 60 years. The last of those ships belonging to the Canadian Pacific Railway, the steamer Minto

was laid up in April of 1954, to the great regret of all the residents along the lakes who were very sorry indeed that the provincial government of that day failed to go in with the federal government fifty-fifty toward the $60,000 subsidy that was considered necessary by the C.P.R.
Because of my fond memories of that ship I cannot help telling a short story of the early days in connection with that boat. Going down the lakes one day on the vessel was one of our early Anglican clergymen who was reading his Bible. The skipper went up to him and said, "Padre, does the good Lord say anything about the old steamer MintoV' The clergyman said, "Just a minute, captain. Let me have a look. I am quite sure the good Lord would not overlook such a good vessel as this." At this point the clergyman turned back to the beginning of his Bible. He said, "Here it is captain, right in Genesis"; and he read, "and then the Lord made all creeping things".
As I said before, we were extremely sorry to see that vessel discontinued, and we are very pleased that we have a substitute service in the ferry Arrow Park now operated by the provincial government of British Columbia. When the steamer Minto ceased to run the government of British Columbia called for tenders for the operation of a service between Arrowhead and Robson. The Interior Tug and Transport Company were the successful tenderers, and received a subsidy of $60,000 per annum. They operated for about 12 months and then fell into difficulties and finally, last fall, the provincial government bought the company out, bought the vessel and is now operating it.
What I have been asked to raise arises out of an incident that occurred last summer. I might explain that when the vessel Arrow Park commenced operation it also took over a run formerly undertaken by the steamer Beaton. Consequently the steamer Beaton was laid up. Last summer the Revelstoke chamber of commerce wanted to charter the Beaton for a run from Arrowhead to Beaton in order to attend a district conference of chambers of commerce at Trout Lake that was called to discuss the Jumbo pass proposals in connection with the route of the trans-Canada highway. They were informed by the captain of the steamship Beaton that he was unable to leave the dock, I am informed, owing to an order issued by the provincial government of British Columbia. I believe this order was issued as the result of some clause in the provincial ferries act.
Supp ly-Transport
This order forbids anyone to operate a vessel for passenger purposes on the Arrow lakes. Now, what does that mean? It means in the first instance that the steamer Beaton, which only two or three years ago had $125,000 expended on it for repairs and improvements, is tied up at the dock. The investment, so far as the owners are concerned, is lost. Second, it means that there is no opportunity provided for organizations who wish to charter or rent this or other small vessels to go on trips which in no way interfere with the scheduled run of the ferry Arrow Park. In view of the provincial government operating the ferry Arrow Park, a service about which we are pleased, I can quite understand they want to protect the revenues of that vessel; but our people cannot understand why the government should forbid the steamship Beaton and other small craft from providing passenger service for excursions and for emergencies which in no way conflict with the ferry Arrow Park and could not be undertaken by the ferry Arrow Park because that vessel is on a scheduled run.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this is unfair to the owners of the vessel. I might say I am placed in a somewhat unusual position this afternoon. I am all for the public ferry service that is being operated on the Arrow lakes by the provincial government, and recognize its usefulness. We in this group are very fair indeed, and we want to be fair to all economic interests. Furthermore it is not to the advantage of any district, whatever your political opinions are, to have a vessel of the type of the steamer Beaton tied up at a dock unable to undertake any passenger service when that service could be of value to the district on certain occasions.
I mention this matter because of the numbers of people of all parties who have asked me to raise it. They are of the opinion that there must be some misunderstanding. They think it is an entirely unnecessary regulation. I do not see how it can be constitutional that a provincial government under some section of a provincial act can prevent companies or individuals from operating passenger services on navigable waters such as the Arrow lakes and sections of the Columbia river. When the Kootenay Steam Navigation Company was operating and when the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was operating on the lakes and the river, the steamer Beaton was operating on another run, and various small craft were chartered from time to time for excursions and for emergency purposes.

Supply-Transport
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of Transport to inquire into this question to see if it is a constitutional act on the part of the provincial government, and to see if some arrangement cannot be made for this and other vessels that are required for excursions and emergency trips to operate on navigable waters which we understand come distinctly under the jurisdiction of the federal government. I have the correspondence and other documents on my desk, and I should be only too pleased to hand them to the minister if he should require them.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on this item, and I shall direct my remarks particularly to the Minister of Transport. It is my feeling that the minister is performing his duties with the same degree of efficiency and vision as his predecessor. The problems he must face are unique and involved, and are created largely by the upsurge in the nation's business caused by our natural growth and the atmosphere which has been created for this gigantic expansion. The minister has demonstrated day by day both inside and outside the house his ability to handle the affairs of this department which are so extensive.
This afternoon I should like to deal with one particular phase of transportation, and in doing so I refer particularly to the railway line between the two great cities of Toronto and Montreal, which line passes through Kingston, which I consider to be one of the greatest cities in Canada. This line is most important for more reasons than one, and I predict that in the future it will increase in importance as the traffic between these two large cities of Toronto and Montreal increases. This line running along the north shore of the St. Lawrence river services a great number of small cities, towns and villages, containing a large number of residents and the many large and small industries for which the area is so well known. This particular line will become more important with the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway.
This part of eastern Ontario covering the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, up to Ottawa and down to Kingston, has been described as the golden triangle. Therefore, I submit, more attention should be paid to the transportation services being provided in this area than has been the case heretofore, and more particularly the railway services, because these services can be the backbone of the development of industry along the north shore of the St. Lawrence.
[Mr. Herridge.l
One result of the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway has caused a great deal of concern to railway engineers and administrative officials. Towns, villages and industries have had to be moved and provision has had to be made for their re-establishment in new locations. The engineers and members of the administrative staffs of the C.N.R. are to be congratulated upon the lead they have given by their knowledge, knowhow and vision which enables them to cope with this situation. This problem has been more extensive because other arteries of traffic have had to be diverted, which creates problems for the C.N.R.
Living as I do in this area I can say that there have been very few complaints from residents with respect to the activities of Canadian National railway officials. However, something has come up within the last couple of days. The Post Office Department has called for tenders for the transportation of mail by vehicular means from Belleville to Kingston and from Kingston to Brockville. Undoubtedly this will provide better service for the Post Office Department or these tenders would not be called for. At the same time it will improve the mail service for the areas between Toronto and Montreal, particularly between Ottawa and Kingston.
But this indicates to me that there may not be another train service provided between Montreal and Toronto and Toronto and Montreal to take care of intercity traffic, more particularly businessmen from Trenton, Belleville, Napanee, Kingston, Brockville, Prescott and Cornwall who might be desirous of going either to Toronto or to Montreal in the morning and returning home the same day. I am trying to point out that if there was a train leaving Montreal in the morning at a reasonable hour, and also one leaving Toronto at about the same time, such a service would be complementary to the one now provided whereby a train leaves Toronto and Montreal around 4 or 4.30 in the afternoon and reaches the central region around 6.30 and 8 p.m.
We now have the evening service, but it might be more to the advantage of the railways and satisfy their need for extra traffic, as well as the persons who live in the region who might like to make daily trips, if this additional service were provided. I am directing my attention more particularly to the possibility of a better morning service which now reaches the halfway mark at around 2 o'clock going both ways and another between 3 and 4 o'clock going both ways. The benefits to be derived from such a service have been brought to my attention by the 1955

report of the Canadian National Railways, where I find this statement on page 7:
There were fewer passengers in 1955 than in the previous year. The number of intercity passengers was up slightly, despite a reduction in immigrant and military travel, but this was more than offset by a drop in the number of commuters-
I should like to digress for a moment to say that in that central area between Toronto and Montreal live many people who work in Kingston. They live in Brockville or Belleville and travel back and forth night and day. A modern service would facilitate their getting to work and would relieve traffic on the highways which are overtaxed at the moment.
The report goes on to say:
*-largely the outcome of modifications to suburban service authorized during the year. The increase in patronage of intercity passenger trains was in part a sign of generally more buoyant business conditions. It was also in part a measure of the company's endeavours to stimulate rail travel-new standards of passenger accommodation and meal service, faster intercity and transcontinental train schedules, all-inclusive package tours and incentive fares for midweek excursions and family trips.
I can see from the statistics of the railway that the Canadian National Railways, particularly, in their passenger services, depend a great deal upon the commuters. I believe that the commuter service has not been fully developed, though it has a good possibility of being developed. When we consider that our railways are of such value to passengers and that there were fewer passengers last year than in the previous year, while at the same time we had more population in this country and a greater national growth, we must also consider the other side of the picture, how these passengers are travelling.
One of the best examples would be the bus lines in certain areas, and particularly in those areas in competition with the railways. The bus lines have been running a service that begins when you step into the terminal and continues until you step off at another terminal. My remarks might indicate that there should lie a little salesmanship on behalf of the railways, but I feel that when you go into the bus terminal, of which several have been constructed between Toronto and Montreal, you generally find a modern terminal. It is not only attractive to the eye but comfortable for the passengers using the buses. The officers in charge have sufficient space to carry on their duties. There is a good baggage room. There are waiting rooms in some cases that are excelled only by high-priced restaurants. The washrooms are modern and comply with very strict health regulations.
On the other side of the picture, if we turn to page 11 of the report of the Canadian
Supply-Transport
National Railways for 1955, we find under the heading "Property and Service Improvements"-where I presume stations would be dealt with-it states:
In 1955, as in other recent years, substantial capital expenditures were made to improve the railway's equipment and facilities in order to provide better service at lower cost. Much of this investment is based not merely on considerations of immediate return but also on the management's duty to provide a sound foundation for growth. The full benefits of expenditures made under this broader criterion will be realized only over a period of years extending far into the future.
Sometimes it is a good idea to provide better service at lower cost. That might be done in dealing with certain phases of the business. At the same time-again I am particularly referring to this area between Toronto and Montreal where train travel has a preference-you can get a sleeper on the train and have your meals on the train, which some people prefer to travelling on the buses and stopping at terminals. In any case the services in competition with the railways are continually attracting more passengers, from among the public of Canada, as they did a few years ago in regard to freight. This tendency will probably continue because, among other things, the people will be attracted by the terminals, which are not only attractive to the eye but also cater to their comfort. Therefore I suggest that under this item of capital expenditure there should also be added improvements to stations and station facilities, and particularly improvements to those facilities in areas where there is a great travel potential.
In this area between Toronto and Montreal, outside of the two metropolitan cities, I do not think there is any station to be proud of. In most instances they are not exactly attractive and their services are inadequate. I would refer particularly to the Kingston station. This has been talked about by politicians and other authorities for a period of over 30 years, but so far very little has been done. During the war an addition was constructed to the west of the station to take care of the increased passenger services during that period, when so many soldiers were located in the Kingston area. This part of the building is in very bad condition. As a matter of fact, the other day there was a hole in the centre of the hardwood floor that you could put your foot through; and this was at a time when people were asked to pass through it. The waiting room is about as uncomfortable as any waiting room could be.
I have had a good deal of experience in going to police stations and interviewing clients who are held in custody, and I must say that their waiting rooms are much more

Supply-Transport
comfortable. The office space in that station, as it appears to a layman-I do not know how it appears to a specialist-seems to be too small. There is no restaurant; and this is very important in this area because the location of the station in the city of Kingston is unique. Formerly it was a long way out of town. The city industrially has passed it by now. There is no restaurant service, and there could not be any very close because the railway property extends for approximately one and a half blocks from the station area. The washrooms-and I hate to say it-are of a type that would be considered as standard only in a country with very low living standards.
I therefore make this request and this suggestion in accordance with what has been noted under "Property and Service Improvements" in the report of the Canadian National Railways; that the minister, through his liaison with the Canadian National Railways, again bring to their attention that the stations generally should be improved, but particularly in the city of Kingston. This city is enjoying one of its greatest rates of growth, both in population and the extension of military services in that district, as well as in industry, that it has ever enjoyed. I felt that the discussion of this item today might be as good a time as any to bring the matter to the attention of the minister, the officials of his department and other people who may be interested in it.
Mr. Nov/lan: Mr. Chairman, there are various matters which one might discuss under item 1 of the minister's estimates, which concern one of the most important departments with which this committee has to deal. For instance, there is the matter of freight rates that is of particular interest to us in the mari-times and on which one could use the whole 30 minutes for that purpose alone. I do not propose to deal with that today because there will be other items later on, particularly under the Maritime Freight Rates Act, when we can deal with that matter more extensively.
There are one or two matters related to water transportation to which I wish to make reference, and in case the minister may feel that I am somewhat unkind or harsh in some of the statements I may make later, perhaps I should start out by being at least complimentary, and while not indulging in fulsome praise I am sure the minister would welcome any kind words whatsoever from me on an occasion such as this. I do think it is fair to say, as one coming from the maritimes, that we appreciate the improved service being given by the Canadian National Railways, particularly in the inauguration of what one

might almost call that new train, the Ocean Limited. We have heard a great deal about the Super Continental travelling across Canada, and we have also heard a great deal about the Canadian, almost the Royal Canadian, of the C.P.R., but I want to say that I think one of the crack trains in Canada today is the Ocean Limited. With its improved service, its modern accommodation, it is something of which we in the maritimes are all proud and for which we want to give full credit to the minister and the department.
The hon. member for Kingston has just been lamenting the fact that people do not travel as much by train as they did at one time. I think that is rather regrettable; and since the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra pointed out this morning that the Minister of Transport has no responsibility for T.C.A. I am sure he would not mind someone attempting to sell railway transportation, because it does not compete with any other conflicting service of his own.
There was a time, I think, when people thought it was smart to travel by air. Today I think it is smart to travel by train, and the only people who should fly are people who have to. There is nothing more comfortable or better than the train service which we get in this country supplied by both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre says "in some parts of Canada". Perhaps we are more blest, but in any event I do commend the minister for this particular service. When I refer to the Ocean Limited I also include the other trains operating on the run from Montreal to Halifax, and I commend not only the physical equipment but the dining car and operating crews of whom the minister may well be proud.
I could perhaps make some rather adverse comments on the menus which are supplied in the dining car service. When I do that I am not being critical of the crews themselves. I think it is rather unfortunate that the menus are supplied from the head office in Montreal, because when you go on board the train on the 1st day of the month and see chicken pie on the menu, you know you are going to see it on the menu on the 31st day of the month. A little change in that regard would be helpful, and is certainly one which would also be appreciated by the stewards and all those operating on the dining cars. Many of them have said to me, "If you ever get a chance, tell the minister how terrible this thing is; tell him that we should be given a little latitude and the opportunity to display a little imagination."
Having dealt with land transport, perhaps we might turn our attention to the gr

marine areas which surround the maritime provinces and in which I, of course, am particularly interested. I am not going to recapitulate the history of ferries, of which I know the minister must be heartily weary. In fact we are all in full sympathy with the minister for having come into the department at this time and to inherit the derelict messes for which he is now responsible. I wonder how he can smile. I wonder how he keeps his good looks. I wonder why his hair has not turned snow white.


George Carlyle Marler: I am smiling at the strong words of my hon. friend.


George Clyde Nowlan: The strong words I may use are only those words which I am permitted to use under the rules of the house. If I could use the language which is used outside the house it would be much stronger than anything even the genial chairman now presiding would permit me to use.
I shall deal for a moment with the ferry Bluenose. I am sure we are all familiar with the past history of that almost ancient institution, the keel of which was promised in 1949, which we were told would be in operation in 1951 and which last July the minister told us would be operating very shortly.
At that time he was having trouble with worm gears, and he continued to have trouble with worm gears during July, August, September, October, November and December. Then he was faced with the dire possibility, in fact the probability, that the Bluenose would be frozen in the St. Lawrence and a roar would go up from the maritimes the like of which had never been heard before. Some of you who have read history know the story of the escape of the Tallahassee, that confederate cruiser which came into Halifax harbour during the civil war, sneaked out the eastern passage with federal gunboats waiting for her and made good her escape. The escape of the Bluenose from Lauzon and down the St. Lawrence river is comparable only to the escape of the Tallahassee, let me tell you. However, the Bluenose escaped and she got down into the deep water of the Atlantic at least.


George Carlyle Marler: Is the hon. member likening himself to a gunboat?


George Clyde Nowlan: Likening myself or the Bluenose? At any rate, then there was a question whether or not she would go into operation. I say quite seriously, Mr. Chairman, that it would almost appear as if the department and the minister did not have the intention of operating the boat last fall or this winter. There was a great deal of public opinion stirred up about it, and finally the boat went into operation at the end of the year.
Supply-Transport
When it did, suitable passenger accommodation had not been provided at Yarmouth, and there was another case which would indicate that, despite the long chapter of delays, despite the fact that seven years had elapsed since the boat was first proposed, there was no intention of putting it into operation at least until next spring because the Minister of Public Works was somewhat humiliated by having to construct hasty shelters, build wooden walks over the mud and do a whole lot of other things so people could get on and off the pier and on and off the boat.
At any rate the boat finally got into operation. Speaking of the poor accommodation, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that back in 1952 the predecessor of the present Minister of Transport said at page 2282 of Hansard that his colleague the Minister of Public Works was purchasing that year-that was 1952-the land for the erection of the terminal piers and facilities at Yarmouth, that progress was being made during that year, and that they would be completed long in advance of the time the boat would be ready for operation. Of course it did not require a great deal of prophetic vision to say they would be ready before the boat was ready for operation, but unfortunately the prophet in that case fell down as he did in so many other cases.
As I said, the boat got into operation, and then this sad and sorry story starts all over again. You know, Mr. Chairman, as far as the story of the Bluenose is concerned, those of us who are older will remember going to the movies many years ago and seeing the Saturday night thrillers. There was always one chapter each night and then the thriller was postponed until the next Saturday night with the heroine facing disaster and the public left in a great deal of consternation and wonder as to what was going to happen.
The story of the Bluenose is exactly like those old thrillers. Something happens from one day to another to keep the public in suspense as to what is going to happen next. The boat was in operation for a little while. Then there was a report that she had suffered damage to perhaps one propeller. Then the boat was continued in operation. Then there were reports that she had suffered damage to perhaps the other propeller. She still limped on, back and forth, between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor. Then finally a couple of weeks ago it was announced that she would be taken off and sent to Saint John dry dock for repairs.
She went into dry dock for repairs. Then last Tuesday-Tuesday of this week-in reply to a question from me, the minister stated that the repairs to the Bluenose had been completed the preceding day and that he

Supply-Transport
would announce as soon as possible when the schedule could be resumed. I asked him again this morning, Mr. Chairman, when the Bluenose would be put back in operation again and he said he would inform the house as soon as possible. Again, Mr. Chairman, you get this thriller situation, this being kept in suspense. The minister dealing with this matter is maintaining the very best traditions of Hitchcock, the great dramatic director of thriller movies, in keeping us in suspense as to what is going to happen next with respect to this craft.
I think the minister should deal with this matter. I think he should have dealt with it today. We were told there was damage to the propellers. We were told last Tuesday that the repairs had been completed the day before; that was on Monday of this week. It is perhaps a matter of three hours' sailing time from Saint John to Yarmouth. Why has the boat not been put back into operation? Why has the schedule not been resumed? Why is the minister today, on Friday of this week, in respect of a boat on which repairs were completed last Monday, not able to tell us when it is going to resume operations? Somebody says that perhaps Dan Riley can tell us. I do not know. There are only two reasons, Mr. Chairman. Either this is being used as an excuse to discontinue the operation, which I suggest the minister did not want to start anyway, or else there was far more serious damage done to the boat than has been intimated by the damage to the propellers.
It has been reported in the press, or at least there have been letters in the press- I refer to the Halifax Herald-this week saying that one propeller was damaged. They kept that quiet. There were reports that the other propeller was damaged. They wanted to keep that quiet because the chapter of errors was so horrible. Therefore they continued to operate her with a twisted propeller, and as a result they developed a torque, whatever that may be. I understand it is a twist or warp perhaps in the shaft. The minister may therefore be faced-and I hope he will disabuse our minds on this point; I hope I am wrong-with the dire possibility of having to take out those worm gears again. I am fairly sure it cannot be so, because the minister could not look as benign and happy and cheerful as he does right now if that were the case.


George Carlyle Marler: I was thinking that the worm gears and the hon. member's imagination were working overtime.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is no imagination to the people of Yarmouth, Mr. Chairman, who have been waiting for this service for six years,

who have had it operating for two weeks and now the Minister of Transport cannot tell them when it is going to start operating again. I wish the imagination of the Minister of Transport would start working, and that he would tell us when it will start. I will give him the opportunity. If he wants a crystal ball, perhaps the Minister of Trade and Commerce who operates the T.C.A. for him will lend him the crystal ball in order to tell us when he will start it again.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: He has it out on loan now.


An hon. Member:: It is up in Laurier house.


George Clyde Nowlan: It is all right to treat the matter humorously here, but it is no laughing matter as far as the people in western Nova Scotia are concerned. They were cut off almost entirely from travel service this summer because of a combination of circumstances, for some of which the minister was not responsible. Because of the strike on the Princess Helene there was a time when you could not get out of western Nova Scotia except by motor car, because the only other way you could get out was by T.C.A., which was booked up far in advance.
Through the department the minister chartered the O.K. Freight Service, which was to supplement the carrying of fish and other perishable products to Boston owing to the undue and absolutely inexcusable delay in putting the Bluenose into operation. The second the Bluenose came back the minister took a quick glance at his crystal ball and discontinued the subsidies to the O.K. Freight Service. Now he has told us that he can not be sure whether he is going to restore any service. The fishermen and others in the western part of Nova Scotia are absolutely cut off from any ferry transportation facilities whatever. I think the time has come when we should know definitely when this service is to be started again.
One could discuss the charges which are imposed on truck traffic on that boat, but I think that is perhaps an illusory matter at the moment. Why discuss charges which the minister imposes on trucks when he has not a boat in operation with which to carry the trucks? I understand that after today there will be no further discussion of these estimates for some little time, probably. I hope that by the time we come back to them the boat will be in operation. Then we will be able to discuss these rates. I have telegrams here from several shippers who have used the Bluenose service, and they find it cheaper to bring their materiel over to Saint John, across to Digby and back to Yarmouth rather than to bring it by truck on the Bluenose.

These were not the promises which were made when this service was first instituted. Then of course there is the question of the final cost of this boat, which the minister can give us when we are discussing the details of his department. So much for the moment for the Bluenose which somewhere, somehow, some day, we hope will resume operations between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor.
Incidentally, when the minister deals with this matter I should like him to tell the committee whether the damage to the Bluenose was occasioned by the fact that they did not put fenders around the pier at Yarmouth because they did not plan to start operations this winter. That at least is the report from those who are familiar with the situation, that all you had at Yarmouth was a cement pile, this pier out there in midstream, and that is why we had damage to those two propellors; that the fenders should have been installed before the boat was put into operation. That is another question which can be determined when we come to the details.
Certainly nothing could have been more unsatisfactory than the statement which was reported to have been made by the minister to the press; I refer to the Halifax Herald. No quotes were used, but the statement was to the effect that they were not sure whether the damage to the propellors was done by a collision with the pier at Yarmouth or by collision with the pier at Bar Harbor or a collision with some submerged object in midstream. The captain and crew of the Bluenose are able and experienced seamen. No boat could suffer damage such as that without the captain and the crew knowing fairly well where it happened, and you would not be as indefinite in your description as the statement which was reported to have been given by the minister to the Halifax Herald in explaining how this damage occurred.
So much for transportation in the western part of the province. I turn for a moment to transportation in the eastern part and the other ferry service, the William Carson, which was to operate between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. The minister discussed that matter fully when we discussed his estimates in July of last year. Without going into the details I simply want to repeat again the information he gave us that day. The minister said he estimated, or that his departmental officials estimated, that when the William Carson was completed the cost would be $11,500,000. He also said at that time that he never could find out where anyone had ever suggested that the estimated cost would be less than $7 million, because he said that was not the original estimate supplied by his departmental officials. If the minister will
67509-142i
Supply-Transport
look at Hansard of May 16, 1952, he will find that his predecessor in office told this committee that the cost of the William Carson would be $6 million. Then it went up to $7 million, to $7,500,000 and finally we were told last July it would cost $11,500,000. I should like to know whether or not that includes all the costs, or whether the Canadian National is also making a further contribution.
I wonder how much more is to be expended in so far as the harbours are concerned. How much more is to be paid for dredging; how much more for harbour construction? How much more is to be paid for the experts who have been brought in for consultation? Then, Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the William Carson, one must not forget the containers piled in a field at North Sydney. This winter we had the heaviest snowstorm we have had in a hundred years. We have had over 100 inches of snowfall on the level this winter. I wonder if these aluminum containers are heavy enough to maintain that weight of snow. A year ago we found out, for some reason which I cannot understand but apparently there was a reason for it, that in order to equip the William Carson the department built 500 aluminium containers in which to move the freight. These containers cost almost $1,000 each, and for over 2J years they have been piled in a field near North Sydney. These containers cost approximately $500,000, and whether or not that is part of the $7,500 000 expenditure I do not know.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, including the expenditures on the vessel itself, on the harbour at North Sydney and on the harbour and dredging at Port aux Basques, last July the minister estimated that the total expenditure on this project would be $21,760,000. Here we have an expenditure of $21,760,000 to operate a ferry between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. Where is that ferry now? It is a beautiful boat.


An hon. Member:: Who knows?


George Clyde Nowlan: We do not know where the Bluenose is, but at least we have some idea,
I hope, as to where the William Carson is. This boat was named after William Carson.
I looked up the encyclopaedia this morning and learned that although he was not one of Newfoundland's sons, he was a distinguished man who came to Newfoundland and made a tremendous contribution to that province in the early part of the 19th century. I can tell you this, that he would find it a lot easier to get to Newfoundland in the days when he came there than he would today if he had to travel on the William Carson.

Supply-Transport
This boat is equipped to carry 250 passengers, with staterooms of the most palatial kind. It is equipped to carry scores of automobiles on automobile decks. What is she doing? She is cruising back and forth presumably, Mr. Chairman, if she has not broken her propellers or had some other mishap like the Bluenose, between North Sydney and Argentia carrying a few hundred tons of freight. Her passenger accommodation is empty. Her 250 staterooms are empty and gloomy and the automobile decks are also empty and gloomy.
Those who come from the sea remember the story of the Marie Celeste, a ship that was found drifting with her sails set and fully equipped but without a living soul on board. Something had happened to the passengers and something had happened to the crew. They had all disappeared. The William Carson, Mr. Chairman, is the Marie Celeste of the Department of Transport and make no mistake about that. It is all very well for us to laugh, but if anyone ever read this in any of the comic books he would never believe it. No one could ever conceive that such a thing could happen, even with a government that is as old and decrepit as this government. You would not think such a thing could happen.


Mr. McCann:: You are just a kid.


George Clyde Nowlan: Here you have this palatial liner, which cost twice as much as it should and which every expert in Newfoundland, every mariner on the Atlantic coast advised against, running back and forth carrying a little freight to Argentia. It would be a lot better for the department to put her in the mothball fleet like the royal navy does and charter a couple of small freighters. They would be able to carry just as much freight back and forth, and do it as efficiently as this white elephant.
I could go on, but I see it is almost five o'clock and this debate must stop. Two years ago in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra about experts, the Minister of Transport said-and I am only paraphrasing-the Department of Transport had the best experts in the world. Referring to this ferry he said it was a combined land and sea operation, and that was why there were experts from the Department of Transport to look after this matter. Then last year we were told that not only did we have experts in the Department of Transport, but we had experts from the Department of Public Works and experts from the Canadian National. All these experts got together, and do you know what they finally did? On September 24 a press conference was held by

the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Public Works and that lineal descendant of John Sebastian Cabot who first discovered Newfoundland, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. They gave out a statement in which they said they had consulted this British expert whose name was R. D. Gwyther. The press report went on to say this:
Great was the satisfaction of the ministers that the British expert had confirmed their belief that the dredging operations at Port aux Basques had not ruined the harbour.
Is it not wonderful? We have the experts from the Canadian National, the experts from public works and the experts from transport, and they bring in an expert from Great Britain who says, "Thank God, boys, you did not entirely ruin the harbour but you spent $23 million".


George Carlyle Marler: I would say that was a very liberal paraphrase, Mr. Chairman.


William Alfred Robinson: Order; it is five o'clock. Shall I rise and report progress?
Item stands.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 148, respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company-Mr. Brisson-Mr. Apple-whaite in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: This bill comes to us from the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.
On clause 1-Extension of time for completion of line.


Howard Charles Green: This bill is entitled an act respecting Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company. In the year 1947 this house passed a private bill incorporating that company, and it was set up as a subsidiary of the Iron Ore Company of Canada. The act passed at that time gave the company the power to construct a railway from Seven Islands on the north shore of the lower St. Lawrence up into the iron ore deposits where the boundaries of Labrador and Quebec meet. In addition it gave the company power to extend that railway right through to Ungava bay.
The charter is one containing very wide powers. For example, the company was given the right to generate electric power, to operate telegraph and telephone systems, to operate vessels, construct hotels, to establish and operate a motor vehicle service, and even to construct pipe lines. In addition, the company was given the right to acquire, own,

maintain and operate aircraft and other aerial equipment. The section of that original act which is pertinent to the discussion today is section 19, which reads as follows:
The company may, within five years after the passing of this act-
The act was assented to on May 14, 1947. -commence to construct the line of railway, and may within 10 years after the passing of this act-
That would be at any time up to May 14, 1957.
-complete the said line of railway, and if within the said periods respectively the said line of railway is not commenced or is not completed and put in operation, the power of construction conferred upon the company by the parliament of Canada shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as then remains uncompleted.
I might point out that the shareholders of this railway company consist of certain individuals most of whom are Canadians. Among them they hold 140 shares. The balance of the issued shares, numbering 19,860, are held by the Iron Ore Company of Canada Limited, so that in effect this railway company is owned exclusively, with the exception of a certain number of qualifying shares, by the Iron Ore Company of Canada Limited. That company is owned by various groups amongst which, I believe, there are three Canadian companies: the Hollinger North Shore Exploration Company, the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company and the Hollinger Consolidated Gold Mines. Between them these companies hold 25 per cent of the issued shares of Iron Ore Company of Canada Limited.


George Carlyle Marler: Are we talking about the Iron Ore Company?


Howard Charles Green: Yes. This company is the
owner of the railway company. The remaining 75 per cent of the shares of the Iron Ore Company of Canada Limited are owned by M. A. Hanna Company, Hanna Coal and Ore Company, National Steel Corporation, Republic Steel Corporation, Armco Steel Corporation, Wheeling Steel Corporation and Youngstown Sheet and Tube Company, all of which are United States companies and are, I believe, centred in the city of Cleveland. In any event the control is centred there.
The bill which comes before the house today seeks to extend the time within which the company can build to Ungava bay for a further period of ten years. If the bill becomes law this railway company will in effect have been given the franchise for 20 years to build this line from Seven Islands to Ungava bay. They have already completed the line into Schefferville which is, I believe about 375 miles. That is where their huge
Private Bills
iron ore deposits are located, and of course it was for the purpose of getting at these iron ore deposits that the railway was built. They are now asking for an extension for a further period of ten years during which time they can complete the line from Schefferville up north of Ungava bay.
The questions which came up in the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines had to do with the wisdom of granting an extension for that length of time. I do not think there was anyone on the committee who felt it would be unreasonable to give this company some extension, but some of us believe that it should not be given an extension, of 10 years at this time. We suggested that it be given an extension of five years. Mind you, that would commence from the year 1957 so that in effect the result would amount to an extension of six years from the present time. But if the company is given a 10-year period it would mean that for 10 years they could, if they saw fit, simply hold this power and yet not take any steps to extend the railway to Ungava bay.
Actually their main objective was to get at the iron ore deposits at Schefferville. I would doubt that their main object was to extend the line to Ungava bay. Extending the line to Ungava bay is not the main business of this company at all. It is simply an additional prospect of business.
Those of us who questioned this long extension felt that it was unwise under the circumstances to give this company what might amount to a stranglehold over the country north of Schefferville for a period of ten years. Why should the company not be content with an extension of five years, and then if they had any idea of extending the line, let them come back to parliament? Parliament would at least have the right to review the situation.
This is not like a Canadian National Railways extension. There have been different bills put through in recent years permitting the Canadian National Railways to construct branch lines. In each case this has been done in the national interest. Take for example the extension from Sherridon to Lynn Lake in northern Manitoba, the extension from Terrace to Kitimat in British Columbia, and the extension which is now being built into the Chibougamau country in Quebec.
These extensions were all made in the national interest, but in the case of the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company you have a corporation whose main interest is to get at its own iron ore deposits. The company is not motivated by the national interest at all; in fact it is controlled in

Private Bills
Cleveland. This is a United States corporation controlled in Cleveland, and it is under no obligation to develop this particular part of the country in the national interest.
Mr. Durrell is the vice president and general manager of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, and when he appeared before the committee I asked him whether I was right in suggesting that the company could just sit and hold this right to extend the line during the next 10 years and do nothing. The question and answer, to be found on page 17, were as follows:
Q. If you had an extension for 10 years, from 1957, not from 1956, really for 11 years, then you would not necessarily have to do anything whatever about seeing to that railway for 11 years; yet your right would exist. Isn't that correct?
A. That could be right if there was no traffic.


Mr. Carrick:: Would the hon. member read the next question and answer in order to get a clear picture. On a point of order, my submission is that by reading only the part he has read the hon. member has not given a complete picture. Read the next question and answer.


Howard Charles Green: I am reading from this evidence the part which is pertinent to my argument. If hon. members wish to read other questions and answers they are at perfect liberty to do so. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Trinity is ridiculous. It is not a point of order at all.


Mr. Rowe:: Just a point of opinion.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member for Dufferin-Simcoe suggests it is just a point of opinion. The reason this matter is important is that there are great prospective developments in the area north of Schefferville. Mr. Durrell explained to the committee that there is an iron ore-bearing strip running in a northwesterly direction right up to Ungava bay, and to the east and running parallel to it is a base metal strip.
Other companies are now exploring in this district. A press despatch just four days ago reported that Lake Shore and associates were planning an exploration program in this portion of northern Quebec. When the bill was under discussion in the Senate, Hon. Mr. Power had this to say, and I quote from page 135 of the Senate Hansard:
Perhaps a line there would not be a very remunerative proposition at the present time, but things are moving so rapidly in that section of Canada that there is no reason why construction should not proceed rapidly.
The section north of Schefferville may very well become one of the most important mining areas in the country. If we are to have the position that this Iron Ore Company, controlled from Cleveland, Ohio, and having a right of way into its own iron ore deposits,
[Mr. Green-1
has the right at any time during the next 10 years to build further, then I suggest to the committee that there is a great danger that the Iron Ore Company may have a stranglehold upon any potential competitor in the area north of Schefferville.
I submit that it should not be given that right, certainly not for a period longer than five years. No one is objecting to them being given an extension for that length of time.
I do not say they would stop other iron ore development to the north by other interests- they might be only too glad to have traffic for the railroad, and I hope that would be the case-but why should this parliament hand them a blank cheque for a period of ten years?
There is no rhyme or reason in granting an extension for that length of time. It was said in the committee that I was trying to compel them to start construction at once, but there was nothing of the sort. I am simply saying that if they are given an extension of five years it will mean that they will have had 15 years in which to build this line. If toward the end of that time they indicated that they were intending to go ahead and complete the extension of the line they would have no difficulty getting the right to do so from this parliament. In the meantime other people who were carrying on development work in that area would not be under the handicap of having to go hat in hand to the Iron Ore Company of Canada in order to be sure they would be able to get out their minerals.
I think we should keep in mind that this Iron Ore Company of Canada is not doing any processing of this ore. They are simply taking it out of the Canadian ground and shipping it away. I inquired about this of Mr. Durrell, and I should like to quote the questions and answers to be found on page 26, as follows:
Q. What is your total production for this year?
A. For 1956,	12	million tons. We hope to
establish 12 million. But that is problematical. It depends upon too many other factors.
Q. Out of 12 million tons, between 8 million and 9 million will go to the United States?
A. Yes. We also import quite a bit of ore from the United States into Canada. At present the Steel Company of Canada has an interest in a mine in the United States and they get a lot from there.
Previously Mr. Durrell had said they would probably sell 2 million tons this year in Europe and 1 million or 2 million tons in Canada. I then asked:
Q. Is the ore which you sell smelted by your company in any way?
A. The ore we sell is just raw ore.
Q. You are merchants of raw iron ore?
A. That is right.

If. this company were processing ore in Canada they might have a greater claim to this extension for a further period of 10 years, but they are not. They are just digging it out and shipping it away, and Canadians are buying back at least some of that iron ore from the United States in the form of finished steel. I do suggest that it would be wise on the part of this committee to change this bill to provide that the extension shall be for a period of five years rather than 10 and I therefore move:
That clause 1 be amended by deleting the word "ten" in line 9 of the bill and substituting the word "five" therefor.


Donald D. Carrick: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come directly to the point before the committee, the period of time. It seems to me that this committee should deal with the matter on the basis of the evidence given before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Mr. Durrell, the vice president of the company, stated that it would take at least three years for the company to decide whether ore had been proved in sufficient quantities to warrant the construction of the railroad, and that it would take six years to construct the railroad.
It is through extremely difficult terrain north of Schefferville to Ungava bay. If I might have the indulgence of the house, I shall quote what Mr. Durrell said on those particular points. The question the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra put to Mr. Durrell, immediately after the part he has himself read, on page 17, is as follows. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked:
Q. Have you any particular objection to getting an extension of five years instead of ten years?
A. Having in mind the length of time required to make surveys, five years is not enough.
As recorded on page 18, the hon. member for Lambton West asked this question:
Q. I wonder whether from your own knowledge or from the knowledge of your experts-supposing you were to start the railway extension-you could say how long it would take. Suppose, for example, you start next year.
A. It would take a minimum of four years unless of course we did something like we did on the other section, that is, flew in all our supplies at a fantastic cost.
Q. If you had an extension of five years from next year, that will give you six years will it not?
A. Yes, but we would require at least two or three years to make surveys before starting construction.
A little later on, as indicated on the same page, the hon. member for Lambton West asked:
Q. Suppose you were granted a five year extension together with the year ahead of us, which would give you six years, could you complete the project in that time?
A. No, we could not. We would not be able to make our surveys and complete it.
Private Bills
As recorded on page 19-and this is the last I shall read-I asked the witness the following:
Q. Have you in mind any estimate of the time likely to be needed for this construction?
A. My understanding is that it would take at least six years.
Q. Would you feel justified in commencing the construction of the railway right away? I understood you to say earlier that the date of beginning construction depended upon exploration to be carried out in the northern territory.
A. There is nothing at the moment to justify the construction of a railway. Surveys show areas which may be suitable for mining development, but so far, as I said, we know of nothing which would justify beginning construction.
Q. So in addition to the six years you think it would take to complete the project you would need to have a period of time in which to consider whether it would be justified to begin construction?
A. It would take at least three years to locate sufficient tonnage.
I think the evidence before the committee makes clear beyond any doubt that a minimum of nine years would be required by the company. Mr. Durrell, the vice president, himself says that the five years proposed in this amendment is not sufficient. The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has mentioned in this house that the granting of this extension of ten years would give a stranglehold to this company. It is difficult for me to see how there can be any stranglehold when any other company could apply to this parliament for a charter to construct the railway.
The question was asked whether this company had an exclusive franchise, and of course the answer is no. There is nothing to prevent any other company from making application for a charter and constructing a railroad if it so desires. Under the Railway Act if any company did so, this company would be obliged to connect up with that railway and carry the goods south from Schefferville to Seven Islands.
My submission to the house is that it is introducing irrelevant circumstances to argue that our judgment on the question of the length of time should be affected by the question of who owns this company. The matter before the house is not as to whether it is a good or a bad thing for Americans to bring capital into this country. Perhaps I should mention that Mr. Durrell's evidence was that this railway company had spent $123 million in construction of the railway from Schefferville to Seven Islands. In addition, the Iron Ore Company of Canada had spent an additional $132 million. He gave a total figure of $255 million. Neither the railway company nor the Iron Ore Company has taken a cent out of this investment or received any return on it to date.


Mr. Cavers:: Like other hon. members who sat on this committee, I heard the evidence

Private Bills
that was adduced by Mr. Durrell, who was called as a witness for this company, and I think it must be accepted that his evidence was given in a very straightforward manner. He stated that in the beginning his company had shown great confidence in the area by investing large sums of money in the development of the iron ore area and in pushing the railway from Seven Islands to Schefferville.
He stated in his evidence that opportunity had been given to four Canadian insurance companies to invest in this development, and that the offers had not been accepted. So I feel that this company has shown its good faith in the development of the area by pushing the railway line from Seven Islands through to Schefferville during the first period of ten years.
The company now wishes to extend its line farther to Ungava bay, and it is not for its own purposes alone that it intends to do this. When questions were put to Mr. Durrell he said the railway would endeavour to carry any passengers and any other freight that was offered in that area; and it must do so under the provisions of transportation legislation in this country. The area has not yet been proved. As has been said by the hon. member for Trinity, it will be necessary for surveys to be conducted, taking over a period of three years, before this line can be undertaken. The completion of the line will take from five to six years, making a total of not less than eight years. I believe that reasonable businessmen would hesitate to undertake a proposition of this kind if they were limited to a period of five years during which they would be obliged to complete this portion of the line.
The bill says they must complete this portion of the line within a period of 10 years. I believe it is important to provide this type of transportation into the northern part of the province of Quebec. This company does not ask for a subsidy. It is not asking for the investment of any public moneys in this enterprise. All it asks is the opportunity to complete this line within a period of 10 years, which seemed reasonable to the majority of the members of the committee.


Mr. Hodgson:: Like the previous speakers, I sat on this committee. I was also a member of the committee in 1947 when this company came before this parliament originally to obtain a franchise to build this railroad. At that time the company assured the committee that 10 years was a long enough period to complete this railroad. In that respect they have not lived up to their obligation, but these things are sometimes estimated wrongly.
Nevertheless the company has built some 355 miles of this railroad at a cost to it of

$123 million. Like so many other companies in Canada, it is owned, controlled and operated by United States interests, and the ore, as we know, is being shipped to United States ports for use in the manufacture of steel in United States factories. This is one more example, as far as I can see, of this government giving control of a great land mass and a potential mining area into the hands of Americans. By owning the railroad and having built it over half the way, the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway Company has three strikes against any other company which might be a potential producer of minerals in that area.
The company has come back to parliament, and I understand the purpose of the bill is to extend the time limit for another 10 years. The members of the committee in 1947 were not all the same members of the present committee, but they were the same kind of people with the same thoughts. This committee will sit next year and five or six years from now whether or not the present members are still members of it, and I think those who are members at that time will be just as good thinkers, just as enlightened, and will have the interests and welfare of Canada just as much at heart as we have.
It seems to me that five years is long enough to extend the period of time when the company was so sure 10 years ago that they could build the whole line in 10 years. The present extension is to commence after 1957, and if they are given five years it will really mean that they will have six years to extend the railway. When Mr. Durrell was giving evidence to the committee he was asked this question by the hon. member for Lambton West, as found at page 18 of the proceedings of the committee:
Q. I wonder whether from your own knowledge or from the knowledge of your experts-supposing you were to start the railway extension-you could say how long it would take. Suppose, for example, you start next year.
A. It would take a minimum of four years unless of course we did something like we did on the other section, that is, flew in all our supplies at a fantastic cost.
This is the vice president of the company. He is a man who should know what he is talking about, and I think he does. He stated that they could build the railway in four years without going to the extra expense of flying in equipment and supplies. In another place in the evidence he also said that it would take two or probably three years for the surveys. That makes a total of six years. The amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would give the company their full quota of six years.
In any event, if the company made a reasonable start within the period of five or six

years and then came back to parliament again there is no doubt in my mind that the same committee and this same parliament would be willing to extend the time for two or three years or even five years more to allow them to complete the line. There are many other companies prospecting in that territory. Since the bill came before parliament the stock of one company has dropped about $1 a share. Probably they have been talking to some of the Liberal members who seem to be so interested in pushing through the 10-year extension.
As a Canadian I do not like to see a whole area of our country, probably 300 miles square, all of which is a potential mining area, tied up or handicapped in any way whatsoever by any company irrespective of the country from which it comes, and at the same time I think we as Canadians should protect and save some of our resources for the use and benefit of Canadians. It seems to me that year after year we have seen one bill after another of this type come before parliament. It appears that we are all too willing to hand over our resources to people from the United States.
This is probably a small matter compared with some of the bills that come before the house, but let us make a start now to conserve some of our natural resources and the wealth of this country for Canadians of the present and the future.


Mr. Gillis:: Mr. Chairman, before I get into
the main stream of the discussion on the bill I should like to say a few words respecting something that arose during the debate on second reading of the bill on Friday, March 2. The bill was sponsored by the hon. member for Saguenay. When the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra asked him to give an explanation of the bill he made that explanation in the French language. I happened to follow the gentleman who sponsored the bill, and when I rose to my feet I made this observation as found at page 1778 of Hansard:
... I listened to the explanation of the hon. member for Saguenay with a great deal of interest but very little comprehension. However, I imagine he would be at the same disadvantage if I addressed the house in my mother tongue, which is Gaelic, so I make no apologies for not understanding him.
That was more or less thrown in for kicks, Mr. Chairman. I imagine there is nobody in the house who is more tolerant on any subject than I am. I know that most of us who cannot speak French regret it, but we just did not happen to be born in a part of the world where it was necessary.
My main reason for raising this question, and I do not do this very often, has to do 67509-143
Private Bills
with an editorial that appeared in a Montreal paper, Le Matin, on March 12, 1956. The editorial in the French language was sent to me by a friend of mine in Montreal. I had it translated by one of the translators in the building, so there is nothing wrong with the translation. I want to read that editorial, Mr. Chairman, just to show how one can be misinterpreted.
The Depuiy Chairman: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the debate at the moment is on an amendment with respect to whether the time limit shall read 10 years or five years. I am not sure in my own mind whether the point which the hon. member for Cape Breton South wishes to raise is of the nature of a matter of personal privilege, in which case the committee of the whole is not the place for it, or whether, as I think is perhaps more likely, it deals with whether or not clause 1 of the bill shall pass in which case, not having heard the editorial, I would express the opinion that it might be in order on the clause but I do not think it is in order on the amendment. The hon. member, who has the editorial before him, will understand the point I am making and will most likely be able either to agree or disagree with me on that particular issue.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I could have raised this matter at the opening of the house on a question of privilege and held up the house when there was perhaps something important to come before it. I figured that this was a better place to waste time than on the orders of the day or at a time when the house was liable to be busy. It is a question of privilege and it has to do with the very debate as a result of which the bill was sent to the committee.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order. I hesitate to appear to be harsh with the hon. member, for whom the whole house has great affection and undoubtedly the house would like to see rectified on a question of privilege any matter concerning which the hon. member might feel he was injured. However, in view of the remarks he has just made, I feel it is my duty as chairman of the committee to rule that he would not be in order on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra, and I doubt if he would be in order in committee on a clause by clause discussion. But if his remarks deal with whether or not the bill as a bill should pass I am sure they would be in order in the debate on third reading of the bill. Perhaps others who have knowledge of the material that the hon. member has would like to express an opinion. At the moment it is my view that he is not in order in pursuing the matter.

Private Bills


Clarence Gillis: You have not heard it yet.


Edmund Davie Fulton: On a point of order, might I perhaps be allowed to say that it seems to me difficult to rule now that a matter arising directly out of a previous debate in connection with this bill would not be in order at this stage. Since the hon. member has gone this far, perhaps the best way to judge the matter, Mr. Chairman, would be if you were to permit him to continue to read the editorial. Then Your Honour would have it before you and the rest of us would have it before us, and a decision could be made. It seems to be difficult to decide these points until we know what the editorial is.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: From the remarks which have already been made by the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the introductory remarks in which he quoted part of the previous debate, I submit it is obvious to members that the editorial to which he refers does not deal with the question as to whether an extension of time should be for five years or for 10 years. We are in committee. But even though we are in committee on a private bill, and although some members might perhaps think we might relax a little bit under those circumstances, I still feel that I am bound by the standing order which states:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
The item or clause under consideration is the amendment that the word "ten" in line 3 of clause 1 be deleted and the word "five" substituted therefor.


Clarence Gillis: Mr. Chairman, I will just say this. This editorial is a falsification of the records of this house. If newspapers can take material that is put on record in this house and use it in any way they see fit out in the country, it is nearly time the members of this house found out about it. I am not going to pursue the matter any further now. You will get it on Monday, on a question of privilege.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: I do not like to butt into the speech of an hon. member on my own initiative but I think I should say that, under the circumstances which he has just described, it would be his duty to bring the matter before the house when the Speaker is in the chair, not when the house is in committee of the whole.


Clarence Gillis: How can you rule something out of order that you did not hear? It is not like you, Mr. Chairman. As a general rule you are a bit flexible and understanding. There is such a thing as getting a bad lunch sometimes.
rThe Deputy Chairman.]


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe he did not have any breakfast.


Clarence Gillis: With respect to the subject matter before the committee, namely an extension for 10 more years to the Quebec North Shore and Labrador Railway, may I say that of course the mistake that was made by this house was made in 1947 when the first franchise was granted. At that time I happened to be one of those who moved an amendment that the subject matter should go to a committee for the purpose of the committee studying it and determining whether or not the Canadian government should at least hold the transportation lines in that area in the interests of the Canadian people, as the province had already given away or leased the resource.
The 325 miles of that line have been completed and it is operating and making money, according to the evidence before the committee. The same company makes application to extend that line from Knob Lake to Ungava bay. Their lease does not expire until next year. They still have a year to go. They come before this committee and state that they are not sure whether a railroad is needed in there or not, that they have not made the survey and they do not know what is there. They say it may take them three to six years to do that survey. In the meantime, however, they have the whole area tied up so that no one else can go in there and do anything else with it.


George Carlyle Marler: I do not think that is right, surely.


Clarence Gillis: That is according to the evidence given before that committee, as I read it. If it will take them three years to do the survey and they still have another year to go, that is four years. This bill does not become operative until 1957. That means there are four years in which they do not have to do anything except survey. The hon. member down there mentioned six years; that it might take them six years before they are sure whether the line is necessary or not. In the meantime they may hold that lease for ten years and the survey may show that it would not be profitable to build the line in there for the purpose of taking out iron ore and so on. But in the meantime the franchise is let and the territory is tied up. If it is going to take them four years before they can determine whether a railway is needed, what is the hurry about the extension of the franchise? Why is everybody in such a hurry?
The hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra moved that we curtail the time to five years. I do not think his amendment is what it should be. It is cutting down the time all

right, but it does not provide that any construction should be commenced. I think he should have said "a time limit of five years with construction to commence within a reasonable time". I think even five years is too long to tie up a whole area like that. Someone else may want to go in there.
As I said when the bill was up for second reading, as far as I am concerned the iron ore resources have been leased by the province. We could not do anything about that matter. But in my judgment the future of steel is tied up with these iron ore resources in Newfoundland, and steel is basic to the whole economy of this North American continent which is a highly industrialized section of the world. The country that controls those huge resources in the future is going to control the future of the North American continent.
I believe the Canadian people should have had some stake in that area, but the province has leased the territory. The mining companies built mining towns, and they are run as mining towns. They own the transportation system in the area. This is our last chance, I believe. I know that the Canadian National Railways have done a good job this past year. They made a profit for the first time in many years. They have streamlined their operations. I think it is still not too late for us to consider whether or not we should give the Canadian National Railways an opportunity of going into that area and at least holding 300 miles of railroad as a stake in the right of the Canadian people.
Transportation has a great deal to do with the development of an area. If the Canadian National Railways were in there, with the facilities and the research experts they have, and if they built that road, they might develop the area in the interests of the Canadian people. As for myself, I think that suggestion should still be given consideration. I do not think we should even tie that area up for five years, in the hands of people whose main interest in this country is not inspired by patriotism or a desire for the development of the country. Rather their interest is to siphon off its raw materials and sell them back to us at the highest possible price. That is my opinion.
The five years is a modification of what the bill asked for, but I still do not like the idea of handing over completely 635 miles of railroad line to people who are largely financing that undertaking with United States capital and, who are in my judgment, tapping the very life stream of North America in these iron ore resources.
I believe we should still consider giving the Canadian National Railways an opportunity of going in there and building a line.
67509-143J
Private Bills
If the line becomes unprofitable in the years that lie ahead, certainly it will be unloaded on the Canadian National and they will have to pay the bill. I think now is the time to give them a chance to go in there and do some development work. I hope that before this bill finally passes, the minister or someone will tell us whether or not the Canadian National Railways were ever given an opportunity to bid on it. Could they do it, and would they? I know they could because they have the facilities. I still think they are the people who should build that line.
I will vote for the amendment because five years is better than 10 if you are doing to tie up the territory without any assurance of development so far as the railway is concerned. This merely gives them the right to hold that area pending their exploration, and 10 years from now they may tell you they are not going to build the line there at all. I have given my opinion, and I do not wish to delay the house any longer. However, I hope you are in the chair on Monday, Mr. Chairman, when I rise on a question of privilege to straighten the record of this house on the first part of this debate.


Mr. Byrne:: At the outset I want to say that if the Canadian National Railways are going to undertake any large extensions within the next few years there are definite areas in which ore bodies of lead, zinc and so on have been established, and in which those extensions should be undertaken. In my opinion the Canadian National should not be permitted to go into the far northern part of Quebec to build a railway when another company has already undertaken to do so.
My principal reason for rising is that I resent Conservative members taking the attitude that when government suporters are not prepared to force free enterprise into some project that is not economic at the moment, they are in effect selling Canada short and selling out our resources to huge United States companies. It looks as though the only people in this house who have any sympathy now for capital and the great things it is doing for our country are the people on this side of the house.


Mr. Bell:: United States capital.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: The Social Credit party apparently does show some consideration for capital, and just as long as they leave out the funny money aspect I believe they do know the economic facts of life.
Some hon. members have referred to United States capital. Certainly United States capital is coming in. Capital represents an

Private Bills.
accumulation of labour, and capital investment in this country can do nothing but raise the standard of living for the working people. I first read this type of discussion in the Toronto Tribune. If we in this country were to be judged by association, as they are in the United States, I would probably be known as a communist. I want to say that this type of thought originated with the labour progressive party. It is nonsense to talk about capital coming in and taking out the resources of this country. It is developing the country, and I for one am going to support this.


Mr. Stuart (Charlotte):: May I ask the hon. member a question?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes.


Andrew Wesley Stuart: Where is the raw
material coming from for that enormous development in Kitimat?


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Yes, that is a very good question. It comes from South America and is being manufactured in this country. We have heard so much nonsense here that perhaps I am speaking a little bit strongly. This company has spent a large amount to build the railway to Schefferville, because it was necessary in building up the project. Most of the transportation of supplies was done by air. They have shown that the line will be a very expensive project. The terrain is very difficult, and no one showed that it was economic to move ahead at this time. If the line were completed to Ungava it would mean that the iron ore would be going out through Ungava for export. The objection the Conservative party has is that this ore is going out of Canada for manufacture. Certainly if the line were completed to Ungava the iron ore would be exported, because it is unlikely that it would be brought away around by water down to Canadian ports. These hon. members are inconsistent.
I would take more time and say more if it were not for the fact I should like to see this bill passed this afternoon.


Edward Turney Applewhaite: Is the house ready for the question?


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Six o'clock.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: May I call it six
o'clock, Mr. Chairman?
Clause stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: As I said last night, Mr. Speaker, Monday will be private members' day. On Tuesday, we shall take second

reading of the Canadian Farm Loan Act; second reading of the Industrial Development Bank Act, and as hon. members will recall I said that both of these would go to the banking and commerce committee. Then we shall take the resolution with respect to the trans-Canada highway.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister tell us yet
when it is intended that the debate on the budget will be resumed? Will it be before Easter or after?


Walter Edward Harris: I am sorry, but I cannot be
positive about it. I will hope to be by Monday.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
IN "montreal-matin"
Clarence Gillis: May I have the indulgence of the house a minute or two, Mr. Speaker, to do something that will save time on Monday? Hon. members heard my reference to this editorial which, in my judgment, falsifies the records of this house. If I have your permission to continue, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I may say that I have already placed on the record the short paragraph upon which this editorial was based. The article was sent to me from Montreal by a friend of mine, and I have had it translated. It is from the Montreal newspaper Matin and is dated March 12, 1956. I am going to read this just to show hon. members how badly editors can twist discussions in the house. It starts off like this, "Mr. C. Gillis and the French Language"; that is the caption. The article reads:
A little more than a year ago, a group of C.C.F. members, Messrs. Regier, Argue, Winch, Maclnnis, and even the great leader, Mr. Coldwell, delivered on Maillardville and the province of Quebec a series of speeches which proved once more that this party does not forgive us our anti-socialist attitude.
According to those people, it was clear that we should expect straightforward centralization.
And, now to celebrate the anniversary of this demonstration of hatred against us, another C.C.F. member, Mr. Clarence Gillis declared-
I want you to note that word "declared".
-that the advent of a socialist government would mean not only one government, but also one language.
There was no declaration along those lines.
A member from the province of Quebec, Mr. Lomer Brisson (Saguenay), had just explained in French the purpose of a certain bill. After he had finished talking, Mr. Gillis rose to say that he had listened to the explanation of his colleague with a great deal of interest, but very little comprehension. "However," he added, "I imagine he would be at the same disadvantage if I addressed the house in my mother tongue, which is Gaelic, so I make no apologies for not understanding him."



IS, 1956

[Stage Direction]
As I explained a few moments ago that observation was thrown in for kicks. It was put in a jocular manner.
Walter Edward Harris: And was so taken by everyone.


Clarence Gillis: I think everyone in the house understood that. The report continues:
If Mr. Gillis has no apologies to make because he did not understand the French-speaking member, he should not boast about it. And he shows a wrong attitude and a strange spirit of Canadian citizenship when he compares French with Gaelic and puts them on the same level. I
I am sure my Scottish friends will like that. It says further:
Gaelic is a foreign language in Canada, but French is not. We know that Mr. Gillis is a highly experienced politician, and he is certainly aware that the rights of the French language were
Privilege-Mr. Gillis
guaranteed by the Quebec Act and the British North America Act; he was merely being impertinent when he spoke thus.
A year ago, Mr. Coldwell, the leader of the C.C.F. party, stated, after the blunders which he and his party members had made, that his party would be the first one to defend the present status of the two official languages of parliament. It seems that Mr. Gillis does not share this opinion.
The only comment I have to make, Mr. Speaker, is that all ethnic groups have their quotas of screwballs and it seems they are not lacking in certain sections of this country.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should not pay too much attention to that newspaper.


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 282*-Mr. Purdy:
1.	Did the department of public printing and stationery have certain work in respect to printing, binding, lithographing and other work done outside the printing bureau for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1955?
2.	If so, what was the value of such work and the amount allocated to concerns in each province?
Answer by: Mr. Pinard:
1.	Yes.
2.	Value $4,048,307. Allocated to concerns
in each province:
Alberta	$	10,722
British Columbia	 3,081
Manitoba	 50,728
New Brunswick	 71,746
Newfoundland	 805
Nova Scotia	 8,414
Ontario	 2,751,482
Prince Edward Island	 1,200
Quebec	 1,134,050
Saskatchewan	 8,585

Mr. Argue: 1. What quantities of United States flax were imported into Canada, during each month since August 1, 1955?
2. What duty, if any, was collected in each of these months?
Answer by: Mr. Howe (Pori Arthur):
1 and 2. Imports of flax (item 1751) from United States:
Month	Bushels Duty collected
August 1955	
46,267	$ 4,628September	
15,531	1,553October	
-	-November	
-	-December	-	-January 1956 .... 123,613p.	12,361p.
p-preliminary.


CASE NO. 41  SUPREME COURT APPEAL
Mr. Knowles: 1.	Did the Minister of National Revenue appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada against the judgment of the Exchequer Court of Canada, dated July 31. 1952, in the case of No. 41 (or Mr. "W") v. the Minister of National Revenue?
2.	If so, was this appeal withdrawn?
3.	What was the basis of settlement under which the appeal was withdrawn?
Answer by: Mr. McCann:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	There was no settlement. The decision of the exchequer court was allowed to stand and the appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada was withdrawn on the advice of the deputy attorney general of Canada.

Monday, March 19, 1956


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. P. Cavers (Lincoln) presented the first report of the sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.