1957-03-12

STANDING ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
First report of standing committee on standing orders.-Mr. Harrison.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance, directing his attention to the advice tendered yesterday apparently in a political way to the Canadian banking system. In view of the statement of the governor of the Bank of Canada to the effect that in making an announcement he was sticking out his political neck, does this mean that Canada's financial and fiscal policy is to be determined by the Bank of Canada rather than by parliament? And is it appropriate that the governor should announce changes in the effective operation of the Bank Act where those announcements and suggestions govern policy? It seems passing strange that the Canadian banking system-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John George Diefenbaker: -which has always been the envy of the world, should be subject to such interpretations at a time like this.


Hon. W. E. Harris (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that the Canadian banking system has been highly regarded and is, indeed, the envy of the world. That, I think, is due in part at least to the activity of the Bank of Canada and to the support and assistance that the bank has given to the chartered banks from time to time and also to the policy of the government over the past 20-odd years.
My understanding is that the governor of the Bank of Canada has written a letter to the chartered banks suggesting certain questions for discussion at a meeting which has been called for Thursday, and I do not want to comment on the suggestions contained in the letter because, surely, one can make suggestions for discussion without its being
assumed that it is government policy, or that it is the intention to try to carry out these particular suggestions in the form in which they are put in the letter. In so far as the remark attributed to the governor of the bank is concerned, that he was "sticking out his political neck", I have not seen the report or heard of it in any form. I have to accept the hon. gentleman's word that it was said, and I have no comment if it was.


Mr. Alistair Stewart (Winnipeg North):: Would the minister arrange to table a copy of the letter in the house?


Walter Edward Harris: I do not see any point in tabling in the House of Commons a letter written by the governor of the Bank of Canada to the chartered banks with respect to discussions which are about to be held with them. The governor has no power to change the Bank Act and if there are changes to be made in the Bank Act they will be recommended to parliament by the Minister of Finance.


John George Diefenbaker: Is there no significance in the fact that it is Thursday, the day of the budget, that the bankers are going to be met by the governor of the Bank of Canada? In addition, I wish to ask the minister this question: Is it government policy that the shortage of mortgage moneys might be avoided-should be avoided-by the use of savings deposits?


Walter Edward Harris: There is no significance about Thursday being the occasion for the meeting except that no doubt we will have the pleasure of having advice from the chartered bank representatives about matters of public concern.
So far as policy is concerned, with respect to housing, I said yesterday in answer to similar questions that I did not make declarations of policy on housing, but I would suggest we await the outcome of this to see if any proposal should be advanced by the government when it has decided on policy.


John George Diefenbaker: Parliament may have to wait, but the press did not in the statement the governor made. Does the government agree that the recent shortage of mortgage money should be met by the use of savings in the chartered banks?


Walter Edward Harris: I am not sure which it was, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition read "could" first, and then "should". There is no question at all that the shortage of housing

Inquiries of the Ministry could be met in this manner. Whether or not it ought to be will be the subject of discussion on Thursday.


Mr, Donald M. Fleming (Eglinton):: May I
ask if what has been attributed to Mr. Coyne is or is not government policy? Was the government privy to this matter before Mr. Coyne initiated it in a communication to the
banks?


Walter Edward Harris: As I said yesterday, the government is always considering what can be done and what should be done in circumstances as they develop. These thoughts are not original with the governor of the Bank of Canada; I think they have been held by a great many people in Canada and particularly by members of parliament who have urged this course upon us. I am not suggesting we are adopting it.


Mr. Fleming:: The minister has not answered my question. Will he state whether Mr. Coyne's proposal to the chartered banks does or does not represent government policy, and, secondly, was the government privy to the proposal made by Mr. Coyne to the chartered banks?


Walter Edward Harris: The easiest way to answer that is that I have not read the letter yet, and I do not know whether this is the proposal.


Mr. Harkness:: You've read the paper.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the action taken by the governor a form of kite flying on the part of the government to get a reaction?


Walter Edward Harris: The government is quite capable of doing its own kite flying, if necessary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Is the government capable of answering the two simple questions that I asked? Let us get down to the questions.


Walter Edward Harris: In all modesty, Mr. Speaker, I think we are very capable.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Why do you not answer the questions then? You run away from them.


Mr. Carl O. Nickle (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister state whether or not the banker quoted on the front page of this morning's Globe and Mail was making a statement of fact or opinion when he said that adoption of the proposals of the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Coyne, would place the chartered banks of Canada in the position of being office boys for Ottawa?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, first not having read the letter, as I said before, that the governor of the Bank of Canada sent to the banks, I am not in the position to decide whether it would be fact or opinion; but even if I had I would be giving an opinion.



BANK OF CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister tell the house if in his opinion and that of the government, in the light of the latest report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, it will be possible to impose effective controls on inflationary pressures without imposing control over importations of capital from outside the Canadian economy?


Walter Edward Harris: It is a matter of opinion, of course, whether controls can be imposed on the economy without controlling the import of capital. Do I take it that my hon. friend is suggesting that we should control the importation of capital?


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Mr. George H. Hees (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since he has read the annual report of the governor of the Bank of Canada, does the government agree or not agree with the statement made at page 14 in the third paragraph and which reads as follows:
. . . total spending of all kinds in 1956 . . . was at least $1 billion greater than would have been desirable from the point of view of general stability and sound economic growth.
Does the government agree with that statement?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house would not expect me to agree with every statement contained in the long and comprehensive report made by the governor of the Bank of Canada. On the other hand, if the hon. member opposite feels that the governor should not be in a position to express his opinions freely, it seems to me that he is not in a position to discharge the duties that parliament imposes upon him and to earn the pay he receives.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the minister please answer my direct question? Does he agree with the statement?


An hon. Member:: He has answered.


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to answer the question by pointing out that I have said at least once a week now for the

last three or four weeks that questions should not be asked about opinions but about facts.



OWNERSHIP OF LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Charles E. Rea (Spadina):: May I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Will the government, during this session, take action to implement the recommendation of the superintendent of insurance referred to on page 29 of his last report? The recommendation to which I refer calls for legislation to retain ownership of life insurance companies in Canada.


Walter Edward Harris: The question of the ownership of life insurance companies in Canada, I take it, refers to the ownership of the shares of the company. The superintendent of insurance did make the report to which my hon. friend has referred and we have been considering the report, but have not as yet come to any conclusion as to whether or not we should recommend to parliament amendments at this session.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard C. Green (Vancouver-Quadra):: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Pickersgill:: Leaders' day.


Howard Charles Green: What stand is the government taking on Nasser's further humiliation of Canada in refusing permission for the landing in Egypt of Canadian reinforcements?


Right Hon. L. S. St. Laurent (Prime Minister):: There has been no further humiliation of Canada which requires any stand to be taken by the Canadian government. I think these questions would be dealt with better by a comprehensive statement that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be prepared to make at the opening of tomorrow afternoon's sitting.


Howard Charles Green: May I point out to the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Casselman:: Put the steamroller on. That is the way.


Howard Charles Green: -that this is a very serious matter involving-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: -more than one department, and I submit that the house and the people-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Howard Charles Green: -are entitled to have-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Howard Charles Green: *-an answer from the Prime Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman can complain about whether or not he has had a sufficient answer at some other time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, possibly the Prime Minister could answer this very simple question without the assistance of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is Egypt withholding permission for the landing of Canadian reinforcements for the hard-pressed United Nations emergency force in Gaza? Is that a fact or is it not? Why should we have to wait until tomorrow for an elongated and explanatory statement? Why can that not be answered today?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, these questions cannot be answered just by a yes or no. There have been very conflicting reports about this matter. The last report we have is that there are no reinforcements yet at Naples. The first group left by air this morning. It was to have left yesterday morning but it left by air this morning. Its instructions are to remain in Naples until it gets a request from the United Nations emergency force commander to proceed from Naples to Egypt.
There have been negotiations about that resulting from the conflicting reports that have been published in the newspapers. The last dispatch I saw from our ambassador was to the effect that the sort of misunderstanding had been cleared up on representations that had been made by Dr. Bunche on the formal instructions he had received from the secretary general.


John George Diefenbaker: Was it Nasser who was under the misunderstanding?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I have had no dealings with Nasser and do not propose to have any. There was a report of something that one public relations officer was supposed to have said which was displayed to the world as startling information and gave the occasion for hon. gentlemen opposite to ask these questions about it.


John George Diefenbaker: To try to get the truth.
2110	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not on the spot and I cannot from minute to minute tell you what the developments have been. In order to feel that we are giving you something that has been communicated to us by sources we rely upon, we get that information; and it is that information that I think it would be in the interest of the house and of the public to have given in a comprehensive statement of the various steps that have been taken and the result of those steps.


Howard Charles Green: Why could not the Prime
Minister call in the Egyptian ambassador to Canada and find out?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. gentleman is the prime minister of Canada he will adopt what he thinks is the best course to follow. While I am the Prime Minister I am going to take the course which I think is the best one and which will result in achievements, not merely in partisan suggestions and criticisms.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, has the Canadian government made any protest to Egypt against her taking over administration of the Gaza strip?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that will be dealt with in this comprehensive statement which will be made tomorrow. I do not think we should have at the question period a general debate on all these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Instead of providing an
ex parte opportunity for a statement on the part of the minister that cannot be answered or discussed in any way, would the Prime Minister say when an available day or days would be provided for the discussion of foreign affairs so that we could find out the facts which we cannot find out today, being obliged to depend upon news dispatches of what ministers say outside the house to the detriment of the opposition.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be very anxious that time be found to have a three or four hour debate on external affairs. We are endeavouring to see if that cannot be arranged without interfering with other arrangements that have been made with the opposition-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, we have been asking for it.


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: -in connection with the debate on the budget.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.'



MIDDLE EAST


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hayden Slanlon (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to wait for an announcement from the United States government concerning the Suez and Gaza strip situation?


Right Hon.  L. S.@: No, Mr. Speaker.




[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and in so doing may I say to him that I am not quite certain of my wording. However, it is a matter which has disturbed me greatly. My question is this: In view of the disturbed situation in the Middle East and the fact that Canada has a great many troops there, can the Prime Minister inform us as to what instructions the government or the United Nations have given and what is the position of our troops in being able to defend themselves while acting under the orders of the United Nations?
Second, in view of a recent decision of this house in connection with a loan having to do with the clearance of the Suez canal and the decision of Nasser that only certain ships are to be permitted to go through the canal, what position is the government taking on that matter?
I may be a little out of order, but primarily I am interested in having the Prime Minister tell us just what is the position of our Canadian troops and would they have the right to fire if they are attacked, acting as they are under United Nations emergency force jurisdiction.
Right Hon. L. S. SI. Laurenl (Prime
Minisler): I hope the hypothesis suggested by the hon. member will never arise. As to discussions about this I will ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to include these matters in the statement he proposes to make.


Harold Edward Winch: And also as to passage through the canal?


Mr.   Si. Laurenl@Quebec Easl: We will
endeavour to have all these matters contained in the statement and to give the house information which will bring it up to the point where we are ourselves concerning these matters.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the Prime Minister if that will be done in such a way that there can be a debate?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I understand that there has already been discussion with the hon. gentleman with regard to choosing the time for that debate and I hope it can be arranged. I think it would be much preferable for hon. members, for the house and for the country to have this take place in a manner that would not just be an exchange of questions and answers such as occurs on the orders of the day.


Howard Charles Green: Or a one-sided statement by the minister.


Harold Edward Winch: If a Canadian soldier is fired on can he fire back?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: If hon. members do not want that kind of debate all they need do is to refrain from taking part in it and it will take much less time that way.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alistair McLeod Stewart: May
I ask the Minister of National Defence this question. Is it the intention of the government to reduce and streamline Canadian defence requirements in view of changes in other countries, particularly in the United Kingdom?


Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of National Defence):: I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As a matter of fact, a similar question was asked, I think on February 14, by the hon. member for Assiniboia. My answer at that time was, and still is, that we are constantly studying the condition and strength of our forces and, keeping in mind all the relevant factors, we are making changes as changes appear to be warranted. As a matter of fact, I have announced changes in the house on one or two occasions recently. Beyond that I do not think it is opportune to make statements on defence policy on the orders of the day.



UNITED NATIONS EMERGENCY FORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Would the Minister of National Defence say what is or was the scheduled destination and time of arrival of the Canadian reconnaissance squadron in the Middle East?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Ralph Osborne Campney: The personnel of the reconnaissance squadron is being flown over in three flights. The first flight was intended to have left yesterday but was held up because of weather conditions at Gander and left this morning. The second flight leaves, weather permitting, tomorrow morning, and the third flight on the following morning. The equipment has already left by ship but it will be some time before it arrives.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Perhaps the minister misapprehended my question. I asked what is or was the scheduled destination and time of arrival in the Middle East.


Ralph Osborne Campney: I can only say, if I understand what the hon. member is now asking, that the flights I have mentioned will go to the Capodichino base near Naples. When the personnel have landed at Naples they will then be under the United Nations emergency force jurisdiction and their movements from there on will be as directed.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a supplementary question. Before this squadron left Canada was there no definite arrangement made as to where it was to go in the Middle East, and when it was to get there?


Ralph Osborne Campney: The necessary arrangements were made, and cleared, to send the unit to the United Nations emergency force base, and that is being done.


Mr. Pearkes:: What aircraft is being used to transport these forces?


Ralph Osborne Campney: I think North Stars are being used but there may be some C-119's.


George Randolph Pearkes: They are R.C.A.F.?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Yes, they are R.C.A.F. [Later:]


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further question to the Minister of National Defence. Was no definite plan put up to the Canadian government in regard to the employment of this reconnaissance squadron by the United Nations and by General Burns before it was dispatched? In other words, is it not a fact that a definite plan of some kind was put up?


Ralph Osborne Campney: Mr. Speaker, the reconnaissance squadron, which is the subject of the hon. member's question, was requested through the United Nations by the commander in chief of the UNEF in Egypt, and the request was acceded to. There was no specific plan involved as to where it would go or when

Inquiries of the Ministry it would go. We are simply complying with the request made by the commander of UNEF through the United Nations.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. A. Enfield (York-Scarborough):: May
I ask the Minister of Transport if he has received protests, such as I have received here, from employees of the Canadian National Railways regarding inequities in the recently negotiated employees' health and welfare plan as between organized and unorganized workers? If so, is he prepared to make any comment?


Hon. George C. Marler (Minister of Transport):: Some representations have been made to me by representatives of the Canadian government railways employees' relief and insurance association. The hon. member for Colchester-Hants and the hon. member for Westmorland have also made representations to me in connection with the employees' health and welfare plan, but I have not received anything that I think could be described as a protest.


Mrs. Ellen L. Fairclough (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, which arises out of an answer he just gave to a previous question. Has there been any change in the payroll deductions for purposes of the employees' relief and insurance association on behalf of employees of the Canadian National Railways subsequent to January 10 and January 15, when this question was put to the minister and on which he gave an answer at that time?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that no change has since been made, but the whole subject is now under consideration as a result of the discussions between the union and the management concerning health and welfare plans.


Ellen Louks Fairclough: May I ask the minister when he expects this problem will be solved and when he expects to make a statement to the house?


George Carlyle Marler: I was not proposing to make any statement to the house inasmuch as the matter does not come under the minister but under the direction of the management of Canadian National Railways. I assume that if any statement requires to be made it will be made by the railway company.
[Mr. Campney.l



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. D. Shaw (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, of which notice has been given. In view of the alarm expressed by the 14,000 members of the central Alberta dairy pool with respect to the importation of New Zealand and Australian dairy products into Canada, does the government consider that there exists a need for tariff increases to protect the Canadian support price structure?


Walter Edward Harris: Mr. Speaker, I would not know why the word "alarm" has been used because, so far as I know, there has been no particular change recently in the position either of the price level of dairy products in Canada or of the threat of imports of dairy products from abroad. However, the question of the amount of tariff on imports of dairy products has been a matter of considerable concern to the dairy industry in Canada, and what I have just said would only indicate that there has been no increased concern in recent weeks because it has been a matter of concern over the past several months. The government is considering the representations which have been made by the dairy industry through the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and the farmers union.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. What is the answer of the federal government to the suggestion of Premier Campbell of Manitoba that no action be taken in connection with the recent report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning a combine in the sugar industry in western Canada? Is it not up to the federal government to decide what action to take under the Combines Investigation Act?


Hon. Stuart S. Garson (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada has received no such representations from Premier Campbell.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister

say whether the government has decided to take action as recommended in the report to which I referred?


Stuart Sinclair Garson: Mr. Speaker, the decision to take action will, in this case, as in all such cases, be based upon the opinion of outside counsel, which is now being sought.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Stephen St-Laurent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to answer a question asked yesterday by the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Patterson). His question was:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of what must obviously be inaccurate reports to the effect that Canada's gift to Ghana consisted of an oil painting and ten roll-up maps whose reverse sides would come in handy as screens for movies or slides, would the Prime Minister indicate to the house whether a gift was made from this the senior member of the British commonwealth to Ghana and, if so, what was the nature of that gift?
The answer is that a gift was made by Canada to Ghana. The gift consisted of an oil painting by the well-known Canadian artist, Stanley Cosgrove, A.R.C.A., entitled "Fall Colours-Mount Royal". The choice of the painting was approved by the director of the national gallery. It has been presented by the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys to Dr. Nkrumah and it is understood that the painting will be hung in the official residence of the Prime Minister of Ghana.
The maps to which the hon. member referred were maps of Canada especially prepared by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for informal presentation to government departments, schools and institutions in Ghana. A number of books on Canada were also presented to a number of appropriate institutions. In addition, the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys presented a silver cigarette box to the Asantehene during his visit to the Ashanti region.



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Carl Olof Nickle: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Have the minister and his department been able to complete their examination of legislation recently passed by the Alberta legislature providing for the payment of so-called dividends to
Committee on Railways and Shipping Alberta citizens, a copy of which legislation I provided yesterday to the minister? If so, could the minister now indicate whether or not these so-called dividends will be subject to federal income tax on the same basis as dividends paid by private corporations?


Hon. J. J. McCann (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the departmental officials are working on a statement with reference to the matter about which the hon. member has inquired, and I shall present it tomorrow.



REFERENCE TO REPORTED DATE OF FORTHCOMING ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is it a fact as reported in the press that the government has advanced by one week, from June 17 to June 10, the date on which it is proposed to recommend to the governor general that the forthcoming general election be held?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: It is not the press that will fix the date of the next general election. When it is fixed it will have been fixed in the constitutional manner and will be announced in the constitutional way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister indicate the election date to the house in advance of the closing of the session, as he did in 1949?


Louis Stephen St-Laurent: I hope I shall be able to do so.



RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


George Carlyle Marler: That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding Standing Order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee to consist of Messrs. Bell, Byrne, Carter, Cavers, Follwell, Fulton, Gauthier (Lake St. John), Gillis, Hahn, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace), Hamilton (York West), Hanna, Harrison, James, Johnston (Bow River), Knight, Lavigne, Legare, McCulloch
2114	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping (Pictou), Mitchell (Sudbury), Murphy (Westmorland), Nowlan, Power (Quebec South), Richardson, 3t. Laurent (Temiscouata), and Weaver.
He said: The purpose of this motion is to provide for the appointment of a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. It is the intention this year, as was done last year, to refer to that committee the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines. I would like to take this occasion to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the sittings of this committee will offer to hon. members of this house who are members of the committee the opportunity of taking part in a review of the accounts of these three companies, and if I may judge from my own experience on the committee in previous sessions, I think I may say it has been the practice for the officials of these companies to give all members of the committee appropriate information with regard to the operations of the company in question.
Last year, I know, there was a very full discussion of the affairs of the three companies and I think the general impression was that the discussion had been enlightening, full and frank, and that it had served a very useful purpose. In moving this motion today I hope we will have the same kind of meetings, and I can assure hon. members that so far as the two companies which come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport are concerned I will try to give as full information as is required.


Mr. John B. Hamilton (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think anyone need apologize for speaking annually in connection with this motion because of course, at least those of us who have been on this committee regard it as the most important committee that sits during the session of the house.
I think, too, that it is a very gratifying experience to have the opportunity of reviewing once a year the operations of our national railway, our national steamship line and our national air line. I think that this covers a group of employees which is probably the largest single group we find in any part of Canada. I think, too, that the widespread operations involved in the three separate corporations also concern more of the people of the country than those of any other type of enterprise. Of course, sir, I might say as well that we are living in a very fluid period as far as transportation matters are concerned, and I think it is vitally important that we on this committee
(Mr. Marler.l

should have access to all the information which affects the over-all transportation picture.
I have spent a considerable amount of time in the past speaking in connection with air transport problems, but I must say, Mr. Speaker, that those problems which affect transportation by rail and by steamship are still of vital importance to me and, I think, to the whole country. I was most interested to read an article by Mr. Norman Campbell in the Montreal Herald of February 27 of this year which indicates how quickly things are changing in the transportation world. Mr. Campbell was referring to an article which covered an interview with the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon, which took place recently in Prince Rupert. This is what he said:
In an interview at Prince Rupert, B.C., Mr. Gordon forecast that the railways will lose out to the jet age in the competition for long-distance passenger business. Transcontinental trains will be just too slow.
Rail passenger service, predicted Mr. Gordon, would be operated only on short inter-city runs that would be uneconomical for jet transportation.
The C.N.R. is already hauling in its wings on plans for passenger equipment. It has no immediate plans for further purchases of the de luxe equipment which now runs on the SuperContinental and the Ocean Limited. Only passenger service cars which may be ordered are a few more dinettes. The C.N.R. has found these meet a popular demand and lead to economies for everybody.
Those are the words of one of the most eminent authorities on rail transportation in North America-an indication that in the lifetime of most of us here we will see the passing from the scene of the de luxe transcontinental railway trains that we now read so much about. With that, of course, will come increasing problems not just for the railways but also for the air lines, and, perhaps, problems of policy to be faced by this house.
Since the last meeting of the committee dealing with the three corporations in question, we have seen some change in connection with the government's handling of air transportation matters. The minister has indicated that Canadian Pacific Air Lines has been licensed to handle the overseas service Toronto-Montreal-Lisbon, and I think at the same time he indicated it will have prior rights to carry on that service to Madrid as soon as arrangements can be worked out with the Spanish government. He was most careful to inform the house that this meant no change in the over-all government policy of designating the national air line as the primary carrier to European points. On the other hand, it seems to me that this policy does reflect a major change in connection with the operation of this type of service from Canada

because, Mr. Speaker, I recall that last year the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) who has under his wing, as one of the many sidelines he looks after here, Trans-Canada Air Lines, indicated to me in the house that he did not anticipate, or was doubtful, that flights would originate from the interior of continental America and proceed directly to points overseas. Perhaps he was indicating that he felt an intermediate stop would always be made at some point on the coast of this country, but it seems to me that we have had one major change, which is, as the minister has indicated now, that flights may originate in the interior of the country with a destination in Europe. This has had one effect in connection with the operation of the government air line. Up to the present time it has been assured the patronage of all domestic passengers to a port of embarkation for air transport overseas. With this change it will now lose its preferential position in connection with passengers who may be flying from Toronto, in this case, and perhaps, with an extension of this policy, from other points in Canada.
I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if this government is attempting to gloss over a major problem as to when, where and how, a system of regional competition with our national air carrier will be introduced at the earliest moment? I am wondering if there is not an indication here of a final abdication of authority by the air transport board. I think we look to this board as the determining authority with regard to the type of licence issued for operations, but at the present time it would appear that the two major air lines operating in the country in concert with the Minister of Trade and Commerce or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler) have reached the position where they may divide up the spoils of the operation, if I may use that term, but without creating an opportunity for those main line companies that exist just below their level.
Within the last year or two we have seen the trading by Trans-Canada Air Lines of its run from Toronto to Mexico and thence to South America to Canadian Pacific Air Lines. We have also seen Canadian Pacific Air Lines give up its Montreal-Quebec service. We have heard more recently about the giving up of some service in the middle part of the country. But it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that all these changes have been arranged outside the orbit of the usual method of handling these problems, and we now have superimposed over the authority of the air transport board the desires and wishes of the two major air lines in concert with ministerial or cabinet decision.
Committee on Railways and Shipping
If that is going to be the pattern in the future, I am wondering whether what has taken place is simply a desire on the part of the national air line for a continuing monopolistic situation and therefore we have had some type of grand agreement between the two major carriers to carve up their spheres of influence, their areas of operation without any regard for the rights either of the body created by the government to regulate these problems or for the air lines from one end of the country to the other which are operating on the level below that of the two major air lines. If this is to be the case, I think we are faced with a very serious problem with respect to the opportunities to improve air transportation in Canada and, by the way, we need it probably much more than any other country on earth.
We are missing an opportunity to improve the air transportation necessary to the far northern areas of the country if we are to reap the benefit of expansion there which we cannot otherwise attain, and as a matter of fact we are probably relegating these other companies to a role of filling some contractual demand for services perhaps designed to help the United States in the construction of the D.E.W. line.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a point of order. I think the hon. gentleman ought to realize that what we are discussing here is a motion to set up a committee to consider the accounts, estimates and bills relating thereto of three companies, among them Trans-Canada Air Lines. To the extent that the discussion is relevant to the accounts of Trans-Canada Air Lines I think no objection can be taken, but if I understand what the hon. gentleman is doing he is attempting to review the question of air transport policy in general.
I should like to point out that the hon. gentleman has a motion on the order paper for that purpose and that he will also have a very full opportunity to discuss the same questions when the estimates of my department are before the committee of supply, but it seems to me that it is inappropriate now to be discussing these major questions of policy in regard to a motion which concerns the accounts only of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is not that I object to the subject being discussed but I do not think that it is relevant to the motion now before the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: In
connection with the point of order raised by the Minister of Transport, when the hon. member for York West was speaking I read the resolution and I of course noticed the reference to Trans-Canada Air Lines. I do think that any discussion of the air transport
2116	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping policy of the government in so far as it relates to Trans-Canada Air Lines is certainly in order, but if one were to go on to the next step and, to take a quotation from the hon. member, refer to the other main line companies which are in a lower bracket than Trans-Canada, then perhaps we have gone further than the motion would allow. If hon. members were to consider that they would have the right to discuss here anything that the committee we are going to set up would have the right to discuss and make recommendations on, I think we could not go too far afield.


John Borden Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I will try to relate my arguments to the position which Trans-Canada now holds and to its accounts which will be before the committee for review. I might say that when the minister raised his point of order he quoted two other grounds why he felt that I should not be allowed to continue. I think he knows as well as I do that the opportunity to debate the resolution which he has indicated is on the order paper is practically non-existent at this time. I am also wondering how great are the chances at this session of the house of discussing the minister's estimates before the session ends. In listening to the discussion of the point of order I have forgotten exactly where I was.


George Carlyle Marler: Start all over again.


John Borden Hamilton: But I will do my best to get back on the track. What I have been saying is that if we are faced with a situation where the government-operated air line, together with the next largest operator, Canadian Pacific Air Lines, and in concert with ministerial action, has removed the opportunity of others and has in fact given rise to a situation where the air transport board has abdicated its authority at this level, then obviously we can look for trouble in the future. So far as Trans-Canada Air Lines is concerned, it may mean that what might appear to be a very advantageous short range program could only have very serious effects on a long term basis because without the benefit of the many smaller operators in the country who can only survive and prosper if the lid is removed, then whether it be by the method I have suggested appears to be taking place or by any other method, in the long term picture the government-owned air line will not have the sources of revenue to build itself up for its future role in the jet age that is approaching.
I might say one other thing. It is most difficult for those on the committee to assess just how these corporations are carrying on on the straight basis of the production to us of a financial statement. We, of course, are
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite).]

allowed to examine the witnesses who are brought before us. I notice that the terms of reference contain the provision that we have the power to send for persons, papers and records. My personal experience last year indicated that we were empowered to send for persons, papers and records to which the minister might think we should have access, but when it came to the point of asking for other persons, papers and records that we might have wanted to examine, the wide freedom and latitude which appears in the motion seemed to disappear.
In connection with the remarks that I have made concerning the overall air transportation policy, I think it is about time that this committee not only be empowered to call expert witnesses from other air transportation companies but that it in fact call them. If there has been some design to circumvent the rulings or the authority or the power of the air transport board, it seems to me that we should call before us officers of any other company which might have taken part in connection with any agreement to exchange routes, or to work out detailed plans for an over-all division of the air transport picture. In connection with this year's hearings of the committee I would strongly suggest that such steps be taken.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the headlines which we have read, and which indicate that Trans-Canada Air Lines has reached a stage where the government-owned air line has a net surplus for the fifth or sixth succeeding year, would indicate that great thought and study should be given by the committee to an indication as to when some type of regional competition might be instituted. Having read the words of Donald Gordon, I think that we can foresee in the future the period when the railways will move out of this territory almost completely -that is on a national basis-and that the numbers of revenue passengers for a national air line are going to increase many times. Then of course, we will face the situation where the other railway company which will be giving up its passengers to air travel may rightly say, "If this situation is arising, it is time for us to be put into the national air picture for passenger services". I therefore say that, if the air transport board has not been removed from this picture, in holding our hearings we might suggest that we have evidence from it as to whether it would be advisable to institute a survey on a national level of the air passenger potential to determine at what period some type of competition might be instituted first on a regional basis and then as this proceeds for expansion on a national scale.

I might like to say just a few words also about the situation which confronts our national railway. Here we have probably the largest corporation that exists in Canada. It is one that I think most of us are really proud of. I think we have an inherent desire to see that it has every opportunity to succeed. I am only going to say this, Mr. Speaker, because I spoke on this point last year as well. It seems to me that in the examination of the accounts of Mr. Gordon and the national railway, we are now reaching a stage where we are going to be obliged to have a new formula to cover the financing of that great system. I believe that the executive is continually caught in a squeeze in which it is required to maintain a level of charges while at the same time it is met with ever-increasing costs. It appears to be time that when the president can come to the committee and say that the expenditures he is making or intends to make are prudent ones, that they are going to show a good return, he be given an opportunity to do that; but if in the process the railway cannot meet the fixed operating charges which are ever on the increase, then a greater degree of latitude is going to be required and there will have to be a removal of some of the very tight control which has been placed over the whole system.


George Carlyle Marler: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Borden Hamilton: Yes.


George Carlyle Marler: Would he mind illustrating those restrictions that he has just mentioned?


John Borden Hamilton: I do not think that is too difficult to do, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Gordon has come before us and he has indicated a need for an extension of the line. He has said that the capital amount required to build this line is X number of dollars. With present conditions he is quite convinced that he can carry on here, that he can build the line, can use this amount of money and can count on it that the present revenue will do the job. Yet within a few months from that time he may be faced with the necessity of meeting demands for increased wages and considerably increased costs of upkeep. What is he obliged to do? Immediately he faces a long term of requests to the board of transport commissioners to be allowed some freedom, to be allowed some increase in order to carry out a continuation of the operation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he reaches a stage where he is far behind and only gets caught up many months and sometimes years after, as a result of this type of very rigid control. It seems to me that the sooner we place the operations of the national railway
Committee on Railways and Shipping and those of all railways on the same basis as the operations of ordinary businesses, or as closely as possible to it, the better the chance we have of having efficiently and profitably run systems.
As a matter of fact, there are other people who are concerned and with very good reason. I think the employees feel that they are caught in a particular wedge. They see other wages rising and yet they know that when they deal with the management of their companies that management has already had a lid placed on it with regard to its ability to bargain in the usual course. I think you will find no body of workers as loyal to their institution as are the railway workers. I think that fact should be kept in mind in connection with their position. As a matter of fact, I always feel that there is one occasion here when I can say something about the ones closest to me at the moment, namely the employees of the railway at the Chateau Laurier here. They certainly make it one of the finest hotels in the country or in the world. I think they make it the best home away from home that we could find anywhere.
I am not going to say anything more at this time, Mr. Speaker. I feel that there will be opportunities afforded before this committee. I am hoping that the latitude which is set out here with regard to the calling of witnesses will have some practical results when the time to call them arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome this annual motion to set up a committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government. We feel that the government-owned operations referred to in this motion have a good story to tell. We think it is desirable that they should have the opportunity to appear before a committee of this house and tell that story. We also are of the opinion that since these operations are owned by the people of Canada, it is right and proper that the people's representatives in parliament should have an opportunity to examine the accounts and the affairs of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships and Trans-Canada Air Lines.
As the Minister of Transport would expect, I propose to devote the greater part of my few remarks on this motion to one particular subject which is still of great concern to some of us. Before I reach that subject, may I say a word on one or two other items by way of preliminary comment.
First of all, may I say with reference to the question of air transportation, which has been discussed to some extent by the hon. member for York West, that it is still our
2118	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping feeling, as it has been ever since the government laid down its policy in the field of civil aviation and as it was even before that policy was laid down, that this is a field, in Canada especially, that is particularly suited to public ownership. We are giving the government our continuing support in so far as it maintains the principle of public ownership in this field. If we have any criticism to offer it is that the government, at times, seems to relax its own declared policy. I refer to the policy announced in this house by the Minister of Trade and Commerce back in 1944 with regard to what was then referred to as post-war civil aviation.
It seems to me that last year the Minister of Transport answered the arguments that were put forward by my hon. friend the member for York West and others in that party very effectively when they called for a greater scope for private operators in the field of air transportation. As a matter of fact, I think his answers were so effective, and his figures were so convincing, that the hon. member for York West was not able to present his case today with the vigour he did a year ago. However, I would simply wish to say to the minister that we still support the position the government takes that this is a field where public ownership is appropriate. We congratulate Trans-Canada Air Lines on the job that it has done in this field, and we hope that its position will be kept strong by the supporters of the government.
There are two or three matters members of this group will want to raise and discuss in the committee. We do not need, therefore, to discuss them at length at this time. One of these matters will be the question which was raised on orders of the day this afternoon by the hon. member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Enfield) who referred to protests that have been received from Canadian National employees in various parts of the country that there seems to be discrimination against organized workers compared with unorganized workers in the matter of the health and welfare plan.
My colleague the hon. member for Sask-toon has a good deal of material in connection with this matter. He is a member of the committee and I know he has communicated with the Minister of Labour about it, as I have. I am not sure whether or not my colleague has communicated with the Minister of Transport. But at any rate, as I have indicated, my colleague the hon. member for Saskatoon will raise this matter in the committee when it meets.
Another matter which we will want to have discussed once again in the special committee is the practice of the Canadian National


Railways of contracting out some of its work, thus by-passing collective agreements. I refer now to another of my colleagues, the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who has already questioned both the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour during this session with respect to this matter. He will see to it that the matter is discussed in the special committee.
I believe it was a year ago that I was able to stand in my place during the debate on this motion and welcome the fact that one example of this practice apparently has been brought to an end. This was in reference to the Canadian National Railways contracting out to the R. F. Welch Company Limited. I was able to report that the brotherhood of maintenance-of-way employees had reached a satisfactory understanding with Canadian National Railways regarding this matter. However, since that time other examples of contracting out have been brought to our attention, some of which I spoke on last summer. In all cases, the result seems to be a by-passing of collective agreements. I can say to the Minister of Transport that organized labour feels very strongly about this matter. Indeed, representations on the point were made to the cabinet by the Canadian Labour Congress in its brief presented in January of this year. The government was asked to give study, not only to the practice of the Canadian National Railways but to the possibility of amending the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, to prevent this practice. However, as I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton South, who has raised this matter in the house, will be a member of this special committee and I am sure he will see to it that the subject is raised in the sessions of the committee.
The matter I wish to raise again with the minister is the tragic plight of great numbers of former employees of Canadian National Railways who are still left on terribly inadequate pensions. It is sad indeed the number of times that we have to raise this question, and the way in which those who have served their day and generation are ignored when they get old. We had a debate in a similar vein a couple of weeks ago on a motion by the hon. member for Fort William with respect to the retired employees of the federal government.
This is an issue that comes up in other contexts as well, but I rise on this motion, Mr. Speaker, to protest that, after all these years, there is still in effect for a great many of the employees of this great company, the Canadian National Railways of

which we are so proud, a pension of only $25 a month. We have asked repeatedly for consideration of the requests of the retired employees and others that this basic pension be increased. As a matter of fact, just to bring the matter up to date, on January 15 of this year I asked the Minister of Transport this question as recorded at page 228 of Hansard for that day:
Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister ot Transport. Has the minister received, since the end of the regular session of last year, representations on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, whose pensions are limited to the $25 a month, for an increase in the amount of the pension? Has further consideration been given to this matter or will such further consideration be given by the minister or by the government?
The reply of the minister was as follows: Mr. Speaker, X am afraid that, offhand, I am unable to say whether or not written representations have been received. I shall have to look into my files and see whether any have come to hand.
Later, the minister made a reply to my question, which is found on page 505 of Hansard for January 22, 1957, and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, last week the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) asked if since the end of the regular session of last year I had received representations on behalf of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways in receipt of pensions of $25 per month for an increase in the amount of the pension The answer to that question is that I have received no such representations. The hon. member also asked if further consideration had been given to this matter or if it will be given by the minister or the government. Representations were made recently to the management of the Canadian National Railways that any smaller pension now payable by it should be increased to $60 per month, but no action has been taken and the matter has not been considered by the Minister of Transport or the government itself.
It is that refusal to consider that request against which I protest at this time, as once again I call on the government to consider the plight of these retired employees, to take the necessary action to have these smaller pensions brought up to a figure more commensurate with today's cost of living and more commensurate with the tremendously increased wealth now being produced in this country.
As the minister knows, from time to time he has the task of preparing answers to certain questions that I place on the order paper and I thank him for the answers he has given. The most recent answers about this matter are found on page 2003 of Hansard for March 7, 1957. I find on examining the figures given on that page that there are still seven employees of the Canadian National Railways drawing pensions of under $25 a month; there are still 3,068 former employees of the Canadian National Railways drawing pensions of
12, 1957	2119
Committee on Railways and Shipping $25 a month. In addition, there are 3,624 whose pensions are more than $25 a month but less than $40 a month. Those three figures that I have just given add up to a total of 6,699. That is the number of former employees of the Canadian National Railways whose pensions are less than $40 a month.
To complete the picture I might point out that there are 14,305 former employees who draw pensions of $40 a month or over, making a grand total of 21,004 pensioners of the Canadian National Railways.
I should like to point out that the 6,699 who are drawing pensions of less than $40 a month constitute 31.8 per cent of the total number of Canadian National pensioners. Mr. Speaker, I point out that percentage for a reason which I would now like to make clear. I do so by giving the figures in answer to the same questions that were placed on Hansard four years ago. I am taking these figures from tables to be found on page 2953 of Hansard for March 16, 1953. At that time the number of former employees drawing pensions of under $25 a month was 17. This year it is down to seven. Everyone knows the reason for the decline. Ten have died off.
In 1953 the number drawing $25 a month was 3,206. That figure has declined this year to 3,068 and I imagine the answer is the same. The decline represents the number of pensioners drawing $25 a month whose days have come to an end. The number who were drawing more than $25 a month but less than $40 a month in 1953 was 3,953. That has now declined by 329 to 3,624. In other words, the grand total in 1953 who were drawing less than $40 a month was 7,176. That figure, as I have already indicated, is now 6,699, or a decline of 477. Let me repeat that. I say with some satisfaction, some pleasure, that the number who today are on pensions of less than $40 a month has declined by 477, from 7,176 to 6,699. At the same time-and I say this with commendation-the number of Canadian National pensioners drawing pensions of $40 a month or more has gone up because it was 10,348 in 1953 and it is 14,305 today. In other words, there has been an increase of 3,907. The grand total of pensioners in 1953 was 17,524, so that the number of those who were drawing less than $40 a month was then 40.9 per cent of the total.
I am happy to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the number of former employees pensioned by the Canadian National Railways has grown in the last four years. I am happy to point out that the number on the larger pensions has increased; at the same time the number on the terribly small pensions has decreased. The latter is undoubtedly due to the fact that the older men are dying off. But the plea
2120	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping I make to the minister in the light of these statistics is that the problem is not one that is growing; it is gradually contracting, but I hope he just will not sit back and wait until the whole 6,699 of those on pensions of less than $40 a month die off. I use that language advisedly, for it does seem to me that there is a terrible tendency on the part of some employers-and I include the federal government and the Canadian National Railways- to make big fellows of themselves with their employees, to make big fellows of themselves with people who are retiring by giving buttons and ribbons and that kind of thing, but once they are on the shelf, once they are retired and pensioned and drawing whatever their contract called for, the government and the Canadian National Railways as employers seem to feel that nothing more needs to be done no matter what social or economic changes take place.
The Minister of Transport can stand up in his place in the house and answer me or answer other members by saying, "No action has been taken and the matter has not been considered by the Minister of Transport or the government itself", as he did on January 22, but that does not deal with the matter.
I am going to take a moment of my time, Mr. Speaker, if I may, just to read the figures that I used a moment ago so that they might appear on Hansard in tabular form and be more useful to those who are interested in this subject. I am not asking that the table be put on the record by consent; I will read it. It reads as follows:



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
1953	1957
Total number of pensioners receiving
less than $25 a month	
17	7Total number receiving $25 a month ..	3,206	3,068
Total number receiving more than $25
a month but less than $40 a month .. 3,953	3,624
Total number receiving less than $40
a month	 7,176 6,699
Total number receiving $40 a month
and over	 10,348 14,305
Grand total	 17,524 21,004
Percentage of those receiving less than $40 a month to grand total	 40.9% 31.8%
Source: Hansard, March 16, 1953, page 2953; March7, 1953, page 2003.
I repeat, it seems to me that the Canadian National Railways as an employer has the same kind of responsibility for these people that we feel the government as an employer has to its retired civil servants. We protest most strongly the refusal that is given year after year. We protest against the way the railway passes the buck to the government and the way the government passes the buck to management. Rumours are abroad that 
[Stage Direction]
the government is beginning to realize that something has to be done for pensioners generally and something may be done. We may even get word about it a couple of nights from now for all we know. I hope the Minister of Transport will realize that as the minister who speaks for the Canadian National Railways in this house he has a responsibility to see to it that something is done for this group of faithful employees.
I have said already that the various matters which this group feels should be discussed in the committee will be discussed by my colleagues who will represent us on that committee, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the hon. member for Saskatoon, but I repeat that we feel that this problem of the plight of retired C.N.R. employees receiving low pensions should be dealt with and adjustments made so that the minimum pension as suggested in the answer of the Minister of Transport will certainly be not less than $60 per month for these faithful retired employees of this government-owned company of which we are so proud.
Mr. F. G. J. Hahn (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, we in this group welcome this resolution introduced by the minister. For the past three years it has been my privilege to sit on this committee and I must say we have always received a courteous hearing and have had considerable information given to us. At the same time I must say that it has not always been to our liking, but when I say that I am thinking more specifically of the question which the hon. member for York-Humber (Miss Aitken) raised in regard to that part of the resolution concerning the sending for persons, papers and records. I should like the minister to define that phrase so that when we get to the committee we will be in a better position to determine whether we are entitled to ask certain individuals to come before the committee.
Another question that has been raised is the possibility of doing away with the monopoly enjoyed by Trans-Canada Air Lines. It has been my privilege to raise this question from time to time in the house and therefore I shall not deal with it extensively at this time. This matter can be dealt with much better in the committee and we may be able to discover whether the government intends to change its policy in this regard. My understanding is that in 1956 the air freight increased by 25 per cent whereas the number of passengers carried increased by some 33 per cent.
I submit that we have now reached the point where we should be ready to welcome competition for Trans-Canada Air Lines. There is a time when public ownership does

play a part in the development of this country, but it does seem to me that when we have reached the point where our ground and air personnel are being used to the maximum we should welcome some form of competition in order to keep the government operation on its toes. I think it is unfortunate we have not had some form of competition for Trans-Canada Air Lines, but I am sure that is something that could be rectified in the near future.
During the course of the year a terrible air accident occurred in British Columbia when a North Star crashed, just where is not known as yet. During his reply possibly the minister could deal with this matter about which there has been so much discussion on the Pacific coast. Methods have been suggested of preventing these accidents or at least helping to locate a plane once it is down. One suggestion is that the colour of our aircraft should be changed from. aluminum to bright yellow, orange or some such colour which would make it possible to locate an aircraft more easily in the snow or on the mountainous terrain of British Columbia. Another suggestion is that flares should be released automatically no matter how certain the pilot is that nothing is wrong with the plane and he can get back safely. When he is in mountainous areas there should be some form of automatic flare so that there would be some indication where a crash has occurred.
According to the information we have gleaned to the present time there would appear to be nothing that could have been done that would have prevented this tragic accident. I do not know whether the minister will be able to add anything to what has been said, but possibly he will comment on this later.
I was interested in the observations of the hon. member for Winnipeg' North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with regard to the plight of the pensioners. This is a serious problem and it is most unfortunate that there should be 7,000 individuals pensioned by our national railroad who are receiving $40 or less in the form of a pension.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Less than $40; $39.99 down.


Frederick George Hahn: That is a most unfortunate condition, a condition which might be described as shameful. There are also seven who receive less than $25, which indicates an even worse condition. There may be a reason for this, but what we must remember is that we are not dealing with machines, we are dealing with people who have to live. The only way they can live is to have the purchasing power necessary to buy the food, 82715-134
12, 1957	2121
Committee on Railways and Shipping clothing and shelter which they need. We are denying them that right. They have no other means of obtaining assistance.
While I am sure the minister is satisfied in his own mind that there is some need for assistance, there is no other group except the government of this country which can provide that assistance. These people have rendered a valuable service to our country as employees of the Canadian National Railways and they should be looked after much better than the way in which we have seen fit to do it up to this time.
Then, in respect to the actual lines-the C.N.R. railway lines-the cost of operating our railway lines is most important. Mr. Donald Gordon, in his submission each year, has indicated how he tries to cut expenses. I was rather taken up by an article which appeared in the British Columbian of November 19, entitled "Supermarket Railroads". The article mentioned what Mr. Gordon had to say with respect to supermarket railroads, and one of the statements rather interested me. Mr. Gordon said, and these are the words attributed to him:
A passenger service must be made to stand on its own feet and competition is bringing to an end the day when losses on passenger traffic can be recouped through the freight rate structure.
In other words, people who live great distances from the heart of Canada must pay this high freight rate in order to help recoup the losses that are sustained at present on our passenger service. That, Mr. Speaker, is a position that must be rectified. It is not right to expect that any one form of transportation should, necessarily, subsidize another. The fact is that the efficient carriage of freight cargo as such is important in order to keep our economy at a high level, and if we are going to keep the price of our freight transport at a level higher than it would normally be because we are trying to capture a passenger market, then I believe that operation would be better turned over to another organization; I can only say that we are denying ourselves a proper price for the goods we have to sell. This stands to reason, and if I may use an example I would refer to the cost of butter about which a question was asked earlier today. It is my view that every possible means should be used to reduce the freight burden rather than help to subsidize the transportation of passengers who could find some other means of transport and, possibly, some cheaper means. By imposing extra charges on freight we are merely increasing the cost of particular commodities to people who cannot stand any increases on them. This is one of the things that need changing, and I am pleased that Donald Gordon has already

Committee on Railways and Shipping suggested he feels the day is soon coming when a change will be made.
In my travels across the country from time to time, one thing that has caused me some concern is the sleeping car accommodation in the passenger service. This is a problem that I feel could probably be dealt with very well in committee. I think many hon. members have probably had the same experience as I have, which is to the effect that you inquire about sleeping car accommodation from, let us say, Vancouver or New Westminster to Ottawa; you are told that there is none available; you can arrive only a few minutes before the train is prepared to leave, and you are still told the same story: there is none available. However, you get aboard the train and, generally speaking, you find not only one but several roomettes, or a bedroom, or upper and lower berths, that are available. This has not happened on one occasion only; it has happened at different times.
It may be that in the general operation a certain amount of sleeping space is allocated to each divisional point, but certainly some notice should be given that passengers who expect to use the facilities should be expected to indicate sufficiently in advance that they do intend to use them so that others, who do use them normally, should not be denied the privilege of riding in the comfort that should be available. I am satisfied, too, that when such is the case these same people find other means of transportation, because they do not like the prospect of sitting up all night on a train.
The question of dinette and dining cars has often been discussed in the committee and undoubtedly it will again come under scrutiny. I have discovered that our own service on the C.N.R. is superior, I think, to what we have on the C.P.R. In the dinette service, certainly, it is every bit as convenient, and serves a delightful purpose as well as doing away with some of those very costly meals to which we had been subjected at earlier times.
There is another question which causes me some concern, and that is the lack of co-ordination between traffic, whether it be air traffic or rail traffic, and shipping accommodation, let us say on the Pacific coast. Trans-Canada Air Lines is supposed, let us say, to land an aircraft at Vancouver airport, but because of fog, or for some reason, it cannot land there and it goes to the airport at Victoria. In an effort to get them to Vancouver the passengers should be transferred, one would suggest, probably to one of the liners that go back to Vancouver each night. But this is what happens: I understand that there have been instances where a whole cargo of air passengers has

been denied the right to book transportation aboard steamship because they are told there is no space available. Yet when certain of these passengers went to the wicket they found other people who were purchasing berths on that steamer. There should be some closer co-ordination, I would say between these various modes of transportation, especially when people cross the continent and are, apparently, in such a hurry that they must take the Trans-Canada Air Lines route.
Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, we welcome the setting up of this committee and we shall have further questions to put when it has been formed.


Frank A. Enfield: Mr. Speaker, I intend, in a moment or two, to refer to the important subject of railway employment, but before I deal with that I might say that I think the committee which is to be set up under this resolution is probably one of the most important and active committees that we have sitting in this house.
When you think of the tremendous changes that are taking place in the field of transportation, whether it is seaway mileage, airway mileage or highway mileage, one can understand the need for imagination, initiative and good judgment in such a rapidly growing department. This opportunity occurs seldom, but I want to offer my congratulations to the minister on the tremendous job he is doing in administering this department.
I raise the problem to which I shall now refer because it appears to me to be of some urgency, and is one with regard to which I have received an unusually large number of representations, as, no doubt, have other hon. members of the house. It may well be something that the committee will wish to examine in detail, but I feel personally that it is important enough to raise at this time on the floor of the house. It concerns the two classes of employees on the railway-the organized non-operating employees on the one hand, and the unorganized non-operating employees on the other. The company produced a new health and welfare plan recently. It was negotiated last fall, and instituted on January 1 of this year.
On the one hand, a plan was negotiated by the union and management and recommended by the conciliation board for the organized employees, and on the other hand apparently the company produced this plan on January 1 for the unorganized employees. The protests I mentioned in my question on the orders of the day today concern two aspects of the plan, one being the sickness allowance under the two plans and the other the contributions paid by single employees of both classes, organized and unorganized.

Apparently over a 20 year period in the past the policy of the management of the Canadian National Railways with respect to all employees has been that non-operating monthly rated clerical employees were granted ten day's sick allowance per year. I think the principle involved is that if an employee is away for ten days the slack is taken up, his work is done by other employees and there is no additional cost to management. Hence this sickness allowance was made. Apparently when the organized employees plan was presented to them there was a change in the situation and the plan does not provide for this type of sickness allowance.
I might take a moment or two to say what it does provide so that we can compare it briefly with the plan for the unorganized employees. For the organized employees a sickness allowance of $40 per week or 75 per cent of base pay is allowed. On the other hand, in the plan offered by management to the unorganized employees a sickness allowance of 100 per cent of base pay for one week is provided. On the surface this does seem to be unfair. I presume the figures I have are accurate since they have been provided to me in this communication, and on the basis of these figures there seems to be an unfair discrepancy between the two plans. I do not know whether the discrepancy was intended to cause friction between these two particular classes of employees but from the representations being made it is certainly obvious that is exactly what is happening. The employees think the two systems are unfair and inequitable.
The second point raised is the question of the contribution to the two health plans. In the case of the unorganized employees the single non-operating employee pays $2.50 per month under the plan. How does this compare with the organized employees? Under their plan a single non-operating employee pays $4.25 a month, and remember that the plan represents the award of the conciliation board. Again it appears that there is a fairly wide discrepancy between the contributions required under the two plans.
The same conciliation board awarded a 12 per cent increase in salary to the unorganized employees and an 11 per cent increase to the organized employees. Apparently the difference of one per cent was allowed to pay the unorganized employee the amount of the contribution made by the company in the case of organized employees. It would seem that the one per cent amounts on the average to $4.69 per month. Of course, average figures are not the best figures and are not always a true indication of the situation. However, the $4.69 more than covers the company's 82715-1341
Committee on Railways and Shipping contribution in the case of organized employees so that the unorganized employee has a cheaper plan than associate employees who are organized.
I have endeavoured to outline very briefly the problem that Canadian National employees are faced with at this time. Unfortunately I have no further figures at my disposal now but I have attempted, with as much clarity as possible, to at least canvass the situation, and I recommend very strongly that this be one of the subjects that the minister takes into careful consideration before the committee. Somehow, and I do not know why, the management of Canadian National Railways has allowed a situation to arise which is creating disappointment, friction and other difficulties between two classes of its employees. As I say, I think this matter is worthy of the consideration of the house and the members of the committee.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my custom each year when this committee has been set up to mention the fact that in addition to the estimates of Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines provision is also made for inquiry into the activities of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited. I want to say at the beginning that in the past the inquiry has been a full one and we have been quite satisfied with the information that has been given about the activities of the steamship line. But it is the lack of future planning-I have made this criticism many times-on the part of the government to which we take objection,
Last year the minister made the announcement that the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships line would be dealt with on the basis of a five year plan, that is, that regardless of the losses we would be going ahead over the next five years and planning new ships and increasing trade promotion. But when we got into the committee we did. not feel that the government put forward any new thoughts it might have with respect to such promotion. At the time the announcement was made to which I have just referred the minister traced the history of the West Indies fleet back to the early days. There was always a loss on operations until the second world war when we were able to show some profit. But then the line encountered lean years again and the government stood by year after year without any definite plans and allowed the ships to deteriorate and trade to fall off.
Within the last ten years the department did show some interest, particularly when it realized there was some business in the West Indies for this company. New ships were
2124	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Committee on Railways and Shipping purchased about 1945 and the older ships were refrigerated and brought up to date. There has not been any definite plan for the future with respect to this company, and I hope that this year we will be able to obtain a statement of policy from the minister and those whom we will be asking questions in the committee. The whole matter of transport and the sea is a problem that is fraught with many serious difficulties. A commission on coastal shipping sat some time ago but its report has not been brought down. Its hearings were completed before those of the Gordon commission and were not nearly as extensive, but we still have not received any word about its report. We have the complex problem of seaway tolls which involves of course the attitude of the United States. This matter too is interrelated. We also have proposed legislation for this session with respect to vessel construction. I have mentioned these matters in the house.
The minister does not agree that these are interrelated problems, but I believe they are interchangeable with each other. I think the difficulties we have with this Canadian National steamship line are also connected. I hope this year we shall also consider the new plans that are being made with the federation of the West Indies in mind-the new name is the Caribbean Federation-and its increasing future importance for Canada and for that area. Surely it would be a time to consider just how this new area of the commonwealth will be fitting into our plans. It would be a time for Canada to show some leadership. Of course, the way we could do that would be to come out with a new broad, strong policy with respect to a fleet to handle the trade that is in that area.
You may say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister and his department are not capable of this leadership, or that they are not capable of any future plans or aggressiveness. All we have to do is look at the icebreaking operations that go on in the St. Lawrence river every spring. We see there strong, aggressive action without any consideration for the feelings of the other parts of Canada. The Department of Transport move in there and of course they open up the seaway to the detriment of the ports of Saint John and Halifax. The minister and his department can show some leadership. I know they can. When we get into the committee I hope we shall have not only the full, complete and polite inquiry we have had in the past, but that we shall also have some strong aggressive leadership on behalf of the government with respect to the future of this very necessary fleet which is an important phase of our life on the east coast.


Mr. Daniel Mclvor (Fori William):: Mr. Speaker, I too am interested in this resolution. On behalf of the minister 1 would say that he is always ready to listen to any suggestions we have to make. He is easily approached. I would say the same thing about Donald Gordon, the president of the Canadian National Railways. He too is willing to listen.
I think concrete examples are good. 1 had one man who was wronged for over eight years. He was called up to Winnipeg to fill the same position that he had in Fort William. When he arrived there something went wrong and the position was filled. He was called back and his salary was reduced by $40 a month. For eight years he remainded under that disability. Donald Gordon was informed, and word came back that he wanted contented workers. If that is the spirit of the president of the Canadian National Railways, I think it is a splendid cure for strikes. This man's case was splendidly handled, and he was contented afterwards.
I think the C. N. R. compares favourably with any other railway we have. In fact I think it is ahead of the C. P. R. in some ways. However, there is one way in which it is behind the C. P. R., namely in the matter of pensions for retired workers. Of course I may be prejudiced in favour of these men because I know them personally. I hope the minister will take seriously the needs of this group of men and will have their pensions increased.
There is another thing I should like to bring to the notice of the minister, namely the G-rule. When a man breaks the G-rule there is no mercy for him, and I think there should be some. If a man is caught drinking on the road he has no business there. But when a man gets sobered up and, after years of steady work, shows himself to be an outstanding credit to those who are interested in him, I think he should receive some consideration. I believe some consideration should be shown to a man who has given his life to work on the railroad. Even though he has broken the G-rule, I think he should be given some opportunity to make good later on.
Just think of the situation, Mr. Speaker, when a worker on the road takes a wee drop. Yet the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. will sell liquor on the road. If it is bad for the workers it is bad for everybody else on the road; and I think the minister should take this matter into consideration. The G-rule is a good rule, because no man has any right on the engine, or to act as conductor or to work on the road who cannot think clearly

and see straight. But when he makes good there should be some mercy for him.
The other thing is this. Why sell liquor on the road? People do not need it. If a man's thirst is so bad as that, he has no business riding on the road.


Mr. Clarence Gillis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad of another opportunity to serve on this committee. I believe service on this committee is an education to any member of the house. It gives a fairly good look at what makes the whole nation tick, not only on the rails but in the air and on the water.
I am not going to demand from the minister any concrete answers to the problems that committee will handle. I do not think it is his job to give them. I think it would be asking the impossible to ask him to answer the many questions that will come before that committee. However, I think this is not a bad time to put some ideas on the record for the benefit of Mr. Gordon and his witnesses, as a fair warning of what he may be asked to answer when he comes before the committee. It will give him a chance to think about the matters and perhaps get the proper answers.
For a start I should like to discuss the Maritime Freight Rates Act, but I am not going to do it here. I should like to take the Chignecto canal proposition and set it out as an answer to shortening the distance to markets from the maritime provinces into central Canada and over to the eastern United States. I believe the answer is to be found in the digging of that 14-mile canal across that neck of land that connects Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. It could very well be done by the C.N.R.
I agree with the hon. member for York West when he pointed out, according to a newspaper article, that as far as passenger service was concerned and to a large extent freight,-that is lighter freight-the railways are going to lose that business in the foreseeable future. The C.N.R. is a big organization and has capable staffs. It has subsidiary companies. I do not see why it would not be good business for the C.N.R. to undertake that Chignecto canal proposition, put it through, put their own boats on that route, and in addition develop the huge power potential that goes along with that particular project.
I am not going to go into that matter any further now. I want Mr. Gordon to think about it. That is why I am putting it on the record. I think it is a project that is practical. It is reasonable in cost. What it could do to solve the problem of freight
Committee on Railways and Shipping rates in the maritime or Atlantic area would more than offset the small amount of money involved in putting that project through.
Another thing I should like Mr. Gordon to explain when he comes before the committee is why the relief and insurance association of the employees that has been in existence since 1890 is being relegated out of the picture. My information is that as of January of this year a new plan has been set up, but that it does not include those who were previously paying into this relief and insurance association. They number some 14,000.


George Carlyle Marler: 10,000.


Clarence Gillis: There are 10,500 members at present, with 3,600 retired and on this pension and some 90 who are in some kind of military service. But the entire 14,000 are still affected by the mechanics of that particular legislation within the national railways.
The point is this. This organization was maintained within Canadian National Railways by means of the check-off. The dues were collected in that way, but as of January this year the dues will be no longer collected in that way. It will be impossible to collect dues on a voluntary basis from coast to coast and that means that the association, the existence of which extends over a number of years, will go out of existence as a result of this oblique action taken by the railways. There is a death benefit from this fund as well as a sickness and accident supplement. The plan itself, designed at the time it was, served a useful purpose and could still serve a useful purpose.
I think when Mr. Gordon comes before the committee we should have an opportunity of obtaining a full explanation as to why this particular line of action was taken. I can understand the differentials in wage rates and classifications for different types of employees, but in the matter of social security provided by a system on a contributory basis I cannot understand why it is not on an industrial basis rather than broken into classifications. Everyone suffers equally during sickness, and there should be no differential in payments of that kind, either on the national railways or anywhere else.
In so far as this matter of the airways being a monopoly is concerned, I am sure no mature member of the house would refer to it in that way at this time. I listened to several hon. members, and I am glad to hear that the private companies are pulling up their socks; that they have now arrived at the point where they have the finances and the type of equipment that will enable them
2128	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping to maintain the safety standards established by the government regulated company on the main trunk lines. There is plenty of room for any company that has the money and can put the type of equipment in the air that will maintain the safety factors demanded, and rightly so, by the air transport board.
I am glad my hon. friend raised that question, because the question of monopoly no longer applies. We should be very thankful we had a body in Canada that had the foresight to put the type of equipment in the air that we have today and to bring about some regulation of air travel. Despite the fact there are a lot of precautions taken from time to time we do have accidents. Conditions could have been much worse if we had had a lot of topsy-turvy systems growing up without regulation, and without the necessary finances to put the proper type of equipment into the air.
There are many questions I should like to ask, but I will not do so now. I should like some more information about this coal-fired gas turbine development at McGill. What progress is it making? It has to go on the rails some time. I leave that question to Mr. Gordon. Of course, the answers to all these questions will have to be given by Mr. Gordon. I should like to find out something about future markets for coal within the Atlantic region of Canadian National Railways. Is it possible to provide subventions in that area that would guarantee the market over a long range period?
I do not expect the minister to answer these questions. I am merely putting them on the record now as a warning to Mr. Gordon that we will expect him to give us the concrete information necessary to solve some of these problems. However, I shall have an opportunity to discuss these matters personally with that gentleman when he appears before the committee.


Mr. J. W. Monleilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for York West was speaking he quoted a few words spoken by Donald Gordon, to the effect that the day of the passenger train might be limited. I cannot quite agree with that, although in western Ontario I will say the trend seems to be definitely to do away with the passenger service and not give sufficient service for that district. I am thinking of one or two lines on which the mail service which has been given over the past few years was suddenly cut off. I do not think there is any doubt but what that will eventually lead to the elimination of the passenger service.
It is true that there has been a trend of late years towards the use of the automobile.


I would say that trend which did exist a few years ago is now reversing itself. More people wish to travel by rail. The highways are becoming crowded and the hazards of highway traffic are very great. I feel that there are more and more people wishing to use trains, but unfortunately they are being discouraged from doing so. This seems almost impossible to believe, but I know of one line on which there is a train, No. 218 out of Stratford to Fort Erie and No. 219 back to Stratford from Fort Erie on which the passenger coach used contains a stove. I cannot imagine trying to attract passengers with that type of equipment. At the same time there are passenger cars lying idle in the Stratford yards. These orders certainly do not come out of Stratford. They come out of Toronto or the head office in Montreal. I should have liked to have the opportunity, and I admit I would have had this opportunity if I had known earlier this resolution was coming up, to ascertain the revenue over the years, perhaps since 1950, from two or three lines out of Stratford on which the mail service has been discontinued. I feel that now the mail service is not being given by the railways these lines will earn that much less profit and eventually that will be used as an excuse to eliminate the passenger service.
I feel, sir, that the policy of the railways should be to give service; to modernize their equipment and make it attractive to the travelling public. I feel if they were to do that they would certainly attract more business. I believe the business is there to be obtained. I might mention another instance. Last year at the time of the Toronto exhibition, passenger cars were lying idle in the Stratford yards but the trains were overcrowded and people had to stand.
There is only one other matter I should like to mention. I should like to endorse completely what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said on behalf of the pensioners, those who are no longer employed by the railway. These pensions are certainly inadequate for today's living conditions. I should like also to suggest that the Minister of Transport examine the present inequity of the pensions of employees who were laid off and subsequently rehired, this layoff and subsequent rehiring taking place within the last five or ten years of their service.
I dealt with this particular point much more fully on April 17 last, at page 3025 of Hansard, and I do not propose to take up the time of the house now; but I would reiterate what I said at that time and suggest that the minister look into this matter and advise the officials to correct these injustices.


Mr. G. C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the setting up of the Canadian National committee almost has an atmosphere of nostalgia about it. There was a time when in discussing railways we would discuss the great iron locomotives, the steam engines, and the romantic picture which they created in this country, but they have passed. The diesel is taking their place. It was suggested today that the fine passenger train has almost passed away, and everyone will be transported either by automobile or by plane.
As one who is somewhat old-fashioned, Mr. Speaker, one who is a conservative, at least a progressive one, I am not so progressive as not to like to travel by train, and I want to pay my word of tribute on behalf of the passenger service on the railways. I sometimes feel that of those who travel by plane probably a certain percentage-I would not want to guess the percentage-do so because they have to, and I suspect that a larger percentage travel by plane because they think it is the smart thing to do; they are sort of keeping up with the Joneses when they fly.
Possibly that atmosphere, that attitude of mind, is based on the passenger service which prevailed not too many years ago, a passenger service roughly akin to that to which the hon. member referred a few moments ago, when you still had passenger trains in this country with stoves in them. I know of one passenger car which is operated with old oil lamps in it, and every time the car dips in the spring when the frost is coming out of the ground the oil splatters over the passengers. That is not entirely an inducement to travel by passenger train.
There has been a tremendous advance made on this score, and I want to give the minister and management of Canadian National Railways full credit for what has been done in improving the railway service in the east. We hear talk about the Super Continental, which undoubtedly is one of Canada's great trains, and the Canadian of the Canadian Pacific Railway, which is another great train of which we are all proud. Coming from the east, as I do, I want to say that in my opinion the Ocean Limited operated between Halifax and Montreal by the Canadian National is of an equal standard and is as deserving of the same commendation as are any of the other so-called great trains in Canada. To the company, the management and the minister, wherever the credit may lie, I certainly want to give it. Of course the same thing applies not only to the Canadian National but to the Canadian Pacific as well in the train they are operating from Saint John to Montreal.
12, 1957	2127
Committee on Railways and Shipping
I do think something could be done in the way of attracting passenger service. I certainly agree with the hon. member who spoke immediately before me in that respect. We have had an example on our own railway in Nova Scotia. It is not a Canadian National railway, it is true; it is one of the subsidiaries of the Canadian Pacific. The old-fashioned passenger trains were taken off and one of the day liners was put on. I am told the result is that passenger travel increased something like 400 per cent in the last few months because of the efficiency of the service which has been given. Therefore I certainly want, for perhaps my own peace of mind-because I would hate to live to see the day when passenger service is discontinued-to emphasize the importance of providing better service and to give credit for what has been done in this regard up to the moment.
Much could be said about the dining car service. Something was said about dinettes. We have not got them in the east. Of course it does present a problem. I know many of those working on the dining cars today are in this position. Waiters must have as long as 15 years of service in order to hold down appointments on dining cars during the winter time. That has been the situation in the east, so I am told, during the slack season in the winter. Waiters with less experience than that have necessarily had to be laid off. I suppose as the dinette service is encouraged more and more will be laid off.
One complaint I have heard from dining car stewards-I know most of them; I have eaten with them and have had them prepare meals-is that they sometimes resent the fact that they have inflicted upon them, or imposed upon them, menus three months in advance; and the latitude, the choice, they exercised at one time in setting up their own menus for their passengers whom they knew has been taken away. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see a little more latitude given to these train crews, these very efficient, courteous and able employees of the company. Give them a little more latitude in dealing with this matter.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert referred to the Canadian National Steamships. I simply want to add my voice to what he said this afternoon. I have raised the matter on other occasions. The minister knows I have spoken about it at length in other years and I do not propose to emphasize it today. But, Mr. Speaker, of course, neither am I unconscious of the fact that a good thing deserves commendation, and other matters should not be entirely overlooked in a preelection session. Therefore I am again emphasizing the importance of strengthening
2128	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping and widening the Canadian National Steamships operating out of the Atlantic ports. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert said, the Caribbean and South America are great potential markets for agricultural and other products of eastern Canada.
The minister knows very well from conversations we have had-and he has no control over it at the moment-of the inadequate cold storage facilities they possess. I think the minister will agree privately that it would be advantageous for Canada if there could be the development and inauguration of a modern steamship service so that adequate cold storage facilities could be provided and when you sent down a few barrels or a few boxes of apples to the West Indies, for instance, you would not be prevented from shipping a few pounds of butter, or if you shipped down a few pounds of butter you would not be prevented from shipping down the apples. That is roughly the situation at the moment with respect to the Canadian National Steamships operating out of Halifax so far as the Caribbean is concerned.
As the hon. member for Cape Breton South pointed out, whatever may be the advantages of the Chignecto canal, I do not know that it is a matter for discussion on this motion. I doubt whether it comes within the ambit of this Canadian National committee; but I do believe that within the next relatively few years there is going to be a tremendous market develop, a tremendous industrial area on the north shore of the St. Lawrence in the minister's own province. If certain policies are maintained there about the control of power so that industry has to locate there, I can foresee within the next 10 or 15 years a very substantial market for agricultural and other products on the north shore of the St. Lawrence adjacent to tremendous hydro developments which are within the scope of that province. One thing needed there is the development of a Canadian National Steamships service so those of us on the east coast will be able to take advantage of that market by water.
Another matter which was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton South was the pension scheme which applies to the employees of the Canadian Government Railways and, of course, originally the old Intercolonial Railway. It is a complicated matter. I do not propose to discuss it now. Frankly I do not know enough about it to discuss it, but I was receiving letters from a gentleman who was in touch with the Canadian government employees in Moncton, as a matter of fact one who recently lost his life in that tragic air accident, Hon. Babbitt Parlee. He sent me some memos, some briefs


and some arguments with respect to that matter and was in touch, I know with government employees in Moncton who felt concerned about this change which was impending. As I understand it, no definite decision has been taken with respect to this, and I do hope that when the committee meets there will be a full and frank study with respect to the change which is proposed, a change which, rightly or wrongly, many employees of the old Canadian Government Railway and a substantial part of the employees of the old Intercolonial Railway feel is prejudicial to them and is unnecessary. They feel that their rights should be protected, which otherwise might be lost under this scheme.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: It
being five o'clock the house will proceed to the consideration of private and public bills.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: May I interrupt to say that when we resume at eight o'clock with the business that has just been postponed it may not be possible to call the second item, that is the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, amendment, but we shall go ahead with the other items in the sequence which was indicated. If there is time we will take the bill respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and second reading of the United Kingdom Financial Agreement Act, 1946.



PRIVATE BILLS

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaite):: There are a number of divorce bills on the order paper, being orders 34 to 44 inclusive. Is there unanimous consent to having these considered under the one motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, we would ask that they be called one at a time.



LUDMILA EREMEEFF MAZARAKY

Mr. W. J. Henderson (Kingston) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 227, for the relief of Ludmila Eremeeff Mazaraky.


Mr. A. M. Nicholson (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I note in the petition that the husband is reported as residing in the city of Montreal, but according to page 9 of the evidence the petitioner was asked:
Q. As far as you know is it his intention to remain in Ontario?
A. Yes.
Obviously there is an error in one place or the other, as the same person could not be a resident of Ontario and Montreal at the same

time. I notice that Senators Cameron, Ger-shaw, Hodges and Smith gave careful consideration to this case and I notice these questions by Senator Hodges:
Q. Who is maintaining the home-did your husband provide you with a good home?
A. Oh, no, not very good, he paid the rent and telephone.
Q. Were you working all the time?
A. Yes.
Q. And you were keeping the child?
A. Yes.
Q. Was he helping to maintain the child?
A. No, not very much.
Q. What would you call not very much, did he give you monthly payments or not?
A. No, he bought clothes sometimes.
By Senator Smith:
Q. What was your husband's occupation?
A. He is a civil engineer.
Q. He gets a good salary?
A. Yes.
Q. How much is he earning a month?
A. I don't know exactly, about $450.
By the Chairman (Senator Cameron):
Q. Before two and a half years ago had you not been getting along then previous to that; you said the trouble started about two and a half years ago?
A. Yes.
Apparently this unfortunate woman was not receiving any financial assistance from her husband whom she understood was making $450 a month. Then she was asked:
Q. How much salary do you get yourself?
A. Oh, about $160 a month.
Q. Are you living in the same house as your mother and father?
A. No.
Q. You have your own apartment?
A. I am going to stay in this apartment for a little while.
There is another matter I should like to mention in connection with this case. I find that the detectives were Ernest Gordon Etheridge and Clovis Paquette of the city of Montreal. These men are members of the well-known Reliable detective agency, formerly entitled the Fidelity detective agency.
Private Bills-Divorce
would then be in a position to give evidence as to his being found there with the woman. In carrying out this plan, the appellants arranged with woman "A" to obtain the hotel room and perform her part of the plot, which she did. In the meantime. the appellants arranged with woman "B" to call the husband, under an assumed name, which was the name which woman "A" was to use at the hotel, and invite him to come to the room. This was done by woman "B'* but the husband was suspicious. Woman "B" claimed to be a friend of the husband's sister, and the husband took the precaution of calling his sister as to the friend whose name he had been given over the telephone. Instead of going to the hotel room as invited the husband went to the police, with the result that the plan at that stage miscarried and it was the police who went to the hotel room, instead of the two appellants who were endeavouring to mislead someone.
In bringing down his judgment the judge who heard the case said this:
In my opinion, therefore, however contemptible the conduct of the appellants may be considered, they have not been proved guilty of the offence charged, and effect must be given to the legal position taken by their counsel. The point which has. been raised in the instant case, apparently for the first time, would appear now to be academic, because the legislation is entirely changed in the new Criminal Code, 1953-54, c. 51, which came into force on 1st April, 1955.
I want to make it clear that this procedure occurred two years ago in the Ontario courts when the Reliable detective agency was producing evidence in connection with divorce proceedings. In view of the fact that the principal owner of that agency appeared to give evidence in connection with this case I submit that he should appear before an appropriate committee of this house so hon. members can decide whether he is a suitable witness to be presenting information which could be considered as valid in connection with one of these cases. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. Ellis):


Stanley Howard Knowles: Fidelity or infidelity?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Hon. members may recall that this firm was before the courts of Ontario some two years ago, when two representatives of the firm were charged with fabricating evidence. I read from pages 5594 and 5595 of Hansard of July 1, 1955, where a quotation from the Ontario Weekly Notes was given as follows:
The facts of the case may be simply stated. The appellants, desiring to obtain evidence for the purpose of enabling a married woman to secure a divorce, planned to trap the husband into a false position, from which adultery might be inferred or found if evidence was later given in some proceeding for divorce. This plan was to have a woman go to a room in an hotel, register under an assumed name, and give the room the appearance of the bed having been occupied. She was not required to do anything more. The husband was to be lured by a pretext to the room and, when there, could be found by the two appellants, who 82715-135
That Bill No. 227 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to on division.
one who has looked at the evidence, it seems to me that the main evidence adduced in this case was evidence from another case. In other words it was the evidence obtained by the husband of the corespondent in his application for divorce against his former wife. Having read the evidence, it seems to me that it would be desirable for the committee on miscellaneous private bills to look at this case before we are asked to approve it on second reading rather than afterwards. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. Castleden):
That Bill No. 228 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I endorse the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, on the ground that I feel this is one of those detestable cases that come before us. When a man is willing to appear as a witness on behalf of another man in a case that involves his wife as a corespondent I think it shows the depths to which man can descend.
I also endorse the amendment because of the fact that once again the now nationally famous Reliable detective agency is involved. I notice from the evidence put forward in this case that two members of the agency were involved, Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Pichette. I also notice that Mr. Pichette was not called as a witness. I think the record of Mr. Pichette in past cases and his past court convictions make him too unreliable even for a committee of the other place. However, in order to save the poor people of Montreal a little bit of money I would sincerely recommend that both Mr. Etheridge and Mr. Pichette be placed on the payroll of the Liberal party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.



MARY ELIZABETH WILLIAMSON MILLER

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 228, for the relief of Mary Elizabeth Williamson Miller.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say just a few words with respect to Bill No. 228. As
(Mr. Nicholson.]
++YEAS
Messrs:
Barnett	Herridge
Blackmore	Johnson (Kindersley)
Bryce	Johnston (Bow River)
Bryson	Jones
Cameron (Nanaimo)	Knowles
Campbell	Leboe
Castleden	McCullough (Moose
Ellis	Mountain)
Gagnon	Nicholson
Gillis	Patterson
Girard	Poulin
Hahn	Quelch

Regier	Thomas
Smith (Battle River-	Winch
Camrose)	Wylie
Stewart (Winnipeg	Yuill
North)	Zaplitny-31.
 NAYS Messrs:
Anderson	MacKenzie
Applewhaite	MacLean
Ashbourne	MacNaught
Balcom	McCann
Pell	McCubbin
Benidickson	McCulloch (Pictou)
Blair	McGregor
Brown (Essex West)	Mcllraith
Byrne	Mclvor
Campney	McMillan
Cardiff	Mang
Carter	Matheson
Casselman	Michener
Cavers	Mitchell (Sudbury)
Churchill	Monteith
Crestohl	Montgomery
Decore	Nickle
Denis	Nixon
Dinsdale	Pallett
Enfield	Philpott
Fairey	Pickersgill
Follwell	Pommer
Fraser (Peterborough)	Proudfoot
Garson	Purdy
Goode	Rea
Gregg	Richardson
Hamilton (York West)	Robertson
Hanna	Schneider
Harkness	Shipley, Mrs.
Harris	Stanton
Harrison	Starr
Hellyer	Stick
Henderson	Thatcher
Hodgson	Tustin
Howe (Wellington-	Weaver
Huron)	Weir
Huffman	White (Hastings-
Hunter	Frontenac)
James	White (Middlesex E
Kickham	White (Waterloo
Lusby	South)-79.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the main motion carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.



PHYLLIS SHIRLEY MOORE LARIVIERE

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 229, for the relief of Phyllis Shirley Moore Lariviere.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: There
are some new investigators who appear in this particular case. I do not recall having run across their names previously. Hon. members will be interested in the variety of approaches used. On page 11 of the evidence I read:
I went there and I put on a jacket, a wind-breaker and went upstairs. I knocked at the door and the door opened by asking if there was a 82715-1351
Private Bills-Divorce
Mr. Steele there, and I told him that Mr. Steele had called for a taxi, and he said "There is no Steele here. My name is Lariviere." And he slammed the door. I went downstairs.
He kept observation on the apartment, and apparently this was about two o'clock in the morning. I quote again from the evidence.
At about 3.30 in the morning we went back. This time I wore coveralls and carried a hydro book. I gained admission to the apartment by saying there was some trouble on the floor and we were checking all the apartments. He asked me if there was a fire on the floor and I said, "Nothing serious". I said, "We just have to check all the lights on the floor", which we did. We found a female companion of his in the bedroom. There was one bedroom in that place. Apparently they had a kind of shindig because there were bottles and the place was in an upside down mess.
He started criticizing the hour we were calling, and we told him that trouble picks any hour, and we had to do our job and that was all. He didn't recognize me as having been there earlier.
Mr. Speaker, I think these investigators should be called before the committee before we reach a decision in connection with the evidence in this case. I would move, therefore, seconded again by the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Ellis):
That Bill No. 229 be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: It is the pleasure of the house to adopt the main motion?


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed to on division.
Motion agreed to on division, bill read the second time and referred to the committee on miscellaneous private bills.



JOSEPH RICARDO BOUZIANE

William James Henderson: the second reading of Bill No. 230, for the relief of Joseph Ricardo Bouziane.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, on looking over our orders of the day and the list of private bills, I rather regret that oil and gas have to be mixed up with the divorce bills of the nation. From what has happened here in the last few minutes I also regret that the people of Canada have no hope in looking to the Conservative party to supply them with any relief from this situation. It is very obvious that, if by any possible mistake, they should happen to be elected to office, they would follow the same course.
some very serious consideration by this house. Since this house is attempting to deal with a bill of this sort, I think it ought thoroughly to look into this matter, particularly where a man has been married only a little more than 18 months and is already before what some people choose to call the highest court of the land asking for relief from his marriage vows.
I notice that on page 10 of the evidence the young man said:
Q. Relate to the hon. members of this committee what happened after your marriage.
A. Well, it began about three months after the marriage.
Q. What did?
A. She started going out and we started having little fights. About three months after the wedding-
I note that for the second time he repeats that it was three months after the wedding that his wife showed some signs of disloyalty. However, Mr. Speaker, the man was married on August 27, 1955. Three months later would make it November 27, 1955, and he claims that that on December 19, 1955, in other words only 22 days after she began to be disloyal to him, the birth of his only child occurred. That seems rather odd indeed. Our imagination has to be stretched a great deal indeed to believe that within three weeks of the birth of her first child a woman would begin to be disloyal to her husband.
He says she left him on March 18, 1956. In other words she left him when the baby was only four months old, and only some nine months after they were married. I think the conflict in the dates alone should have been enough to cause a little more serious consideration to be given to these two young people.
Once again the detective in the case is Ernest Gordon Etheridge. I referred to Mr. Etheridge's evidence and what I thought of its reliability in a previous debate; therefore I am not going to go into that.
Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS
Mr. Speaker:: What is the relationship be- The house resumed at eight o'clock, tween what the hon. gentleman is now saying -
and the bill that is before the house?	RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING


Some hon. Members:: None.


Erhart Regier: Mr. Speaker, in this case we have a very young man indeed. At the time of the hearing before the committee in the other place Mr. Joseph Ricardo Bouziane was only 20 years old. At the time of his marriage it is obvious that he was 19 years of age. He was married on August 27, which is just a little over 18 months ago. I feel this calls for



ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMITTEE ON RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING OWNED, OPERATED AND CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Marler:
That a sessional committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government, be appointed to consider the accounts and estimates and bills relating thereto of the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian National
[Stage Direction]
(West Indies) Steamships, and Trans-Canada Air Lines, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys; and that the said committee be empowered to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time and that, notwithstanding standing order 67 in relation to the limitation of the number of members, the said committee to consist of Messrs. Bell, Byrne, Carter, Cavers, Follwell, Fulton, Gauthier (Lake St. John), Gillis, Hahn, Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace), Hamilton (York West), Hanna, Harrison, James, Johnston (Bow River), Knight, Lavigne, Legare, McCulloch (Pictou), Mitchell (Sudbury), Murphy (Westmorland), Nowlan, Power (Quebec South), Richardson, St. Laurent (Temiscouata), and Weaver.
George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was preparing to conclude my remarks with respect to the Canadian National Railways, but I realized it would be unfair to the minister if I did so because he would have to start to reply in perhaps a moment or two, which would not have given him an opportunity to deal with the matter. So out of consideration for him, a consideration which I have shown many times in the past, I carried on until five o'clock. I shall occupy the time of the house for only a moment or two more.
I have dealt with various matters affecting the operations of the Canadian National. There are of course many other matters to be dealt with at this time, but they can be dealt with in committee. Unfortunately I will not be present during the sittings of the committee and shall have to leave this to my colleagues, who I am sure will raise these matters.
There is one matter on which I should like to comment before concluding, and I realize that this has often been a cause of rising blood pressure on the part of the minister in the past. I want him to understand at this time that this matter is not being dealt with facetiously, it is being dealt with seriously. Sometimes when the minister thinks I am being facetious he drops his rapier and reaches behind for his bludgeon. He is generally more effective with his rapier than with his bludgeon.
I should like to refer for one moment to the William Carson. I am not going to do this in the way in which I have referred to it in the past, as I am sure this matter will be dealt with in the committee when the minister, Mr. Gordon, and the Canadian National officials will have a field day in which they can explain what has happened, what is happening and what is likely to happen in connection with this ferry. I suggest seriously to the minister that if it should transpire that it is not possible to operate the ferry as had been envisaged when the matter was first considered, if in other words we are going to see next summer a repetition
12, 1957	2133
Committee on Railways and Shipping of what we went through last summer, in view of the fact that the Bluenose now operating between Bar Harbor and Yarmouth is doing such a remarkably good job but is being taxed to its limit, it might be possible to take the William Carson off its present run and put it on that service to supplement the service being provided by the Bluenose.
I know the minister will welcome any favourable comment I can make with respect to the Bluenose. I want to be fair, because I believe they have finally overcome all the difficulties they encountered including missing worm gears, twisted propellers and so on. That boat is doing a remarkably good job between Nova Scotia and Maine.
I feel that credit should be given where credit is due and I want to commend the minister upon the reduction in rates on trucks that was made in answer to the pleas which were heard in the house last year, and which enabled Nova Scotia farm products to be carried to the New England states and possibly on to Ontario and Quebec at lower rates than prevailed during the summer. My one criticism would be that the rates were put into effect too late in the season. It may be that the minister will have the figures in front of him and will be able to say that the reduction did not result in increased business and that the department is not impressed with the arguments which were made. When the rates were lowered I think the minister said it was to be an experiment and he would wait to see the results. I hope the results are satisfactory to the department.
I would urge that this be repeated this year, but that the reduction in rates be inaugurated at an earlier period in the season. If the department is disappointed because of the amount of business obtained through the reduction I would suggest to the minister, without wanting to transgress on the jurisdiction of either the Minister of Finance or-the Minister of Agriculture, that there is a really complicated problem being encountered in the sale of agricultural products in the United States market because of the-premium on the Canadian dollar.
I am sure some of us were shocked to read-today that an all-time high had been reached, It is not particularly profitable to ship farm products into the United States with that premium and receive United States dollars. The result has been that this type of business has not been as profitable to the farmer as ordinarily it would be. But I do contend that the minister and the department deserve credit for having inaugurated this experiment. I am anxious to hear what the minister will say when he speaks later this evening.

Committee on Railways and Shipping
There is only one other matter I wish to refer to in passing, and this will be done very briefly. I may be slightly out of order, as perhaps this does not come within the ambit of this committee. We are all very much concerned about the recommendation of the Gordon commission that there be an inquiry into the transportation facilities of the maritimes and into the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This is not the time to discuss this in detail, but it is a most vital problem to the maritimes at the moment. The operation of the Canadian National Railways during the present or in future years must be predicated upon the results of such inquiries and the legislation which may be brought in as a result.
A definite recommendation has been made that the whole transportation problem of the maritime provinces be investigated, and that recommendation should be implemented immediately. This is something which vitally affects the minister's department and the Canadian National Railways, and I think it should be at least borne in mind when this committee is set up. I am sure many inquiries will be made in committee of the departmental officials, Mr. Gordon and others as to what can be done in that regard.
I think that concludes the comments I want to make at this time. As I said, there are many things that could be raised, but most of them can be dealt with in a detailed way in the committee. I am sure that as it has in the past, this committee will serve a most useful purpose by its inquiry into the operations of the railway system and the steamship lines, and will make recommendations which I hope will be implemented at least in part to the good of the people of the maritimes.


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellingion-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with those who have spoken on this resolution which has to do with the transportation companies owned and operated by the government. I would like to go along with some of the remarks made by other hon. members who have spoken, including the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith) in connection with the policy which has been adopted. Western Ontario and this part of Canada owes its development down through the years to the railroads that go to make up that great organization, the Canadian National Railways. I well remember the feeling that was stirred up last year when it was said that the mail contracts were going to be taken away from most of the railroads in our district, because so many of the people felt this was the thin end of the wedge-by the way, these mail contracts represented almost one-third
IMr. Nowlan.]
of the total revenue of those railroads-and that eventually the railroads would all be shut off and the lines to Kincardine and Southampton would be abandoned.
In that district we have many urban municipalities which are hoping that one day this idea of decentralizing industry and such things will lead to American and British companies coming to Canada and setting up new industries in these communities. I could cite many advantages in doing so, such as better living conditions and labour conditions that would be advantageous to companies doing that, and it would also be of great benefit to the railroad. I understand that the railroads do have a department to try to decentralize industry, to send industry out to districts such as that in which I live so these smaller communities may benefit from the advantage of having factories in their areas; but if these railroad lines are abandoned, and the service is cut off, the chances of these communities ever getting industry is pretty well done away with because most industries of any size demand a rail service.
In connection with some of the services that have been cut off, I may say they have cut off the passenger service from Palmerston to Durham. For two weeks they ran the same train with the same crew at the same time; but the caboose fell apart, or something. They put the same coach back on that mixed train and ran it up and down over that line with the same crew, but they would not let any of the people who went down to the station get on the coach and ride as passengers.
I don't know whether that is good public relations or what it is, but there were a few people who would have liked to travel on that train; the coach was there, and I don't see why they were not allowed to travel. Having been raised in a small railroad centre which, I can remember, was a very busy centre at one time with hundreds of men working in the freight sheds and in the shops, I naturally regret that this should have dwindled to a mere handful of men carrying on this work, and I find myself asking why the railroads should have lost all that business. I sometimes feel, as the hon. member for Perth indicated he felt, that if the railways improved the service up there they could get back a lot of the business in that district.
I was reading an article in a Canadian national magazine that came to our desks yesterday about a new train they were investigating in Sweden called the "Kort, Lag and Latt"-"Short, low and light"-and in this article it says:
The story behind the KLL is a familiar one. Alarmed by diminishing passenger returns, the state

railways took a hard second look at existing rolling stock, found that it had grown too fat and frilly.
After all, I do feel that if the railroads improved the service and gave a more specialized service they could get back a lot of this business. The final paragraph of this article says this:
With a polite bow in the direction of other lightweight builders, the Swedes are careful to say that the KLL is custom-built for local conditions inside a country that is only slightly bigger than the state of California, where quick turnaround and a flexible consist become of paramount importance.
But they make no secret of their belief that they've gone a step further-and in the right direction-than anybody else in the lightweight field.
I sometimes wonder how much investigation and research is being done by the railroads in this connection. We have heard about the trains that are being used on some of the branch lines and which are giving wonderful service, and I feel that if they were adopted more universally on branch lines many more people would travel on them. As the hon. member for Perth indicated, people are not too happy about driving their cars from outlying districts into the city of Toronto today because of traffic and parking conditions, and if they could get good service from the railroads I believe many people would go back to that type of transportation.
The railroads may say that the passenger service provides only a small part of the revenue, but I feel this is the same as any other kind of business; you don't make 100 per cent profit on everything you do. Yesterday we were talking about public relations with regard to a bill which was before the house, and I sometimes feel that if the railroads took this question of public relations more seriously they would do better. Sometimes they do not seem to realize that a man travelling in one of these old coaches may be a furniture manufacturer with a factory in one of these areas, and after one of these rides in not too pleasant circumstances he may say, "If this is the kind of service they are going to give me, my freight is going by road".
There is another idea that occurs to me, and that is with regard to a circular that came in today concerning "piggyback" transportation. I do feel that is something which could be given a great deal of research and investigation by the railroads. It is being used now from Toronto to Montreal, and it might become more universal. If we look at its origin, it seems that away back in 1855 the Halifax-Truro railway, a line built by the Nova Scotia government, inaugurated "piggyback" for the transportation of farmers' wagons.
A lot of the business that used to go on in the community where I lived was concerned
Committee on Railways and Shipping with stock. At 5.30 every day a stock train went out of that town, stock that had been brought in on the branch lines. That business is all being carried by truck today. Perhaps if the railroad went into this "piggyback" business some arrangement could be made whereby these stock trucks could be carried "piggyback" to Toronto and be moved from there to the stockyards.
However, I do feel that the railroads have an important place in the life of these smaller communities, and I hope the railroad companies will consider the suggestions I have made and take a second look at these small branch lines, because they mean a great deal to the people in those districts.


Mr. A. E. Robinson (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few remarks on this resolution. We are in sympathy with the remarks made by the hon. gentleman who has just taken his place, and also with the remarks of the hon. gentleman from Perth. I may say that we in the Bruce riding are at the end of the line, so if it is tough for these people you can see how much tougher it will be for us if these lines are cut off. There are three lines which run out from Palmerston to Wiarton, Kincardine and Southampton.
Over the last number of years there has been controversy about the discontinuance of a considerable number of trains on these lines. Each time the problem comes up a great fight is waged by the people of the district, and until now they have won. 1 would urge the minister very strongly not to consider discontinuing such lines at the present time when we in Canada are looking forward to a vast increase in population.
There are two controversies at the present time in our district. Our people are fighting, and I think rightly so. I was at a meeting in Wiarton about two months ago. The people there were stirred up like a hive of bees, and I think they were right. We have another controversy now about cutting off the Tara station in Bruce. The discontinuance of the carrying of mail on the trains is the thin edge of the wedge, but in order to put something over on the people of Bruce the wedge will have to be a lot thinner.
I should like to say that the board of transport commissioners is doing a real good job. Considering the way the railway has been trying to make use of the board in Bruce, we are very thankful that the board is there. I have faith that the board will continue to act in the manner understood they should when the board was established to do this work, and to see that people get railway service. There could be improvements made on these lines, and it is my opinion that by making these improvements a certain amount
2136	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping of business would be recaptured that has been lost over the last number of years through pure neglect.
At the present time small diesels are running into Kincardine on one of our lines. I am not in a position to say how the operation is working out, but it looks as though it might be the answer on some of these lines until Bruce becomes more industrialized.
I have nothing more to say. I think this matter could be very well taken up by the minister, and I think he might exercise some of his authority over the Canadian National Railways so the good people of Bruce will not be up in arms all the time.


Mr. G. K. Fraser (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a word or two. On a number of occasions I have said that when buying new freight cars the C.N.R. should insist that the cars have a light line along their sides so people driving motor cars at night will be able to see the freight cars and not run into them, as has happened week after week, month after month through the years, with dozens of people being killed. It would not cost the C.N.R. any additional money, and it would result in people definitely being able to see the freight cars. At present these cars are a dull, dirt colour that blends into the landscape, and on a dark, foggy night it is almost impossible to see them until you are right into them.
I know the minister has had the experience of squinting at freight cars from his automobile. All you can see is the light in the cab of the engine; you cannot see the cars. I know this is being done on some of the railways in the United States. They are putting light coloured lines on their freight cars. The C.N.R. could do the same, and on the coloured Strip or above it they could advertise Canada. I think it would be a safety measure for the protection of motorists in general, and would create a lot of good will for the C.N.R.


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to confirm what my seatmate has just said. When coming to Toronto last winter something ran into the side of the train I was on. There was only one coach, an express car and the engine, and something ran into the express car ahead of us. We knew we had run over something. The train did not stop, but when we got down the line a little farther it was reported that we had killed a man who had run into the side of the train with a pick-up truck. It was about half past seven in the morning, before daylight, and there is no doubt in the world that the driver did not see the train at all. Of course, the engineer did not see him because he was past the point of impact. The driver of the truck drifted right into
[Mr. Robinson (Bruce) .1

the side of the train. He hit the express coach in the vicinity of the door. A light line on the side of the train in that case might have done a lot of good.
Before I sit down I should like to confirm what other hon. members have said. In my section of the country the railway has been threatening to take off train service. On our line last summer the railway operated an old colonist coach that has been on the road for 75 years, I suppose. It was the old style of sleeper used in the past for excursions to the west. The bunks were not turned down, but they were still there. That is the kind of car we had to travel in all last summer. It was not so bad in the winter because it was nice and warm, but in the summer you could not open the windows and the only way you could get fresh air was through the door. That is one reason the C.N.R. are not getting any passenger traffic, simply because they are not giving any service to the general public.
I should also like to mention the fact that the mail was taken off the trains last year. We tried our best to have it kept on the trains but it was claimed that it could be hauled much cheaper by truck. That may be true. I am not complaining about the present mail service, but I am complaining that the purpose in taking the mail off the train was so the railway would have the excuse that the train was not paying its way. The next move will be to try to take the train off the line, because that is exactly what they tried to do the year before although they did not get away with it.
I do not know what you are going to do with the main lines if you discontinue all the feeder lines. There is one thing that is sure: If you do not keep the feeder lines to feed the main lines, it will not be long until the main lines will be gone too, and what are you going to do then?


Mr. Hardie:: Travel by air.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: That is all very well.


An hon. Member:: By dog sled.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: Not everybody has the
money to travel by air. A lot of people do not like travelling by air. You cannot build airports every few miles, so you are up against a problem.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: There are lots of roads and cars.


Mr. Charlton:: Lots of dogs too.


An hon. Member:: Lots of snow.


Mervyn Arthur Hardie: Not where you come from.


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I suppose Huron is the greatest snow section of any part of Ontario. If

there is any snow anywhere we usually have plenty of it. We have not been getting as much lately, and we have not had the handicap of having to plow so many snow roads. This winter has been an exception, of course, but I would urge the minister that none of these services should be discontinued.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the part of Ontario that has been discussed by the last several members, and I agree with them that very few people are travelling on the railway lines there. However, most of these lines do have two trains per day, and I should like to remind them that there are a great many other communities in Canada that are pretty important to the people living there where they only have two trains a week.
In raising objections such as those which were being raised by the members of the Conservative party, particularly, I think some consideration should be given to the fact that they are probably asking the taxpayers of Canada to come into the picture again by making up deficits in maintaining two trains a day on lines where people are not using the service. I am impressed by the wonderful network of highways in Ontario. Up in the part of Canada in which I live we have not hard surfaced roads at all, and our people are obliged to make use of the rail service.
What I wanted to emphasize was the fact that the case made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not received from others who have been speaking the support it deserves. I think we must be disturbed about the public relations angle that has been mentioned by other hon. members. The splendid record of the Canadian National Railways has been made possible by the fine service of the personnel who have worked on the sections, in the running trades and in the shops throughout the years in all parts of Canada. Unfortunately many have reached the age where they are unable to earn their regular pay cheques. I think it is disturbing that we have a total of almost 7,000 former employees of this company who are obliged to balance their budgets on less than $40 a month.


George Carlyle Marler: How does the hon. member arrive at the assumption that the pensioners have no other resources at all?


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: As far as my hon. friend's corporation is concerned, that is all that is provided by pension.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes; but they had an opportunity to contribute.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: Some of them had and some had not.
Committee on Railways and Shipping


Mr. Dupuis:: The country is more properous today than ever before.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: That is the trouble. You have a large group of Canadian people who cannot get in on the present prosperity of Canada. As a matter of fact they are worse off than they would be if the country were not so prosperous, because as a result of the so-called prosperity everything they buy is being forced up and up. These people who are limited to less than $40 a month in their pension cheques from the Canadian National Railways are in a difficult position.


Hector Dupuis: Everybody knows it.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: If they cannot live on it I think something should be done to see that their pensions are brought up. I might mention that there are some other pensioners-


Hector Dupuis: You have not the monopoly of the defence of these people.


Alexander Malcolm Nicholson: I wish my hon. friend who is a very brilliant speaker on occasion would rise and make an argument in support of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, to the effect that this group of nearly 7,000 of his fellow Canadians should be getting a better deal than they are receiving.
On February 13 the Minister of Finance answered a question of mine in connection with pensions that are being paid in Canada. Since that time he has given me some supplementary information that does not appear on the record of Hansard. The highest pension that is paid is $875 a month or $10,500 a year. If one of our citizens needs a pension of $875 each month to meet his obligations in this very complex society, I think these other neighbours of ours who are getting by with less than $40 are having an exceedingly difficult time.
As was mentioned by my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, there are 7 who are getting less than $25 a month; there are another 3,068 who are getting $25 and there are 3,624 who are getting from $25 to $39.99. I would think the Minister of Transport, who has been able to plan this magnificent new hotel that is being built in the city of Montreal, would be able to see to it that this large group of 6,699 former employees of the Canadian National Railways would have something better than the present pension program.
(Translation):


Mr. Fernand Girard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the establishment of the railways committee, I should like to address a few remarks to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marler), to call his attention to the problem of the railroad serving the
2138	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping whole Saguenay area. In fact, the Saguenay area can perhaps claim the dubious honour of having the slowest railway service in America. The engineers working on this line, on either passenger or freight trains, are not allowed to exceed 35 miles per hour because of the many curves and the obsolete condition of the road.
The minister has no doubt received representations about this matter, from local boards of trade, in the course of the winter. Moreover, I have received complaints about the fact that, over a period of about two months, daily service, the train arrived on time two or three times at the most, especially during the Christmas season.
One of the railway employees personally told me that, at times, the numerous curves serve a useful purpose, in that on some of them the engineer, from his cab, can actually talk to the trainman in the tail coach.


Hector Dupuis: Now, that is a tall one!


Fernand Girard: Recently, in compliance with a request, an extra coach was added, dubbed a "club car", but the only service it provides is bar service. Actually it is more a tavern than a club car for, according to the employees, they can't even make toast, since the train does not travel fast enough to generate the power required for the heating of the appliances used in making a plain sandwich.
The actual distance between Quebec and Jonquiere, by rail is 235 miles whereas by highway it is only 125 miles. A motor car or bus will cover the distance in three hours but the train trip from Jonquiere to Quebec takes eight or nine hours. And this is A.D. 1957!
A town like Jonquiere which, together with Kenogami, has a population of about 40,000, has yet been unable to secure a 24-hour a day telegraph service, so that in emergencies we have to resort to teletypes provided by people who have them available.
It seems to me that the Saguenay area, one undergoing extraordinary expansion, should at last be given an efficient and satisfactory train service. When we ask for information on the revenues of the C.N.R. in this region, the railway authorities give us the figures for the Atlantic region. According to people in the know, the Saguenay line is one of the most profitable on the whole Canadian National Railways system. At the same time it is one of the worst and the slowest in this country.


I feel that some thought should soon be given to the rebuilding of this line so that it could give a type of service which would allow the Canadian National Railways to have their share of the traffic, while giving the people the service they deserve.
(Text):


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Applewhaile):: the Minister of Transport speaks now he will close the debate.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to attempt to deal with all the many points that have come out during the course of the discussion we have had this afternoon and evening on this motion for the setting up of a committee in connection with the accounts and estimates of the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. I think, however, there are one or two points with which I should like to deal.
There has been during the debate a good deal of comment with regard to the abandonment of rail service in different parts of the country, particularly in western Ontario. During the course of the discussion itself it appeared and it was made quite clear by the remarks of the hon. member for Lapointe who has just resumed his seat -that the great difficulty of the railroads in the day in which we live is that there is a certain natural competition which it is difficult for them to meet. It is difficult to meet because the competing modes of transport offer advantages which the railway is quite unable to offer.
A moment ago the hon. member for Lapointe mentioned the facility with which the people in his part of the country can reach Quebec when travelling by road, and the fact that they could do so more rapidly than when they travelled by train. We who drive motor cars from time to time know that if you have a relatively short distance to go, if you are going by automobile you leave when you feel like it. You are not bound to respect the schedule of passenger services which the railroads must obviously adopt. Consequently there is a very natural tendency for individuals with motor cars to make use of those cars, and of the highways in the region in which they live, to travel short distances. We all know that for short distances it is difficult for trains to compete with the automobile.

The same remarks apply to the situation with respect to transportation by truck. It is a fact that under many circumstances it is much more convenient for the shipper of goods to send them to their destination by truck than it is to send them by rail. I do not think any serious-minded person would dispute the fact that very often service by truck offers advantages which the railway is quite unable to offer. There is the very obvious fact that there is only one handling of the goods into the truck and out of the truck when the goods are loaded by the shipper and unloaded at destination.
Everyone, I believe, should realize that this type of competition is virtually impossible for the railway to meet, regardless of its name and whether it be owned by the people of Canada or by private capital. I think that is the situation all over the North American continent. I do not believe there is any use beating our breasts and saying that the railways should make greater efforts to get back some of this business, because some of it has been lost irrevocably as a result of the fact that truck transportation often offers a better, more efficient and cheaper way of getting goods from the point of shipment to destination.
There is another fact which I think people should recognize in connection with the type of competition for passenger business which is offered by buses and by private automobiles, and the competition for the highly valued goods which quite definitely move by truck. That is that these are conveniences which we are quite prepared to accept. We should not, therefore, having accepted these conveniences, then proceed to criticize the fact that the railways are no longer able to offer on an economic basis the services they did offer when these forms of competition did not exist. I think we should be realistic about it and realize we cannot have our cake and eat it too.
Really, what is the long-term history of many of these branch lines? I am not going to reach too far back into history, because I know what I am going to say does not apply in all cases. So often when it comes to building a branch line the community is overjoyed if the railway will build the line. Very often it is the fact that the railway has built the line that has given birth to the community and assisted its development. Then when the community prospers and its industries are set up, the first thing you know you have an excellent highway. The business of the community then begins to be divided between the railway and the trucks. The first thing you know the trucks are carrying most of it and the passengers go by automobile and by bus. Consequently
12, 1957	2139
Committee on Railways and Shipping the demand for the railway service is cut down and the quality of the service is cut down. Finally the railway, having lost enough money, asks for permission to abandon the line or to abandon this particular service.
Then what happens? Everybody says, "Don't give up the service". There have been cases which have come to my attention in which the community has said, "If you give up operating this line our truck rates are going to go up". In other words the railroad has now become the measure by which truck rates are to be kept down for those communities. I do not believe you can have it both ways. I think those who want to see the railroad service developed should patronize it. In other words, if they sincerely believe the railroads should be providing the service they should be the first people to use them.
I am not going on any further with that subject, Mr. Speaker. I should like to say one word, because two or three members spoke about it, on the subject of witnesses before this committee. I am not a member of the committee and have not at any time been a member of the committee. I have not, therefore, participated in its decisions. It seems to me quite clear from the motion that is now before the house, and motions that have been adopted previously in similar terms, that the power to call for persons and papers relates to the subject matter of the motion itself, that is to say, to the accounts, estimates and bills relating to these three companies. In my judgment the committee would be going beyond its powers if it proceeded to call witnesses to deal with subjects which were not germane to the objects for which the committee was constituted. Consequently, if somebody suggested that we should call witnesses from one of the other railway companies so we might examine the policies of Canadian National, I would oppose such a suggestion as fully as I could if I were a member of the committee.
A good deal has been said on the subject of pensions of former employees of Canadian National Railways. I would hope that this year those who have spoken so extensively on the subject will make a point of raising this issue in the committee itself, where the subject could be fully ventilated and where the provisions of the pension plan could be considered by the committee. Members of the committee would have an opportunity of judging both sides of the story, and not merely one which is based purely on statistics. In that connection I would merely remind the committee that the accounts of Canadian National Railways show that the disbursement for pensions comes very close
2140	HOUSE OF
Committee on Railways and Shipping to $36 million a year. When that question is examined, when the contributions of the railway toward the welfare of its employees who have retired or who will ultimately retire are examined, what the Canadian National is doing will stand up to the light of day and will be regarded by fair-minded persons as fair treatment of its employees.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister say how much the employees are paying in per year at the present time?


George Carlyle Marler: I am sorry, I have no information on the amount of their contribution. However, the $36 million figure which I have just given is the Canadian National contribution to pensions. It seems to me if an examination were made of the composition of the total amount, it would be found that the company's contribution is not ungenerous. I think it would compare very favourably with that of other employers in Canada.
There are a number of other topics, Mr. Speaker, which it seemed to me, as I listened to the speakers this afternoon, were largely matters which properly ought to be brought up when the committee sits and when the president of the Canadian National, with his staff, will be able to give the fullest information to the hon. gentlemen who wish to ask questions on the subjects on which they have spoken.
I noticed that the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings could not entirely get away from what I described the other day as his recreation centre, namely the William Carson.
I was glad to hear him speak favourably of the services of the Bluenose, which he would like the William Carson to supplement. I would like to say at once with regard to the William Carson, regardless of the impression that seems to be in the mind of the hon. member to whom I just referred, that the ship is actively engaged in the carrying of freight between Sydney and Newfoundland, and she is not available for the purpose of supplementing the service between Yarmouth and Bar Harbor which is now being carried on by the Bluenose.
I was interested to hear the hon. gentleman's favourable comments on the subject of the off-season rates. I am sorry they were not made effective earlier last year than they were. As I said when the lower rates were instituted, we are trying this as an experiment, and we are going to try and evaluate the results in the off-season to which they apply and reach an objective decision. After all, we are very much interested in seeing, first of all, that the Bluenose renders as much service as possible to the people of the maritimes. We are anxious to see it encourage tourist business; but at the same time it is not quite as simple as


some of those who have written on the subject would believe. They say it is much better to have three trucks travelling in the place of two. Everybody will agree with their arithmetic, but it is not just as simple as that would seem. It is not always possible to get 50 per cent more traffic by making a relatively small reduction in rates.
At all events, we are trying this as an experiment. I certainly hope it will be satisfactory from the point of view of those who are operating the vessel, and more so for those who are making use of its service.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I have covered what I consider to be the important matters relating to the committee that were discussed this afternoon and this evening; and I hope that, seeing everybody is in favour of the committee being set up, we shall have the opportunity of setting it up at an early date and discussing all of these various questions.


John Borden Hamilton: Will the
minister permit a question?


George Carlyle Marler: Certainly.


John Borden Hamilton: Would the
minister have the same opinion in connection with the calling of an outside witness before this committee if the witness, being an expert, might be able to relate the efficiency of the operation of the company from its gross revenues to the net position it has attained in connection with the profit position? Would evidence of that kind from an outside witness come within the minister's view that such a witness should not be called?


George Carlyle Marler: Well, Mr. Speaker, not even
being a member of the committee I do not want to go too fully into an opinion as to what the committee should do; but it seems to me the purpose of the committee is clearly set forth in the motion. It is to review the accounts and estimates of these three companies, and I personally would question the desirability of calling outside witnesses to testify to something which related necessarily to the internal management of these companies. That is only a personal opinion and I would not want to close the door; at the same time I hope I am not opening it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good Liberal position.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


George Carlyle Marler: the second reading of Bill No. 210, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


Howard Charles Green: Will the minister explain,
please.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think hon. members will find that this is indeed a very simple bill. The purpose of the bill, as its title suggests, is to amend the Canada Shipping Act, and specifically section 493. That section provides for the general penalty in respect of violations of any of the provisions of part VII of the act, which deals with the subject of steamship inspection.
I think hon. members will understand the situation better if I read the terms of section 493, which are as follows:
Except where otherwise specially provided in this part, the owner or master of any Canadian ship is liable to a fine not exceeding $100 and not less than $50 for any violation of any provision of this part or regulation made thereunder.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, the use of the words "a Canadian ship", which in the act is defined in section 2 to mean a ship registered in Canada. In this connection I would remind hon. members that ships of less than 15 tons burden do not require to be registered, so it will be readily apparent that these particular Canadian ships are not subject to this penalty provision of section 493 which I have just read.
The deputy minister of justice has expressed the view that section 493 does not extend to offences committed by ships other than ships registered in Canada, and an amendment of the act is required before the regulations made under part VII may be enforced by prosecution against unregistered vessels.
I would like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that the regulations for which a penalty ought to be provided are made in Canada, and those that apply to those unregistered vessels, which obviously are small craft, are: first, the fire detection and extinguishing equipment regulations; second, regulations regarding life-saving appliances; and, third, small fishing vessel inspection regulations.
The purpose of this bill is to extend the scope of section 493 of the act to cover violations by unregistered vessels of any provisions of part VII of the act or of the regulations made under part VII of the act.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, there are one or two points in which I find myself most interested, which the minister has not mentioned. I must say that I have read this bill, and I took from it something entirely different from that which the minister has explained. I took it that it meant it was going to bring ships of nations other than Canada under the provisions of this act in some respects in order that they might be covered. I am wondering whether
Canada Shipping Act
anything of that sort is also involved in this bill, which will change the reference from "Canadian ship" to "any ship".
There is this whole question of the safety regulations in respect of ships. The minister mentioned the steamship section. As I understand it, part VII also applies to the inspection of ships tackle and the safety measures that are now required to safeguard those who are loading and unloading ships in Canadian ports. Those are all matters of considerable interest.
I have looked through part VII, and I notice that many of the sections thereof provide specific penalties. It is a little difficult for one reading the act to decide to what sections this ammended penalty clause would apply. I am wondering if the minister intends to refer this bill to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where we would have an opportunity to discuss it with the experts from the department.
The minister will recall that last year we had what I considered was a most valuable discussion on a proposal having to do with the licensing of small boats. During that time we also had an opportunity of discussing some of the safety regulations which now exist in regard to providing fire extinguishers and so on, which the minister has mentioned. I take it that the proposals contained in this bill arise in part from the increased interest in ensuring an observance of proper safety measures by the owners of small craft which ply our waters.
I hope the minister will keep in mind the idea of sending this bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so we may have an opportunity of obtaining information in much more detail than we can possibly obtain it on the floor of the house. If it is related at all, perhaps then we would be able to get some further reports from the officials as to what progress is being made in increasing safety provisions in connection with the operation of small craft. Before the debate closes I hope the minister will give us some indication of his reaction to the suggestions I have made.


Frederick George Hahn: Mr. Speaker, do I understand the minister to suggest that the reason for the deletion of the word "Canadian" was to make the section applicable to shipping of all countries? If that is the case, will he explain what position we will be put into in respect to ships of foreign registry which simply stop at a Canadian port on their way through? Are there specific instances where we have tried to apply this section of the act and have failed?

Canada Shipping Act


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to say anything at this time, as I had expected to deal with what I have in mind during the committee stage; but in view of the fact that hon. members who have preceded me have raised some points, I should like to ask the minister to explain the connection between sections 493 and 494 of the Canada Shipping Act. Section 493, which is the section to be amended by this bill, seems to be a general penalty section, presumably to provide penalties not contained in other sections of this particular act. Section 494 is headed "Special applications of this part" which is referring to the whole of part VII. Subsection 1 reads:
The governor in council may direct that this part or any of the provisions thereof shall apply to any ship or class of ship registered elsewhere than in Canada whilst within the territorial waters of Canada.
That seems to make it possible to extend the provisions of that part to all foreign ships in Canadian waters, including the provisions of section 493, the general penalty section. Subsection 2 of section 494 reads:
This part applies to all unregistered ships, other than ships belonging to Her Majesty and government ships, whilst they are within Canada.
That subsection would seem to be wide enough to make part VII, including the general penalty section, applicable to all unregistered ships. If I am correct in my interpretation of section 494 there would seem to be no need for deleting the word "Canadian" in section 493. The situation may not be just as I have expressed it, but on reading those two sections it would seem to me that the department already has the power under section 494 to do everything that would be done by deleting the word "Canadian" in section 493.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra has described properly the purpose of section 494. The very words of the section confirm the opinion the hon. member has just expressed. The heading of section 493 is "General penalty" and it reads:
Except where otherwise specially provided in this part, the owner or master of any Canadian ship is liable to a fine not exceeding one hundred dollars and not less than fifty dollars for any violation of any provision of this part of regulation made thereunder.
As the hon. member for Comox-Alberni indicated, there are specific sections in part VII where a penalty is indicated. This is a general penalty clause which applies to those regulations where a penalty is not specifically spelled out, and to those sections of the act which require something to be done but for which no specific penalty is enacted.
TMr. Hahn.]
The only difficulty which arises is that although at first sight it would appear that there is no division between sections 493 and 494, the deputy minister of justice has expressed the view that this general penalty clause does not apply to ships not registered in Canada, that is to say ships under 15 tons. As I said before, the expression "Canadian ship" is defined by section 2 of the act as meaning a ship registered in Canada. We have the rather curious position that the general penalty clause refers only to ships which are registered, and it would only be by means of section 494(2) that unregistered ships might conceivably be made subject to the provisions of section 493.
I have not attempted to go into the matter particularly because I think section 493 was enacted by the house under the impression that its provisions extended to all Canadian ships, whether registered or not, and that the combination of sections 493 and 494 would attain that objective. The fact is that the legislation has not succeeded in achieving that end, and the sole purpose of the legislation is to make it perfectly clear that all ships will be subject to the provisions of the general penalty clause.
The question was raised whether this was going to affect vessels other than Canadian ships, and I would merely point out to the house that section 494, in subsection 1, provides expressly:
The governor in council may direct that this part or any of the provisions thereof shall apply to any ship or class of ship registered elsewhere than in Canada whilst within the territorial waters of Canada.
So these foreign vessels are not being made subject to the general penalty clause by the draft amendment which we are now considering but, rather, are made subject to it under section 494, which I have iust read.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I might add one word: I was not proposing to send this bill to the committee because the subject matter is really very simple. It was -considered in the other place and was not found to be contentious. In committee of the whole, if there are other questions which hon. members wish to ask I would have members of my staff here, and I am sure the committee will be informed regarding anything they may wish to know.
Motion agreed to bill read the second time, and the house went into committee, thereon, Mr. Applewhaite in the chair.
On clause 1-Penalty.


Howard Charles Green: Can the minister tell the committee whether there has been any unsuccessful prosecution in which an attempt

was made to use section 493? It would appear that there must have been some reason behind this amendment; surely the deputy minister of justice would not just be checking the bill in connection with a general review of legislation, or anything of that kind. The question must have been referred to him for a purpose, and it might help the committee if the minister could tell us just how this problem came up.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I had been under the impression that this had developed when a prosecution was being considered, but I am informed that a prosecution was actually started before a magistrate, and that the prosecution was dismissed because of the insufficiency of the language of section 493 to which I referred a moment ago.


Howard Charles Green: In what court was this decision rendered?


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member, being from British Columbia, will be relieved to know it was one of the courts of Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: I thought so.


John Borden Hamilton: Was this in connection with one of the incidents concerning oil seepage in lake Ontario?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I am informed that the prosecution arose because of a statement that the vessel in question was not carrying sufficient lifesaving equipment.


Howard Charles Green: What sort of a vessel would it be that was not carrying lifesaving equipment, and was not registered?


George Carlyle Marler: My information, Mr. Chairman. is that it was a pleasure vessel under five tons which was not carrying the proper lifesaving equipment that is called for under the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Is that under the new regulations which were passed last year?


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, it was not in respect of the regulations adopted last year that the prosecution took place. The regulations in connection with lifesaving appliances were adopted in 1954. I understand there have always been regulations of one kind or another requiring the provision of lifesaving appliances but I am not able to state whether the prosecution was under the regulations to which I have just referred or under earlier regulations with respect to that particular requirement.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have noticed what seems to me to be some relationship between sections 493 and 494 of the act, and had hoped we might get clarification of that
Canada Shipping Act
particular matter in committee. As I originally read the act, I thought it meant that the minister was going to bring within the jurisdiction of this penalty clause ships other than Canadian ships, using the term "Canadian ships" in the broad sense of the word.
Now I am wondering if the minister could explain to the committee whether in this change which is proposed we are in any way affecting the arrangements which have hitherto existed in regard to the treatment of vessels of non-Canadian origin which may be from time to time in Canadian waters. As I understood the minister, he suggested that this amendment was to bring within the scope of the penalty clause unregistered Canadian vessels, but I am wondering whether by virtue of the change from "Canadian ships" to "any ships" we are in any way affecting the status of ships from other countries which happen to be in Canada, and the obligations or penalties which may apply to them while they are in Canadian waters.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I think if the hon. member for Comox-Alberni would look at the language of section 493 in the draft bill, and the language in the act as it now stands, he would agree that we would have great difficulty in prosecuting a foreign vessel and endeavouring to impose a penalty which was provided for only in this general penalty clause, with the language as it now stands. I think it is clear from what I said earlier and from the decision to which I alluded a moment ago that if the court were dealing with a prosecution for an offence for which a specific penalty was not provided, so that reliance had to be placed on section 493 in order to find a penalty, the court would hold that this penalty would be applicable only to Canadian ships, that is to ships registered in Canada and, as I pointed out earlier, that excludes ships under 15 tons.
I think the effect of the amendment we are now considering is to make this general penalty apply to all vessels which are subject to the provisions of part VII. We know there are vessels that are subject to part VII. All it is necessary to do is to look at the provisions of part VII to see the vessels that are covered, but specifically section 494 says the governor in council may direct that this part or any of the provisions thereof shall apply to any ship or class of ship registered elsewhere than in Canada whilst within the territorial waters of Canada. This means that if regulations in that sense are adopted and there is an offence for which no specific penalty is provided, section 493 as amended by the bill now before the committee would

Canada Shipping Act
provide a general penalty where none exists in the statute or where none is provided for in the regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Is not the problem the department faces in this case that of making the act wide enough to cover a ship licensed in Canada rather than registered in Canada? If I remember correctly the amendments that were made last year, or perhaps the year before, provided that every ship, no matter how small, must be licensed. Against my protests, by the way, the tonnage of a ship which had to be registered was raised from 10 to 15 but we were assured that all ships under 15 tons, no matter how small, would be licensed and therefore there was nothing to worry about.
Surely the problem the department is trying to meet would be much better handled by adding after the words "Canadian ship" in the present section something to this effect, "or ship licensed in Canada." Then you would pick up every single Canadian ship, because they are all either registered or licensed in Canada.
I think there is something in the point raised by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, that with the amendment deleting the word "Canadian" you are extending that general penalty provision to ships of all nations, and I do not believe it was ever the intention that such should be the case. We have ships coming into our seaports from all over the world, and those ships should not be made subject to any local provisions. There are the general rules applying under the different maritime conventions, but Canada has very many foreign ships coming into her ports. In fact she has practically no Canadian deep sea ships using her ports. Under government policy these ships have all faded away, and we are almost entirely dependent on foreign registered ships. Certainly in the St. Lawrence seaway this year there will not be one Canadian registered deep sea ship. I would think it would be much wiser to meet this problem by adding words to cover ships that are licensed in Canada as well as ships registered in Canada.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, it is not intended that this should apply only to licensed vessels. It is intended that section 493 should provide a general penalty where the act does not provide a specific one. We discussed that a moment ago on second reading, and I think the situation is perfectly clear. The suggestion just made by the hon. member for Van-couver-Quadra would still leave out of the scope of this particular section vessels which were not licensed. There are a number of vessels in Canada that are not licensed, yet

we think they should be subject to the requirements of the regulations which are designed to protect the lives of passengers and the crew.
Quite frankly I do not want to amend this legislation and in effect water it down so there will still remain a class of vessels not licensed which will not be obliged to respect fire detection and extinguishing equipment regulations, or not be obliged to respect regulations regarding lifesaving appliances.


Howard Charles Green: What vessels would they be?


George Carlyle Marler: My official tells me that among the vessels which would be so described are outboard motor ships under 10 horsepower which do not require to be licensed. Also, as I think was made clear earlier, foreign vessels to which the act may be made to apply would likewise be subject to the provisions of this clause in the event that the power vested in the governor in council under section 494 is exercised.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the power to deal with foreign vessels is wide enough under section 494. If this change is being made in order to cover all foreign vessels, then section 494 becomes of no use because the new section 493 will override the provisions of 494 (1). Surely that was not the intention of the department.


George Carlyle Marler: I had thought the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra would have realized that what we had originally intended in section 493 was a general penalty provision which applied to all the sections of part VII of the act, and that in the event that under section 494 the governor in council made part VII or some part thereof applicable to vessels not registered in Canada, this general penalty clause would apply to them too. But I am sure the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra realizes that in the case to which I referred a moment ago, which was that of a small Canadian vessel, no penalty could be imposed by the magistrate because it was not a registered Canadian vessel.


Howard Charles Green: Was it licensed?


George Carlyle Marler: The question whether or not it was licensed does not make any difference, because the expression "Canadian ship" means a ship registered in Canada. That is the significance of the language in the present statute, and all we are attempting to do is just what the note of explanation sets forth. It says:
The purpose of this amendment is to apply this section to all ships with respect to which safety regulations may be made under this part.
I think that is perfectly clear.


Mr. Johnston (Bow River):: I cannot see anything wrong with the amendment the

minister is trying to have made to this act. It seems to me that the intention of the amendment is to make it apply to a ship whether or not of Canadian registry. The thought that comes to my mind-I have not the act before me at the moment-is what would be the situation in the case of a ship calling at a Canadian port, let us say in an emergency for repairs or something of that sort, where it is not doing business, not carrying passengers or not picking up or loading cargo. Would a condition such as that make it liable under this act? It would certainly create a very awkward situation if that were true.


George Carlyle Marler: I agree with the hon. member.


Charles Edward Johnston: Does it apply to a situation such as that?


George Carlyle Marler: I am informed that there are to be found in part VII several provisions which cover the case which the hon. member for Bow River has just mentioned. But I would draw to his attention section 494, which enables the governor in council to direct that this part-that is part VII-or any of the provisions thereof shall apply to any ship or class of ship registered elsewhere than in Canada whilst within the territorial waters of Canada.


Charles Edward Johnston: Would not that make it apply?


George Carlyle Marler: All I can say to the hon. gentleman is that I do not believe any such regulations have in fact been made. I think that is a power which has not so far been taken.


Charles Edward Johnston: I have the act before me. I do not think section 494 would cover a case such as that. What part of part VII has the minister reference to?


George Carlyle Marler: What was that last question?


Charles Edward Johnston: What part of the act has the minister reference to?


George Carlyle Marler: Part VII, which begins with section 376. The hon. member might like to look, for example, at section 403, which deals with international voyages from Canada by ships to which the convention-that is the safety convention

does not apply. I think you will probably find other provisions in part VII.


Frederick George Hahn: I think possibly if the minister could give us more information with respect to the specific case that was drawn to our attention with regard to the prosecution of the vessel on lake Ontario, or whatever lake it might have been, it would be helpful. I have in mind the fact that in the riding
Canada Shipping Act
which I represent we have a seaside resort, as have the Americans to the south of us. I find that Canadians are mooring their craft at Blaine harbour in the United States because we have not the necessary facilities in my own area.
Is the case to which the minister referred earlier similar? Is it the case of a Canadian owner of a vessel having his vessel moored, let us say, in a United States port, and it comes to Canada and is used only at times by himself? Or would it be a United States vessel which is owned by an American and brought into Canadian waters and used for pleasure purposes?


George Carlyle Marler: I thought I had made it clear earlier that the case upon which the prosecution was taken unsuccessfully was the case of a Canadian vessel, not registered in Canada, which was not observing the requirements of the regulations concerning lifesaving appliances.


Frederick George Hahn: I realize that. But what I am interested in is this. It is a Canadian owned vessel; is that right? Where is it harboured? Was it a case of difficulty on the lake, as I think was suggested in an earlier submission, and that it was in international waters, as I understood it, on the lake?


George Carlyle Marler: Specifically I think it was a Canadian-owned vessel, in Canadian waters, not observing Canadian regulations.


Howard Charles Green: Was the vessel in respect of which the prosecution was taken a licensed vessel?


George Carlyle Marler: My information is that we do not have available at the moment information on whether the vessel was licensed or not licensed. However, it was not registered, which is the essential part of section 493 as it now stands.


Howard Charles Green: As the minister knows, I was suggesting that he add to the section the words "or licensed in Canada" to pick up all those vessels that are licensed.


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, I fully understand the hon. gentleman's suggestion. But I am sure he will realize that the suggestion he is making is not nearly as complete as the language that is used in this draft amendment. He will realize that it will leave out vessels that are not licensed, perhaps vessels that ought to be licensed but are not. All he is adding to those caught up under the existing language are vessels that are licensed. But the language which is being used here and which was recommended by the deputy minister of justice is the simple language which you will find in the bill namely "any ship"; that is any ship obviously to which part VII applies.

Canada Shipping Act


Howard Charles Green: If I remember correctly there are 10,000 or 15,000 licensed vessels in Canada. Those figures may be wrong. The number may be a great deal higher than that. A few moments ago I think the minister said the only ones which were not licensed were boats with outboard motors of under 10 horsepower.


George Carlyle Marler: Not subject to license.


Howard Charles Green: They are the only ones not licensed?


George Carlyle Marler: Not subject to license.


Howard Charles Green: Surely there would not be much worry in connection with that kind of boat, would there?


George Carlyle Marler: My officials tell me they are very much concerned with those vessels. I think it must be obvious to most members of the committee that it is just that type of vessel which should be carrying lifesaving equipment. I consider that the question of these regulations is a fairly technical matter. However, it seems to me that it makes sense that the vessels to which part VII of the act apply should be subject to the general penalty where they do not observe the regulations and where there is no specific penalty provided for the offence.


Frederick George Hahn: I can appreciate the minister's remarks with respect to this matter. On the Pacific coast, in the area in which I live, we have instances of dual ownership, where we have a ship owned by friends who live on the Canadian side of the border and on the United States side. The board may be harboured, let us say, in the state of Washington, at the port of Blaine. As to the Canadian-owned half of that boat, when that boat comes into Canadian waters what effect would this statute have upon such a case?


George Carlyle Marler: My understanding is that the regulations would apply unless the vessel is registered in the United States, or unless it is of foreign registry.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I have been following the discussion, and I have taken the trouble to look up the definition given to the term "ship" in the definition section of the act. I notice it specifies that it is any type of vessel not propelled by oars. I throw out this suggestion to the minister. He might have the deputy minister of justice look at the question as to whether this new amendment will not mean that Indian canoes and dugouts which are not propelled by oars but by paddles may come under the provisions of this section. However, I do not know that we will have too many problems arising in that connection.
I think it might be of some use to the committee if the minister could tell us briefly

the main applications of this particular penalty section. I do not imagine too many members of the committee are any more familiar with the details of the provisions of part VII than I am. Now that we have this matter before us, perhaps the minister could give us some indication of the type of offence which is not covered by specific penalties in this part of the act.
Then while we are considering this clause we would also be able to come to an understanding whether, for example, the penalty that is set forth as the maximum penalty is an appropriate one to carry forward into the proposed new section. As I understand it, there is not any proposal to change it from the old one, but I think it would be useful for us to get some idea as to what type of offence this penalty applies to, in contrast to the penalties which are provided under the other penalty sections of this part of the act.
One of the parts of the act in which I have a particular interest, because it does affect the people who live in my district, are those sections which apply to regulations for ships' tackle, the part which provides that certain safety measures will be observed in respect to the loading and unloading of ships. I am wondering, in particular, whether those provisions are all covered by specific penalties or whether some of them come under the penalty that is provided in section 493. I wonder if the minister could possibly give us some statement clarifying the points I have raised.


George Carlyle Marler: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I seem to be repeating myself too often, but I find a certain repetition in the substance of the questions.


Mr. Herridge:: I think that is an understatement.


George Carlyle Marler: The hon. member for Kootenay West may be quite right; it may be an understatement. In the first place, the question of the definition of any ship is a question that was raised in the other place but was not considered to be of any particular moment. After all, what we are really concerned with here are the regulations, and we all know that the regulations are not designed to regulate the conduct of people in canoes, dugouts or rowboats. These regulations are designed to protect the lives of people who are engaged in activities of one kind or another on the water; they are safety regulations.
The point I have been trying to make since the beginning of the evening is this. When section 493 as it is now to be found in the Canada Shipping Act was first enacted,

everybody believed that section applied to all offences under part VII of the act for which a specific penalty had not been enacted. I know the hon. member for Comox-Alberni will have no difficulty, if he will refer to part VII, in finding specific sections in which the penalty is indicated. All he has to do is open the shipping act at any page to find examples of that. However, so far as the regulations themselves are concerned, and so far as perhaps a few sections in part VII are concerned, there is no penalty, and that is why we need this clause which appears under the heading of "general penalty". The general penalty was thought to apply to all vessels to which part VII applies. Unfortunately a magistrate in Ontario has told us it does not apply to ships owned by Canadians which are not subject to registration. The purpose is to correct that situation in order that section 493 will in fact more effectively translate the will of parliament when section 493 was originally enacted.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Would I be correct in assuming then, generally speaking, that the regulations which are provided under the act do not carry any specific penalty in their provisions, and that the penalty provided for a breach of the regulations is that which is set forth in section 493?


George Carlyle Marler: Yes, the hon. member's
impression is correct. The regulations do not carry a penalty and the penalty is provided for in this general penalty clause, section 493.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall this bill be read a third time now, by leave?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


George Carlyle Marler: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



EASTERN ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOREST CONSERVATION ACT


Hon. Jean Lesage (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources) moved: the second reading of Bill No. 225, to amend the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act was passed
Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation in 1947, and confirmed an agreement with Alberta whereby federal assistance would be extended for capital and maintenance works on the eastern slopes of the Rocky mountains in Alberta. The act and the agreement were amended in 1952. The amendment now proposed is of a simple nature. The first change is to authorize the official audit of the board's expenditures to be made by the provincial auditor rather than by the Auditor General of Canada. As all maintenance costs are borne by the provincial government of Alberta, and as Canada's capital contributions have been completed, this is a logical change.
The original agreement and the amendment of 1952 both set certain limitations on the maintenance program with the intention of ensuring that a program of reasonable size was carried out. It is now considered that the board's work has reached the stage where no specific limitations should be imposed, particularly in view of the fact that the province is entirely responsible for maintenance costs. The second change in the amendment now being proposed would amend these limitations.
A third change deals with fire-fighting costs. The original agreement provided that if the board's forest fire-fighting costs exceeded $10,000 in any year, the excess would be borne on an equal share basis by the two governments. Both the federal government and Alberta agree that this provision should be eliminated, in view of the recent offer made under the Canada Forestry Act of federal assistance to all Canadian provinces in forest fire protection. The proposed amendment would delete this provision which is out of line with, and to some extent duplicates, the new federal offer.
The last change proposed, sir, is in section 20(b) of the original agreement. This subsection provided that all property of the board, apart from improvements, works and land, would belong to the federal government on the expiration of the agreement. As the agreement does not expire until at least 1973, and federal capital contributions ended in 1955, all items covered by the subsection and toward which federal contributions had been made would almost certainly have depreciated to the point where they were almost valueless. As the board's work will be a continuing provincial responsibility, it seems reasonable to amend the subsection to provide that the items in question should belong to the province on the expiration of the agreement; that is, in 1973.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, I realize that this bill has been brought in consequent upon the fact that the agreement between the dominion and the

Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation province of Alberta in regard to the eastern Rocky mountain forest conservation scheme has come to an end as far as the financial contribution of the dominion government is concerned.
The scheme was an extraordinarily good one. I think everyone who had any knowledge of conditions there and of the advantages which might be secured by putting into operation that scheme of reforesting the eastern slope was delighted that this agreement was entered into, and particularly pleased with the way in which the activities of this board were carried on.
In connection with that I should like to pay tribute particularly to General Kennedy, who was the dominion representative and chairman of that board. I am only sorry that the activities of the board were not extended somewhat farther north. It is true that in that area north of the point where the board's activities came to an end the forest cover had not been destroyed to the same extent as in the area where it operated; nevertheless I think it would have been to the advantage of the dominion as well as to the advantage of the province if the scheme had been extended somewhat farther north, particularly to take in the area north of the line from Edmonton to Jasper national park.
The work of this board having been so satisfactory, and I think of so much benefit, particularly as far as the future is concerned, to the prairie provinces generally, I would hope that further joint ventures of the dominion and the provinces along this line might be initiated.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, when we consider that recently the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources started about 9.30 with his estimates and brought in another bill at about 9.30, and now gets a chance with this bill at about 10 minutes to 10, I suppose it would be correct to call him the minister of late starts. Anyway, he has been very patiently sitting there waiting for the opportunity to go on.
The Eastern Rocky Mountain Forest Conservation Act was a very important piece of legislation passed in 1947, a much more valuable and important piece of legislation than many members of this house realized and than many people across the country realize even today. I understand it was passed as a result of the consideration of the depletion of the natural resources of the area concerned, the particularly vital interest of the federal government in the maintenance of the river flows from the eastern rocky mountain slopes through the
TMr. Harknes".]
prairie provinces, and the desire on the part of the federal government to see that those flows were maintained.
Therefore in the first instance this legislation was of great importance to all the prairie provinces, and as a result has been of great importance to Canada as a whole.
Personally I think it is an excellent example of successful and effective co-operation between the federal government and the province of Alberta in the practice of conservation, development and utilization of natural resources. I believe it is an example that should be a good guide to future action.
Before proceeding I would also like to pay a tribute to Major General Kennedy, who has been chairman of this board since its inception. During war and peace he has demonstrated his ability as a most efficient administrator and engineer, and in connection with this work a most qualified forest engineer. He is a well-trained person with long experience; but more than that, General Kennedy has the feel for the conservation of natural resources. You must have not only training and experience. There are only certain individuals who have the capacity to, shall I say, get the feel of the situation and know what should be undertaken for the protection or development of certain natural resources. This scheme represents one of the first instances in Canada on any scale of unified scientific management.
I understand that under this board the resources of the whole area are controlled. There is control of prospecting for oil and other resources. There is control and planning of recreation, control of game resources, of fish resources, control of trapping licences, and then control of the forest resources. I understand there has been forest protection and forest management and investigation and control with respect to insects and pests. That is the conservation aspect of the controls so far as forest management is concerned. At the same time I understand there is control of the logging operation within the area. The board sells the timber under its jurisdiction in the right manner, and at the right time, and see that it is harvested in the proper way. I understand that last year something like 65 million board feet of timber were cut within this area, and at the same time about 2.75 million lineal feet of poles, fence posts and round timbers, and things of that type.
In addition, I understand the board has control of range management, undertakes renting and leasing for grazing purposes, and also has complete control of watershed management. Here is an area, as the result of co-operation between the federal government and the provincial government, which

is being scientifically managed and those resources scientifically conserved, developed and utilized.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am just concluding, Mr. Speaker, so I trust my friend will exercise patience for a moment or two. I would not like to have four lines in Hansard tomorrow.


Charles Edward Johnston: Just leave them off.


John Borden Hamilton: Just put in a period.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: This is a really marvellous scheme to anyone who has given it any study. I have not had the opportunity to go all through the area; I intend to do so when I have the time and the opportunity. I do suggest to those in this house and in the country who are interested in conservation that they interest themselves in what has happened with respect to this Rocky mountain conservation area since this legislation was passed in 1947.
This project is worth study by all governments in Canada and by all organizations and persons who are interested in the total conservation, proper development and scientific utilization of all the natural resources within a given area. It is an inspiration and an example of good management. It is a development that we shall watch with interest and should try to extend in larger measure in Canada.
Business of the House


Charles Edward Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to say a few words on this bill, but as it is after ten o'clock I shall refrain from doing so and will say what I have to say when we are in committee.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Walter Edward Harris: It was announced by the Prime Minister earlier in the day that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would make a statement tomorrow, but as the result of some subsequent discussions in the house and arrangements that have been made, that will not be done. On Friday we will have a debate on external affairs which will probably take the form of a motion to refer the estimates of the department to the committee on external affairs, or perhaps we shall resort to the method used on another occasion and just move that the house do adjourn. In any event there will be an opportunity for debate on that occasion.
Tomorrow we will take up the resolution on the Prairie Grain Producers Interim Financing Act, 1956, and follow that with the bill we are now discussing. Then we will take second reading of the bill to amend the Territorial Lands Act and then second reading of the bill to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


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

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

Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace): I.	During 1956, did the Department of National Defence learn that certain records of the Longue Pointe ordnance depot in Montreal were allegedly falsified so that certain employees received wages for time during which they were absent from work?
2.	If so, what action was taken regarding the cases disclosed?
3.	What steps have been taken to prevent a recurrence of this practice?
Answer by: Hon. R. O. Campney (Minister of
National Defence):
1.	Yes.
2.	The employees found responsible for falsifying the timekeeping records were dismissed.
3.	Steps are being taken with a view to modernizing the present timekeeping devices in the area and in the meantime closer supervision is being maintained over employees entering and leaving the depot.

Wednesday, March 13, 1957