1958-08-30

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates (1) for the financial year ending March 31, 1959, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of discussion of the estimates the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate asked to be provided with a list of occupations for which immigrants were being selected for placement anywhere in Canada. I have now had this list prepared and, in accordance with his request, to be found at page 4205 of Hansard, I ask leave to table it.



AGRICULTURE


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the house would give me leave to do so I should like to make a statement arising out of a number of requests made by the hon. member for Assi-niboia and others relative to the question of agriculture and what is intended to be done at the present session, as well as a general outline of that problem. I am not going into what has been done to date in connection with the development of a national agricultural program. What I intend to do is refer to one of the items in the further supplementary estimates which were tabled this morning by the Minister of Finance.
In regard to the general situation in respect of western agriculture, we made a beginning with a national agricultural program at the last session, but some of the basic problems of Canadian agriculture will yield only to long range solutions. As I see it, and I think the members of this house
will agree, the need is for a sound, comprehensive and co-ordinated program to attack specific problems and meet specific needs, but in developing a national agricultural policy we have found it necessary to deal with specific regional problems.
Our concept of a national policy is based on the belief that the national welfare demands positive action to meet the basic causes of distress and maladjustment in particular industries and regions. The agricultural policy divides itself naturally into two parts, the one being national in scope and the other being primarily concerned with specific regional problems which nevertheless form a necessary part of a national agricultural policy. In other words, regional policies must not be in conflict with but must be an integral part of the national policy.
Among the more difficult of these regional problems are those concerned with the prairie grain producers. Over the years the prairie farmer has experienced a succession of good times and bad. I have seen that situation at first hand from the time my people first went into the western provinces in 1903, and during that period of time there have been times of high income and times of low income. There have been years of almost complete crop failure and years of abundant crops. The most outstanding characteristic of the prairie farm income situation since the opening of the prairie provinces has been the variability of income. Technological improvements and marketing techniques have tended to reduce some of this variability, but as one endeavours to look into the future it would appear that this condition will remain in the western farm economy.
Averages are often used, but the use of averages in relation to farm income conceals the real problem of a large proportion of prairie farmers who are operating small farm units. While during the years 1955 and 1956, the income of the prairie farmer in general declined markedly from the level of the period from 1945 to 1952, it has been the small farmers particularly who have experienced real hardship. These farmers, whose costs of production are much higher than those on the larger farms, have lacked the necessary income to provide the essentials which have become part of an acceptable Canadian level of living.

Agriculture-Government Policy
It is therefore this problem of the small farmer, together with the general problem of the variability of farm income, which the government seeks to meet through a comprehensive farm program. During the last twelve months the government has received representations from western farm organizations with regard to deficiency payments on grain for the crop years 1955-56 and
1956-57. This problem has received the most careful consideration, in fact none which has been before us has received greater care, and a most exhaustive study has been made of all the factors involved.
The government has come to the conclusion that deficiency payments, however attractive they appear to be at first glance, would not provide a solution to the problems facing prairie agriculture but would indeed create new problems. Deficiency payments applied to deliveries of grain would fail to help those producers most in need and, if adopted, would require very large subsidies from the treasury, would inevitably lead to increased surpluses and would add further burdens in financing the disposal of those surpluses. Such payments would tend to impede essential adjustments to changing conditions of technology and demand which are essential both to the welfare of the producers and the health of the Canadian economy as a whole.
It is obvious, furthermore, that the greatest benefit from such payments would accrue to the large producer rather than to the small farmer upon whom the situation which has prevailed during the past years presses most heavily. If such payments were made on wheat alone it would constitute discrimination against the oats and barley producers, would encourage farmers to put their acreage into wheat, and would be an encouragement to additional surpluses of wheat. If such payments were made on oats and barley there is an extremely likely possibility that the United States would react in one of two ways, exclude Canadian oats and barley from their markets or place countervailing duties against them equal to the amount of the deficiency payment made. This could be particularly serious in connection with our large exports of grain to the United States, which in 1956-57 accounted for 96 per cent of our export trade in oats and 25 per cent of our barley exports.
For these general reasons we have come to the conclusion that deficiency payments to producers are not in the long run interest of either the western grain producer or the nation as a whole. It is therefore evident that the solution-not capable, of course, of achievement by a short run method-must be looked for in a long range program aimed at providing the maximum benefit to the largest

number of farmers. And of the 230,000 farm units in western Canada, approximately 63 per cent are family farm units of under 300 acres utilized for the production of grain.
Keeping in mind the needs of the majority of western farmers, the government will be submitting legislation to parliament at subsequent sessions to bring about a broad coordinated program aimed at the basic problems, namely the problem of the small farm and the problem of variability of income. This is not merely a western Canadian problem. The impact of variability in prairie farm income is felt beyond the local community. Industries which supply agriculture with production materials and equipment and those which transport, process and distribute farm products are affected as well. Serious crop failures which result in major reduction in income to western grain producers have had serious, direct and immediate repercussions on industrial activity and employment in eastern Canada. It is apparent, therefore, that a program which will bring greater stability to the income of prairie grain producers and, indeed, to farmers across the nation, is clearly in the interest of the economy as a whole.
The government therefore intends to bring into being the following far-reaching and comprehensive program designed to fill some of the gaps in our national agricultural policy which, among other things, will provide for the particular needs of western grain producers.
First, the government proposes, subject to approval by parliament at the next session, to continue the fund to assist in the export of surplus wheat stocks to non-commercial markets under the Colombo plan so as to assure the continuance of the full scale sales promotion and market development program which has been in effect during the past year. Indeed, I may say this: that one thing of which Canadians as a whole can be proud is the fact that during the past year, a difficult one for exports of wheat, Canada's exports have increased while those of other exporting countries of the world have decreased.
During the past year $50 million was taken up under this plan for assistance in securing non-commercial markets in non-commercial market areas. There are still sufficient funds available for the purpose of carrying on until the next session of parliament. In the meantime the Department of Trade and Commerce will continue without interruption an intensive program of extending markets for wheat which has been so successful during the last year.
Second, the government is studying in consultation with the provinces, and hopes as a

result of this study of this very complex and difficult problem to introduce at the next session of parliament, legislation in cooperation with the provinces which are prepared to join, to provide for a comprehensive crop insurance program. It has been one of the demands of farmers in general throughout the years that something be done to protect within reason against the uncertainties to which agriculture is subjected.
Third, in recognition of the recurring hazard of drought to the stability of livestock production in the prairie provinces, the government has taken steps to provide assistance to provincial governments, which have the prime responsibility for meeting the needs of feed deficit areas, and is giving sympathetic study to the establishment, under provincial administration but with federal financial assistance, of a forage bank program under which farmers will receive certain incentives to put up forage as a reserve against an emergency situation.
Fourth, the government is presently engaged in a comprehensive study and review of the Canadian Farm Loan Act, the Farm Improvement Loans Act, and the Veterans' Land Act, with a view to determining where enlargement of scope, expansion in function, or improvement in methods of operation may be required. Pending the establishment of improved agricultural credit facilities on a reorganized basis, the government has already taken steps to meet the demand on the part of farmers throughout Canada for increased credit through amendments to the Canadian Farm Loan Act which have increased the authorized capital of the Canadian farm loan board from $4 million to $6 million and its lending capacity from $80 million to $120 million.
Fifth, as a means of meeting the small farm problem the government has under consideration ways and means of improving the level of living for farmers on small farms by means of better land use, encouraging the formation of economic family farm units, improving technical training, extending unemployment insurance benefits to certain classes of farm workers, and by extending the vocational and technical training agreement for the benefit of those who wish to enter new occupations.
Sixth, plans are already under way for a national conservation conference, which will have important and far-reaching effects. Canadian farmers will, of course, be helped substantially through the protection given their capital resources by this national conservation program.
As I said before, the basic problems of Canadian agriculture will yield only to long range solutions. Unavoidably some time must
Agriculture-Government Policy elapse before these long range solutions can be fully implemented and their benefits made available to farmers. This proposal is an endeavour to give some temporary assistance on as equitable a basis as possible.
For a long time certain producer organizations have been advocating a two-price system for wheat, having in mind a domestic price considerably higher than the selling price of wheat for export. It is noted that the proposal applies only to wheat for human consumption. This is a proper limitation, because any attempt to impose a domestic price on wheat for feeding purposes would simply destroy the market and cause feeders to use other grains or feed products as a substitute.
There are those who feel that the establishment of a high domestic price would leave Canada in a vulnerable position if this country desires restraint on the part of other countries which subsidize wheat exports. They would argue that as long as Canada is selling wheat to domestic consumers at the same prices at which it is selling wheat abroad, no one can criticize the basis of our participation in export markets.
On the other hand, farm organizations over the years have contended that the Canadian consumer has been getting wheat too cheaply. Just as other producers expect a fair market price for their goods, so the Canadian wheat producer should receive a fair price for the wheat sold in the domestic market. That has been the general contention through the years.
Over a seven-year period the average domestic human consumption of wheat has been 45 million bushels. This is only 10 per cent of the total annual disposition of western wheat. An increase of 50 cents per bushel in the price of wheat for domestic consumption would be reflected in an increase of only 6.5 cents per bushel on the basis of total marketings. To achieve this would require a contribution to be made by parliament to the wheat board, or it would result in an estimated increase to the consumer of 2 cents per loaf of bread. Such a contribution would amount to a figure considerably lower than that which is proposed for this year only, namely the provision in the further supplementary estimates for payments to western grain producers of $1 per acre up to a maximum of 200 acres per farm in accordance with regulations of the governor in council, the amount of that distribution to be $40 million. This amount, which is designed to meet the needs of the small farmer, will be distributed by the Canadian wheat board to producers on the basis of $1 per specified acre, including acreage seeded to flax, up to a maximum of 200 acres.

Agriculture-Government Policy
A situation of emergency has developed in the western provinces which has created hardship, particularly among a large proportion of farmers whose operations are on a relatively small scale.
The long range plans now being formulated by the government will be instituted as soon as possible. They will constitute a truly national program. Several of these measures are designed to meet the particular regional problems of western farmers. The others are truly national in application and will be a potential source of help to every farmer in Canada, as has been the legislation so far introduced in connection with the Agricultural Stabilization Act. What we are trying to do is establish a concept of national policy designed to ensure equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
Continuing efforts will be made to maintain the primary industry of agriculture, and I can say that at all times we are prepared to consider proposals which will add to the completeness and effectiveness of the program, at all times, too, considering the national interest.
The immediate and long-term approach to the basic problem facing Canadian farmers is a recognition of the fact that the prosperity of Canada is indivisible and that a reasonably high and stable level of income in Canadian agriculture adds to the welfare of all Canadians. The variability of farm income in all parts of Canada-and I speak now particularly, in view of this provision in the supplementary estimates, of western Canada-affects industries which supply agriculture with production materials and equipment and those which transport, process and distribute farm products. Serious crop failures result in major reductions in income to western grain producers and in turn result in serious direct and immediate repercussions in industrial activities and employment in eastern Canada and in other parts of Canada. It is apparent that a program which will bring a greater stability to the income of prairie grain producers, and indeed of farmers across the nation, is in the interests of the Canadian economy as a whole.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has made a very important and comprehensive statement on a very important aspect of our economy, and it is not easy to deal at this time with all the points he raised. He has announced today certain short range action that is to assist grain producers in the west, and he has also indicated some long range policies that the government proposes to follow to assist agriculture.

So far as the first announcement is concerned, we recognize that there has been a growing gap between what the grain producer receives for his produce and what he has to pay for the instruments of production. We are quite sure, on this side, that the grain producers, with that problem before them, will welcome this particular assistance, will welcome this particular grant though they may be disappointed in the amount. I have no doubt that when my hon. friend from Assiniboia gets up immediately after I conclude he will call it peanuts.


Mr. Argue:: I did that a couple of days ago. I shall call it a pittance today.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps he may even refer to it as salted peanuts. However, though this may be disappointing to the grain producers, I think it has one provision that is to be welcomed; that the amount of $1 per acre shall be paid on a maximum of 200 acres, so that the very large grain growers will not benefit disproportionately to the smaller farmers.
This problem of our western grain producers is a regional problem, but it is also a problem of national importance. It seems to me that it has to be solved in a way which will keep the balance among all primary producers in this country. Otherwise the solution will not be permanent and will not redound to the national advantage as it should. While I have said that the grain producers will welcome this grant, though they may consider it too small, and it will help them up to a point to meet their special problems, there are other primary producers in this country who will undoubtedly relate this kind of assistance to their own difficulties. I am thinking particularly at this moment of the fisherman who has also had his hard times, and who perhaps will look with a certain amount of envy to this kind of action taken by the government for the grain producers.
All this means is that any action of this kind, desirable and worthy though it may be, which assists one segment of our producers, has to be kept in equitable balance with the other elements of primary production in this country or there will not be the good results that should follow from it. This means, surely, that assistance of this kind to primary producers of one type or another, to be effective and to have long range value, should be based on sound principles which can be applied to other primary producers.
This particular action, because it is a grant and is not based on any such principle-it is not based on the principle of parity prices or on any formula of deficiency payments; indeed, if I understood the Prime Minister

aright he has rejected the deficiency payment formula as the solution to the problem of our grain producers in the west-does not meet that test.
I agree with the Prime Minister when he pointed out that in the adoption and application of any formula of this kind to assist primary producers one has to be particularly careful to meet two requirements; one, not to take action which will result in a burdensome surplus which, in the long run, may hurt the producer as much as the immediate aid may help him; and second, not to take the kind of action-the Prime Minister referred to oats where such a high percentage of our crop goes to the United States, and he was using a good illustration-the kind of governmental assistance which may result in retaliation in the market to which we export our products.
I agree, therefore, that any kind of principle that may be adopted has to keep these two things in mind, but I do reiterate that there should be some principle behind assistance of this kind. Nevertheless, in so far as this action will assist, for the time being, the grain producers of the west to meet their special problems, we welcome it.
Then the Prime Minister went on to talk about some long range policies for agriculture which his government has in mind. He spoke with some satisfaction over the position in regard to wheat exports and what is going to be done to maintain and perhaps improve that position in the years ahead. It is quite true, and I think all Canadians must get a great deal of satisfaction from it, that our wheat exports have held up remarkably well this year, and in fact have increased in volume. It is true also that one reason for that increase is the export to these noncommercial markets about which the Prime Minister spoke, particularly under the Colombo plan. We welcome his statement that that policy is to be continued with increasing effectiveness, we hope, next year, so that even more wheat may be exported for that particular purpose.
But while that is true, and while good results may have been achieved in this regard this year and our wheat exports may have been increased, it must be remembered that this was due in part to this increase in the exports to non-commercial markets. It was due also to the fact that some other countries which normally export wheat had small crops. Perhaps also it is something to be kept in mind that the United States, in spite of all the devices which have been adopted to push wheat into world markets, such as barter, sales for local currency, gifts, and long term easy credit, was not able to increase its wheat
Agriculture-Government Policy sales in the last year. Perhaps there is a moral to be drawn from that which we could use in this country. It would be this, that the greater the steps taken to force wheat on the world markets in terms which are other than commercial, the more difficult it will be to sell your wheat on commercial terms. That is something which has to be kept in mind in our wheat export policy.
The Prime Minister mentioned also that consideration is being given to a system of national crop insurance in co-operation with the provinces. We shall follow these developments with great interest, because nothing could be of greater importance to agriculture than to be protected in the way he has suggested. He mentioned also the importance of agricultural credit. We on this side have for some time been advocating the consolidation and unification of all the agricultural credit facilities of the government. I know that consideration is being given to this by the government, and we shall hope there will be some results from that consideration at the next session.
Not only will it be desirable to have this kind of consolidation of agricultural credit in the interests of the farmer himself, but even more important may be the establishment of an agricultural export bank or even an export bank not limited to agriculture, to help in the way that has been done in the United States. I would say that this development of agricultural credit which the Prime Minister has mentioned has a very direct connection also with the importance of land use. The two should be tied together in this connection. Perhaps it is not inappropriate to mention that the former government set up a committee of the Senate to study this question of land use, from which good results may follow.
Today we have been confronted with an announcement by the government of short range action and a policy of long range importance. Speaking for our party, we hope the long range policy will enable agriculture to obtain its fair share of the national income, because without that there can be no prosperity in this country. We hope the long range policy will be more effective in accomplishing those objectives than the short range action to assist the grain producers at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the very long statement that has been made by the Prime Minister. When a statement is made on motions, the length of the statement seems to be in inverse ratio to the acceptability of the announcement. If it is an excellent announcement it can be dealt with very quickly. If it is an announcement which

Agriculture-Government Policy is likely to be met with a good deal of criticism, then of course it is a long statement and one has to drag in a good many other things in an attempt to muddy the statement and so confuse the people who are being affected.
This statement is not new, Mr. Speaker. This $1 an acre is not new. This is another famous repetition, as we have seen so many times this session, of the press getting a very important leak from the cabinet. Whether it is a leak that is reported as a newspaper story or whether it is a document or some other matter, the press seem to be most efficient at getting advance information. Hence, with advance information in this instant having been given to the country, we are by this time able to get at least an indication of the reaction of the producers who are mainly affected, I have in my hand the Winnipeg Free Press of Thursday, August 28.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: Hon. members may keep on laughing if they like. It has a story by Peter Thomson on the front page and it is quoting James Patterson, the president of the interprovincial farm union council. Mr. Patterson has referred to the $1 per acre and the $200 maximum as "a pittance". He says it will not in any way meet the needs of the prairie producers. He also says:
We certainly expected something reasonable . . . and the $25 million-
Now it is $40 million.
-falls far short ... It takes a long time to pay bills with nickels.
I could go on to other parts of the article such as this:
It will give the farmer a little "spending money" said Mr. Patterson, and the government apparently thinks that will settle matters for a while.
The farm organizations across this nation have taken the position that agricultural producers, when they are efficient, should obtain a standard of living comparable to that of other people in similiar or comparable occupations. Hence farmers over the years have asked for parity prices, prices that will give the producers a fair share of the national income. Until recent months they had believed that this government believed in parity prices. They had the statements by the Prime Minister on many occasions when he was in the opposition. They had on record of the Canadian House of Commons motions by the Prime Minister asking for parity prices. But when the Prime Minister was in a position to bring about parity prices, parity prices were dropped. Then deficiency payments became the accepted policy. We have the Agricultural Stabilization Act, and

certainly a paramount feature of that act, and a continuing feature, has been the making of deficiency payments. Only this week the Minister of Agriculture, in an announcement that we all welcomed, suggested that deficiency payments would be provided to the peach industry on a certain formula. But in this announcement the government's position is one of opposition to deficiency payments. Instead of deficiency payments we have a payment of $1 per acre up to $200. A $200 payment, Mr. Speaker, while of some value- the value of $200-will go no real distance in allowing the farmer to pay his bills, to provide his family with a reasonable standard of living and to replace his equipment when it wears out.
The farm organizations on the prairies have taken the stand that deficiency payments should be made. The farm organizations are united in that policy; and not only are the farm organizations united on it but organizations representing people generally on the prairies are in full support of this idea. The Saskatchewan wheat pool has perhaps spearheaded the drive, with full support from other farm organizations and all major organizations on the prairies. They have asked for a payment on wheat of 22 cents at least for 1955-56 and 36 cents for 1956-57, with comparable payments of 14 and 15 cents on oats and 14 and 22 cents on barley.
These deficiency payments which the farmers' organizations have requested have been worked out in an exact manner with a definite formula. They have taken the crop years from August 1, 1947 to July 31, 1955. They have averaged out the payments the farmers have received in that time, and they have said that the payments that are now made on wheat, oats and barley should be brought up to that level, that is deficiency payments of that amount. They point out that since 1947 the farmer's cost of production has gone up by 50 per cent but the price of wheat has dropped by 21 per cent. They are not asking that their position be maintained by restoring the position they had in 1947. They are not asking for a deficiency payment which would be based on the cost of production or a parity price. However, they are asking that in the years ahead they shall not receive, even with the cost having gone up a large amount, less than the average price they received in that eight-year period.
These farm organizations are very serious in this request. I do not think the $200 per farm, which amounts in total to something less than 10 per cent of the total amount of deficiency payments the farmers have asked for these two years, will in any way satisfy

these organizations or will in any way reduce their efforts to obtain a square deal for their members.
A great deal of sympathy is being expressed for the small farmer. Hence the payments, they say, are being kept to a maximum of $200 on 200 acres. I think we should be helping the average farmer including the small farmer. The average farm in Saskatchewan today is of about 500 cultivated acres.


Mr. Harkness:: No.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture can make his speech also. It is about 500 cultivated acres.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am talking about the mean average.


Douglas Scott Harkness: That is absolutely wrong.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Agriculture has been wrong so many times that I do not mind his being wrong again. Mr. Speaker, the average is very much higher than the 200 acres that is being set as this small limit. In asking for deficiency payments the farm organizations have not said the government should pay large sums of money to large farms. They have said there should be a maximum. They have said that the maximum should be not $200 but $1,500, and that it should be paid on a bushel basis.
I was also disappointed in the stand taken by the Leader of the Opposition. He did not come out four-square for deficiency payments. He did not come out against them, either. He took a diplomatic position, leaning first to one side and then to the other side. He wanted to be sure, along with the Prime Minister, that any action taken would not result in burdensome surpluses. All I can say to both those hon. gentlemen is that if they think the kind of payments which have been requested by farm organizations would increase burdensome surpluses, they are mistaken. The acreage which would be seeded to those grains in the prairies is a stable acreage; it changes very little. The farmer's pattern of seeding has not changed appreciably over the years. The present Minister of Trade and Commerce and other ministers of trade and commerce have pointed out so many times that it was not a huge expansion of Canadian wheat acreage which had brought about our surpluses, and so deficiency payments of the order asked for by farm organizations will not add to our burdensome surpluses because the acreage which is now being seeded to grains will in general continue to be seeded to those grains in the future.
The Prime Minister has intimated that the government has some other aspects of this
Agriculture-Government Policy farm program in view; he has talked about a surplus disposal program. We in the C.C.F. have asked for a surplus disposal program for many, many years, and when Washington was being roundly condemned for its so-called giveaways, we said it might be a better use of Canada's energy if it were spent at least in part in developing our own surplus disposal program.
As far as crop insurance is concerned, I have studied this question rather thoroughly over the years, and it is a difficult question. There are many problems connected with crop insurance; and if we are going to make crop insurance actuarially sound on an individual farm basis, as they have endeavoured to do in the United States, it means that the premium which an individual farmer must pay in the high risk areas becomes so great that it is almost impossible for him to meet his payments. Therefore any system of crop insurance cannot be the type of insurance about which we ordinarily speak, but must be a type of crop failure protection or crop failure assistance which will be supported by governments before it can be successful.
The Prairie Farm Assistance Act has been amended from time to time in this house. I think it is a good act and that it should be expanded. I would like to see the maximum payment, as I have said already during this session, increased to $10 per acre in keeping with today's costs of production and the other payments in the schedule set at varying amounts in accordance with that maximum. If this were done, along with increased contributions from the producers themselves and increased contributions from the treasury, we would have the type of crop failure protection which would give real financial protection to the farmer when his crop failed, and would not have attached to it the great many difficulties which ordinarily go with crop insurance.
The announcement that farmers will now be paid up to a maximum of $200, which means that most farmers will receive $200, in no way removes the necessity to keep on working for deficiency payments, to keep on working for payments based on a formula and to keep on working for a permanent policy, and not to be in any way satisfied with what amounts to a one shot affair, the $40 million put into the supplementary estimates for this year. This is not a permanent policy, this $40 million item in the estimates. We would naturally welcome any continuation of this as a permanent policy, but it seems most inadequate to keep the producers in a state of suspense by saying, "We will give you $40 million this year as a supplementary item and we will leave these other things over to a later date".

Agriculture-Government Policy
The Leader of the Opposition has said there should be a comprehensive policy for all sections of the country; he has also said that the fishermen may look somewhat critically-I do not want to misinterpret him- at this legislation, or may look at it with some envy. I have every sympathy for the fishermen as primary producers and I would certainly support, as would the C.C.F. group, any and every measure to help the fishermen of this country; but I hope we will not hear in this house members who represent ridings in which fishing is very important opposing this legislation because it does not give anything for the fishermen.
I realize, as do other members, that the fishermen today can obtain unemployment insurance under certain circumstances, while the grain producer cannot do so. The fishermen can obtain loans through their cooperatives under the fishermen's loan act, while Canadian grain producers are not able to obtain loans from co-operatives under the farm loan legislation. There is certain beneficial legislation which the fishermen now have which the grain producers do not have. We do not object to that; we are merely anxious that the benefits which today apply to fishermen may be obtained by grain producers and indeed by all producers. That is the position we take.
This $40 million will mean $200 in assistance to each qualifying producer, but in all seriousness I feel the amount is most inadequate, and that it is not a fulfilment of the statement by the Prime Minister that sympathetic consideration would be given to deficiency payments, or the statement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources that the government was going to provide a revolutionary farm program which would include deficiency payments on western grain.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melforl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. He has referred to the suggested payments to be made on specified acreage, and indicated that flax will be included. Will rape seed and grass seed come under the specified acreage as well?


John George Diefenbaker: The only acreage that would be comprehended by the payment would be that mentioned in the permit book.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you would inform the new hon. members of the house
under what rule of privilege the hon. member for Assiniboia is allowed to rise and speak on the first order of business. I have looked through the books and can find nothing which says that anyone other than the Leader of the Opposition should rise. If it is done through an agreement among the different parties in this house I would suggest that the hon. member for Assiniboia abused that privilege when he did what he did this morning, rose and made a long political speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a point of order to raise which is to take objection to anything that is being done in the house, he should do it at the time. 1 shall be glad to discuss the matter privately with the hon. member, but it is not my function to answer questions from the chair.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would correct the inference he apparently left this morning when he opened with the remark that he was replying to a question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. It would appear that his whole program was outlined because the hon. member for Assiniboia asked a question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman left out two words; I said "the hon. member for Assiniboia and others".



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of the tense situation in the Formosa straits. Has the position of the Canadian government, which the minister stated the other day is one of non-involvement, again been brought to the attention of the United States government?


Hon. Sidney E. Smith (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs):: I thank the Leader of the Opposition for having advised me of his intention to ask this question. As hon. members will recall, I stated in this house on August 25 that the Canadian government had no commitment to involve itself in a dispute between the two Chinese authorities in the Taiwan straits. This statement has been drawn to the attention of the authorities in Washington with whom we are in constant touch with respect to the situation on the China coast, and I have no doubt whatever that they fully understand our attitude on this matter.

Inquiries of the Ministry
We are keeping a close watch on the the region we were not represented at these Chinese situation which, I must inform the meetings. My information is that the nego-house, gives continuing cause for concern, tiations at the last regional meeting broke I do not think that it is possible to evaluate down, but I must inform the house that I the intentions of the Chinese communist too have to rely, as the Leader of the Opposi-regime at this time, but we greatly hope tion does, on reading the newspapers for the that the consequences of precipitate action details, are understood by all concerned and that
they will exercise restraint.	PRIVILEGE


ICELAND
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question arising out of the report in the press that the NATO council has been considering the deplorable dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland on territorial waters and fisheries rights, and that this consideration has resulted in no solution of the problem. I should like to know if this report is true, and what stand the Canadian representative at NATO took in regard to this matter.


Sidney Earle Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to make clear that Canada does not favour the taking of unilateral action by states in respect of fishing zones so long as there is hope that a new international conference on the law of the sea will be convened in the near future to deal with the question of territorial sea and fishing rights.
The Geneva conference adopted a resolution that will be presented to the next regular meeting of the general assembly to the effect that the United Nations should authorize forthwith the holding of another conference as soon as possible. We will, of course, support that resolution in the 13th session of the general assembly. We have hoped, and we still continue to hope, that both the United Kingdom and Iceland will come to some mutual understanding and thereby resolve their differences, or to postpone consideration of their differences until they can be dealt with by such a new international conference.
We are anxious about this dispute between the United Kingdom and Iceland. I can inform the house that we have expressed our anxiety in this regard to the governments directly concerned; that is the Canadian attitude.
To refer more closely to the question of the Leader of the Opposition as addressed to me, I can inform the house that recently under the auspices and under the direction of the NATO council, regional meetings at the expert level of the parties directly concerned were held. Since Canada is not in


MR. PRATT  REFERENCE TO ARTICLE IN OTTAWA &quot;CITIZEN&quot; AND ON C.B.C. TELECAST
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Pratt (Jacques Cariier-Lasalle):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take exception to an article written by Bruce Phillips of the Southam news services which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Friday, August 29, 1958 in reference to conduct of the inquiry by the public accounts committee into the cost of the printing bureau in Hull. This article says in part:
The catalogue of chippy remarks made by inquisitors on the committee is almost unending. Typical are those of Walker, who said he doubted whether architect Ernest Cormier would ever get another job, and Conservative John Pratt, also an architect, who accused Mr. Cormier of submitting ''phony plans."
The remarks attributed to me in this article are completely false. At no time have I criticized Mr. Cormier's plans-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Robert John Pratt: I repeat that at no time have I criticized Mr. Cormier's plans, nor have I criticized his professional qualifications. What I did criticize was the file of exhibits and the uselessness of trying to discuss costs on the basis of the incomplete preliminary plans which were filed instead of on the basis of complete contract documents-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Robert John Pratt: -some of which I later succeeded in having filed. I should like to read into the record what I actually said as reported on page 394 of the official minutes of the standing committee on public accounts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that even on a matter of privilege it is in order to read from the record of a committee which has not yet reported. The hon. member has made his point, and I think it would be better to leave it at that.


Robert John Pratt: Mr. Speaker, may I also take exception to a television broadcast by Frank Swanson on C.B.C. immediately after the late newscast on Friday, August 29, 1958, in which he attributed to me certain statements concerning offers of architectural employment, which statements were never at any time made by me.

Inquiries of the Ministry
My examination of the witness, Mr. Cormier, was made in a restrained manner in spite of continual provocation, and it was made as a member of a parliamentary committee only. Not once did I ever even mention that I was an architect, nor did I ever mention any oilers of work, big or small, to me as an architect.


CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a Canadian Press dispatch dated August 28 concerning the prosecution of an Indian affairs doctor on Manitoulin island, which the reeve of the township is reported as saying was "a damned disgrace"?
Can the minister inform the house of the circumstances surrounding this unusual case, and if the Ontario college of physicians and surgeons objects to arrangements made by her department for the medical care of Indians?


Ellen Louks Fairclough: Although I did comment briefly on this matter in the course of the discussion of the estimates of my department, this is actually a matter for the Department of National Health and Welfare, because the health service to Indians is under that department.


Hon. A. J. Brooks (Acting Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare the only comment I can make at this time is that I think the hon. member is wrong in his suggestion that the Ontario college of physicians and surgeons objects to the arrangements made by the department for the medical care of Indians. I do not think there was any objection to the arrangements made for the medical care of Indians. As I understand the circumstances, the objection was to the Indian doctor looking after some of the white people on Manitoulin island.
The matter was brought up by the Leader of the Opposition the other day, and if the hon. member will refer to page 4251 of Hansard he will see that though the hon. lady modestly said she did not give a long answer, a fairly complete explanation was, I think, given at that time. If there is anything further the hon. member would like to know about the matter I will see that the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare is called to it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his answer. I will have to reflect on the matter further before asking any more questions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not a fact that there was no justification for the charges made, and that they should not have been proceeded with?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is a hard question to
answer, and I will certainly bring it to the attention of the minister.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the Prime Minister would be good enough to tell the house whether it is the government's intention to proceed with the human rights bill in all its stages during this session, or whether the government has given consideration to the feeling held by some that there might be advantage in bringing it forward a certain number of stages this session and leaving its final determination until another session, in order that representations of all interested groups might be made.
I think the Prime Minister will understand that there has been a great deal of concern and real questioning among hon. members as to what the procedure will be.


John George Diefenbaker: I am entirely guided by the will of the house. The bill of human freedoms is one which, of course, will affect Canadians for years to come. I think I can say with modesty that throughout the years I have given a great deal of study to this matter. It was studied as well by committees of parliament. I should like very much to have the whole matter considered at length rather than in the dying days of this session-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -in order to assure that the bill of rights will in fact be as effective as it is possible to secure. In saying that, I recollect that two weeks ago I stated that it was the purpose and the desire to have it go through completely during the present session. I am still in a position to proceed with all stages of this bill. The studies that have been made by the Department of Justice are full and comprehensive. But I feel that the hon. gentleman's suggestion is one which deserves serious consideration by the house as a whole.
The bill of human freedoms will be an advance which I had hoped to attain during

the session, a milestone in the pathway of freedom. If the house is agreeable I would suggest that the best course we could follow, in the event that we do not intend to stay here and debate it at length, as we will at some stage, so as to assure that the bill of rights shall be all-comprehensive while protecting and maintaining human freedoms, is that first reading might take place and on first reading, following the course which was adopted by the previous prime minister on the federal district commission legislation, after preliminary words by myself as mover of the resolution and then by the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Assiniboia, the bill might be tabled and then taken up first thing at the next session. I do not know whether or not that will meet with the approval of the house, but I want to see the fullest possible discussion on this matter to assure that what we do will be effective, practical and comprehensive to the limit of the capacity of hon. members of this house to achieve.
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the
Opposition): Mr. Speaker, perhaps in the circumstances I may be permitted to say a word. The procedure outlined by the Prime Minister is quite satisfactory so far as we are concerned. This question, as the Prime Minister has said-and I am not now referring to the bill but to the question-is one of such fundamental importance that it deserves the fullest consideration. It is even more important than the C.B.C. legislation. Therefore I do not think it should be proceeded with in what have been called the dying days of this session. Irrespective of what may have been said previously by the Prime Minister regarding this matter, I think the procedure he has outlined now would be quite satisfactory as far as we are concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, as it might have been taken from the way I put the question, we in this group are appreciative of the attitude the Prime Minister has adopted in that parliament itself, through its various spokesmen, can decide whether this bill is to be proceeded with at this session in all its stages or whether it is to be introduced now and finally considered at the next session.
We believe this is one of the most important questions with which parliament will deal in many years. We believe the wise course would be to introduce it as the Prime Minister has suggested and have some discussion on it, but leave final approval until the next session of parliament, when all of us will have been able to benefit from the important advice of Canadians in all walks
Inquiries of the Ministry of life. We are certain the procedure outlined by the Prime Minister will result in more effective legislation when action is taken.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, ordinarily I do not ask questions, but I should like to ask the hon. member for Assiniboia a question at this time. Would the proposal I made respecting the Leader of the Opposition and one speaker for the C.C.F. group have the support of both parties? Apparently the suggestion meets with the approval of the Leader of the Opposition, and if so that will be the course that will be followed unless the house otherwise demands.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I see that I have the consent of my colleagues, so I can say to the Prime Minister that the course to which he has just referred, of having a spokesman from each party speak, will be satisfactory to our group.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that no order should be made now. It is just an understanding which will be subject to renewal when the bill is actually before the house.



INQUIRY AS TO OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS PENDING LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the house leader. Can he inform us when we shall have an opportunity to discuss the important legislation brought down this morning by the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the house leader wishes to deal with the question, he may do so, but no legislation was brought down this morning. Is the hon. member not under a misconception?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member's question may I point out that the items are contained in the supplementary estimates, and those will not be discussed until well into next week.


Mr. Chevrier:: Further supplementaries.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I am prompted to do so because of a headline in Le Droit which was given to me as I came into the house. Across the paper is written "Ecoliers

Inquiries of the Ministry dans une impasse". The article which I shall pass on to the minister goes on to state that 40 children from Rockcliffe air base will find themselves without a school when the school term commences next week.
In fairness to the minister I think I should point out that the article goes on to recite that in 1955 arrangements were made for the accommodation of those children at the air base. Then in the following years, because of a school that was nearby, arrangements were made and paid for by the department to send the children to the nearby school. Now because of the large numbers of children attending that nearby school the school commission has decided not to receive the children from Rockcliffe air base, and therefore within the last 48 hours or so the parents of these children have been told they have no school to attend.
I have given the minister no notice of my intention to ask this question, and indeed I could not have given notice to him. I know of his extreme sympathy and understanding in these cases. The question I should like to address to him is this. Will he be good enough to see that accommodation is provided for at the Rockcliffe air base so these children may receive their education in accordance with the laws of the province in which they reside.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very pleased to look into the matter and give an answer next week.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Is it true that he has sought and obtained special priority on broadcasting networks for an address he proposes to make on Tuesday next and, if so, does this mean something new and momentous in the way of an announcement of national policy?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that arrangements have been made for a national broadcast by the Minister of Finance on Tuesday evening in connection with our entering the final phase of the conversion loan campaign. The timing, of course, follows immediately after Labour day, when a great many persons who have been absent from their homes on vacation will be back in their homes while we are entering the final fortnight of the campaign.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
438. Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment, $1,100,000.
The Chairman:: This item will be found on page 78 of the estimates book, the details at page 562. Shall the item carry?


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, I have a few questions about the construction of vessels for the Newfoundland coastal service. Would the minister prefer that I ask the questions one by one?


Mr. Hees:: Yes.


Chesley William Carter: Does this vote cover only the four ships for the C.N.R. service in Newfoundland, or are there any other ships included?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it covers just those four ships.


Chesley William Carter: Are all four being constructed simultaneously? If not, which ones are being constructed first?


George Harris Hees: Two will probably be constructed this winter, and the first ship for which tenders will be called will be the Burgeo, a replacement for the old Burgeo.


Chesley William Carter: Have orders been placed for those ships?


George Harris Hees: No; tenders will be called this winter.


Chesley William Carter: Are those ships being built to Lloyd's specifications?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: Will those ships be classed as common water carriers, or as an integral part of the Newfoundland railway, as is the case with the ships employed in the ferry service?


George Harris Hees: The same situation will apply that exists now with the present ships which are plying those waters.


Chesley William Carter: Will the minister take whatever steps are necessary to have that changed so that all the ships operated in the coastal service will be regarded as an integral part of the railway, in order that freight claims arising out of accidents to the ships will be treated in the same way as accidents occurring on the railway or on the ferry boats?


George Harris Hees: We will be prepared to give consideration to that suggestion, Mr. Chairman.


Chesley William Carter: A few days ago, in reply to a question, the minister stated that the Canadian National management had decided to dispense with Lloyd's inspection. Can he say how much saving will result from that decision, and whether that is the only reason for dispensing with this service?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we would have to obtain that information from the Canadian National. I will be glad to ask the Canadian National and advise the hon. member as soon as I receive it.


Chesley William Carter: Thank you. It has always been the tradition of Newfoundland and of the Newfoundland government, even when we were hard up for money, to retain Lloyd's inspection service because, as I understand it, it in many ways complements the Canadian steamship inspection service. The minister should inquire as to whether any possible savings on the one hand might not be offset by other disadvantages, because as I understand it Lloyd's maintain a world-wide service. They keep a very accurate record of every inspection and every sign of damage, everything that happens, so that a ship which is sold has a much greater value with this record of Lloyd's service than would otherwise be obtained just by the Canadian inspection.
As I understand it, the Canadian inspection is interested mainly in the comfort and safety of passengers, whereas Lloyd's are interested in the strength of the hull and the framework. They keep a very close record of the wear and tear of the ship, which can be worth a great deal of money and probably worth more than the savings which might be effected.


Mr. Tucker:: I have been trying to put a question to the minister, but this may not be on the proper item. I do not think he will mind my asking it. It refers to the auto ferry service from Portugal Cove to Bell island.
Could the minister advise this house if the auto ferry which will operate from Portugal Cove to Bell island will take care of the express parcels?


George Harris Hees: This new ship will be adequate to handle express shipments and if the Canadian National wish us to handle that service and so on, this ferry will be able to do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
439. Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1958, $165,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I see that the amount of the deficit is $165,000, which I think speaks highly of the efforts made by the department's officials, because when this service was started
Supply-Transport
I think perhaps a greater deficit was expected.
I should like to know, is it expected that next year this service will operate at a surplus?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman; this deficit is about the kind of operating result we expect in the future, and certainly next year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
441.	Degaussing Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to retransfer to Canadian registry under special intergovernmental arrangement, $300,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I have one question here. This is an item which appears practically every year, and has for many years. Now that the merchant fleet is fast disappearing, is it expected that the degaussing of this type of ship shall cease? How many more ships require to be degaussed?


George Harris Hees: I am advised by my officials that the program will continue, because we are continuing to do this work on Canadian ships going under British registry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
442.	Martime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1958, $14,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: This is an extremely large item, as the minister knows, and one which is required in the maritime provinces. In view of statements that have been made repeatedly, is it the intention to increase the payments under the Maritime Freight Rates Act from the amount which is paid now?


George Harris Hees: This whole question is under intensive study at the present time, and we expect to have a report on it by the end of the year.


William Moore Benidickson: This is an item in which I, too, am interested. I notice that for the current fiscal year an additional $525,000 is requested. When the Minister of Finance tabled his report with respect to the Governor General's warrants, he indicated that this was a place where there had been an economy, and I think it was indicated in the Governor General's warrants which were tabled that the requirement had been reduced by $1,200,000 for the last fiscal year. In the estimates as tabled for 1957-58 the amount asked for was $14,675,000.

Supply-Transport
As I say, it was an item in which it was considered there had been economies, so why have we an increase this year? Is this not an expenditure that is simply based on a fixed rate per mile or per ton of traffic, and does the minister expect that there is going to be an increase in the volume of traffic in that area to which this subsidy applies?


George Harris Hees: This increase is due, first of all, to the effect of the increase of 30 per cent for a full year on certain outward traffic, and second to freight rate increases authorized by the board of transport commissioners since last year when the estimate was prepared.


William Moore Benidickson: The whole amount is something that is statutory, that the minister cannot control?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


William Moore Benidickson: So there is no opportunity for the minister to make an economy. If the bills come in and the amount shown in the estimate was not adequate, he would simply have to ask for a supplementary estimate?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
443.	Payment to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, in the amount of the deficit, certified by the auditors of the company, in the operation of the company in the calendar year 1958, $190,000.
Lionel Chevrier: This is an item which I feel I cannot allow to pass without making a short statement. I shall not hold up the committee, but I feel that in view of the attitude taken on this side of the house and the position of the minister, which I understand, there should be at least a brief statement on it.
In the first place, as the house knows, this is an item to pay the deficit on the operation of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships for that portion of the year during which they were in operation. It has to do also with the decision, approved by the Canadian government, to sell these eight vessels.
I should like to say here that I think that decision was a mistake. I say this having regard to what happened in the past. I think it was a mistake to have attempted in the earlier session to transfer the flag to Trinidad, and now it is an equal mistake to transfer it to Cuba. After all, what is being done is this. It is a United States company operating out of Detroit under a Cuban flag that will now operate these ships, thereby

depriving the officers and men of these eight ships, of their livelihood, apart from all of the business which was generated between the Caribbean countries and our own Canadian shore.
I think it was a mistake also because the former government had decided to effect a five-year plan under which these eight ships would have been put into operation for a period of five years to determine whether, at the end of that period, it would be advisable to wind up the operations of Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships. I realize that even then it was a marginal operation. It is for this reason I have no hesitation in saying now that that decision to transfer the flag was wrong, that the decision should not have been made, that the decision should not have been approved by the Canadian government.
Having said that, I come to the other question which is perhaps of greater importance and greater concern to the house, that is the question of a Canadian deep sea fleet. I know the position in which any minister of transport finds himself with reference to that matter. There is no doubt that following the war years it was possible to operate a deep sea fleet at a profit because the Canadian bottoms were available and bottoms from other countries were in short supply at the time. Then came the Korean war and again there was a great demand for ships and shipping services by all countries, and the Canadian deep sea fleet did operate profitably. For a period of two or three years, I believe, following that time there was an item of $3 million or $3.5 million put in the estimates of the Department of Transport in order to assist this fleet.
I know that, having regard to general policy, it is perhaps difficult for one department to bring its point of view to bear upon the whole government. I know the Canadian maritime commission and the departmental transport officials, as well as the minister, must of necessity be sympathetic to a case such as this, but the point I want to make and the blame, if any, I want to direct at the minister in as gentle a way as I can is with regard to the decision taken by the Canadian maritime commission quite some time ago that at no time should the Canadian merchant fleet ever get below 750,000 deadweight tons. This was considered by the Canadian maritime commission as a bare nucleus for a Canadian fleet and that is what we, when we were in office, were determined to maintain. We did that during all the years we were in office.

Now by the sale of the eight Canadian National (West Indies) ships, and other transfers that have taken place, this minimum requirement recommended by the Canadian maritime commission, an agency of the Minister of Transport, has been reduced away below the 750,000 deadweight tons. What it is at the moment I do not know, but I heard the hon. member for Assiniboia say yesterday, I think, that it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of 185,000 tons; of that I am not sure. My attention is directed to the fact that it is now 186,000 tons.
The point is that it is now very far below what was required as a nucleus. The question I bring to the minister's attention and ask him is this. In view of the recommendation of his own agency that the Canadian mercantile fleet should never at any time be below the figure of 750,000 deadweight tons, what does the government propose to do in the face of the recommendation of its own agency?
Before I resume my seat I feel that I should say something in answer to a criticism made by the hon. member for Danforth yesterday concerning the president of the Canadian National Railways. I had already spoken at the time; otherwise I would have risen then to say this. I did not always agree with the recommendations made by the president of the Canadian National Railways, but I always considered that he was a public servant of the highest character. I have come into contact with him over a period of nine years, and I not only respected him for his loyalty to the government which he served-and I am sure he is giving the same loyalty to the present administration-but was impressed by his full understanding of all the questions that we discussed together.
I regretted very much the reflection made yesterday upon the quality of his services. I was again brought into contact with him in my capacity as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, and we had some bitter discussions about a matter which I know has come to the attention of the Minister of Transport. But notwithstanding those discussions I believe that he is one of the finest types of officials that the government of Canada has. I deeply regret that any member of the house should have felt it necessary to attack him under the circumstances.


George Harris Hees: To what the hon. member for Laurier has just said about Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways, I should just like to add this. I have always found, as he did while he was a member of the government, the most complete co-operation from Mr. Donald Gordon in all my dealings with him. I have complete confidence in him as president of the railways,
Supply-Transport
and I believe his energies are at all times directed to the efficient and effective operation of the railway. I believe he is doing his utmost to run that railway in an effective and efficient manner, and I have complete confidence in him.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 443 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer my question.


George Harris Hees: In reply to what the hon. member for Laurier said earlier with regard to shipping policy generally, I should like to point out that on June 30, 1957, which after all was only nine days after we assumed office, there were only 26 ships listed on Canadian registry, 18 of which were dry cargo ships and 8 were tankers. I am now talking about deep sea ships. They had a total gross registered tonnage of 186,163. I should like to give the comparative figures for the year 1948. At that time there was a total of 172 deep sea ships on Canadian registry. Of those, 157 were dry cargo ships and 15 were tankers, and they had a total gross tonnage of 1,178,791. I think the hon. member will therefore agree that a great deal of reduction in the Canadian fleet took place under the late government of which he was a member. I just mention that matter in order to point out the fact that this reduction is something that has been going on for a long time, and that a great deal of it went on under the former government.
This matter is of concern to me and to this government. Later on this fall I intend to bring the subject again to the attention of the government, and it will be thoroughly discussed.


Hazen Robert Argue: As has already been said by both hon. members who have spoken, Canada's merchant fleet has been reduced very rapidly in recent years. My purpose in rising was really to ask the minister whether, in view of the great interest in the transaction -I refer to the sale of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships vessels-it will be referred next session to the standing committee of this house dealing with railways, air lines and shipping owned by the government.
I have found that a great many Canadians are not only disturbed by the fact that the Canadian merchant fleet is being very rapidly reduced, but are particularly concerned about the events surrounding the sale of the Canadian National (West Indies) steamships. There is the whole question of whether Canada received value for the ships. There is the question-and the minister has already referred briefly to this matter in the house-of other offers being made and in one instance, though the minister says the offer came late, an

Supply-Transport
offer that was higher than the sale price obtained for the ships. In the public interest -and it may be the intention of the government to do it anyway-I think this extremely important sale should be referred to a standing committee of this house so that members may inquire as to the circumstances surrounding the sale and find whether or not there is any foundation for the fears expressed by some that the Canadian government did not get for the ships the value it might have obtained.
I know the minister will say that was the very best offer the government could get. That being the case I can see no reason why, from the government's standpoint, there should be any objection to this course being followed. I think such an airing should be given to this sale.


George Harris Hees: The government has no objection at all to any members of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping, which will of course meet next year, asking Mr. Donald Gordon any questions they wish to ask about this matter. I feel sure that Mr. Gordon will be pleased to answer fully any questions that are put to him. Neither the government nor the Canadian National Railways have anything to hide in this matter. It was a perfectly open transaction. It was a good transaction. As hon. members know, both the Canadian National Railways and the government were reluctant to sell this fleet. We took the step as the only one we felt to be sensible in all the circumstances.
As to the circumstances of the sale, the prices offered and the actual price that was accepted, there is nothing to hide with regard to any of those matters. I am sure that next year Mr. Gordon will welcome any questions about the transaction which any member of the committee would like to ask him next year.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate the answer of the minister. I myself am not certain, because I have never had the privilege of being a member of this committee, whether or not persons in addition to Donald Gordon should be called, but I take it from the general purport of the minister's answer that he is quite prepared to have a full inquiry into this transaction next year, and certainly his statement is satisfactory to me.


George Harris Hees: As far as I am concerned I am perfectly willing, but this is a matter for the committee itself to decide. If the committee decides to call somebody before it for examination, that is perfectly satisfactory to me.


William Moore Benidickson: With respect to this particular item, is that exactly the position of

the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Company? My impression has been that it is really a government operation, and it is simply put under the administration of the Canadian National Railways. So the responsibility of the government in respect of matters of policy, I think, is quite different from what it would be if we were dealing with a property which strictly belonged to the Canadian National Railways. This is simply under their administration, something like the Hudson Bay railway, is it not? I must say that I share the view of the member for Laurier in that we are very disappointed that there has not been a greater effort to carry out that five-year program.
Second, when the decision was made to sell these ships I had very grave doubts that, considering the difference between the lowest and the next lowest tender, the best decision was made in the national interest. I believe the minister, when he made the announcement about the sale, indicated that he had received some assurances from the purchaser that the ships would continue to be engaged in carrying traffic between Canada and the West Indies, which is of so much value to our national economy.
The minister is probably aware of the fact that there was an article just a week or so ago in the New York Times to the effect that this was not the intention of the purchaser over the long pull, but that just as soon as the seaway was open it was the company's intention to withdraw these ships from the West Indies trade and that they would simply be used to the best commercial advantage. That would probably be in seaway traffic and not necessarily, as it has been in the past, contributing a very important aid to Canada, largely in respect of the maritime economy, in the development of our trade with the West Indies.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the information we have is that when the seaway is open, in addition to using the ports of Halifax and Montreal this company is considering the possible further extension of its operations to the great lakes ports, but not the elimination of the ports of Montreal or Halifax.


William Moore Benidickson: I am more concerned
about the elimination of the regular traffic, with the West Indies being the other end of the route. What assurance has the minister received from the purchaser in that respect?


George Harris Hees: The Canadian National (West Indies) Steamship Company was assured by the purchaser that it intended to serve the ports I mentioned when I made the announcement to this house. If the purchasing company wishes to change its mind at any time, it owns the ships and it can do so; but we

were given that assurance, which I passed on to the house and, as I have said, the only change of which we know is that it is contemplating the possibility of extending its operations into the great lakes after the seaway is open.


William Moore Benidickson: Would all the crews be Cuban citizens?


George Harris Hees: That, Mr. Chairman, is the business of the purchasing company. That company now owns the ships and can hire whatever crews it wishes.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the Cuban flag they could not have other than Cuban crews, could they?


George Harris Hees: I am not too familiar with the regulations governing registry under the Cuban flag, but I would assume they would be Cubans.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Was the government or the minister given any written assurance in this matter?


George Harris Hees: I understand the purchasing company wrote a letter to Canadian National Railways to that effect but, as I say, once the transaction was completed the ships are the property of the company and it can change its plans as it sees fit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Services-
Administration division-
449. Air services administration, $1,116,241.
Lionel Chevrier: This is a pretty important item in that it covers a rather wide field, and perhaps it might be advisable to call it one o'clock. If not I shall proceed with the remarks I have to make.


George Harris Hees: No; I think it would be perfectly satisfactory to do so. I agree that this would be a good place to stop.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Is it the pleasure of the house to call it one o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, when we adjourned at one o'clock we had reached the item Air Services Administration and on this item I just want to bring one matter to the attention of the minister, and I do not want to deal with it at any length.
Supply-Transport
I did have the opportunity when the committee on railways and shipping was established to say something about air competition, and what I have to say at this moment on the subject will be brief. This is, as the committee knows, and as the minister in particular knows, a subject of extreme interest and importance, namely competition in trans-continental air routes. In view of the statements which were made earlier by the minister and others-sweeping statements to the effect that there would be all-out competition in this field-I want to tell the minister that I think he was well advised to seek advice from a British consultant and to have tabled in the house some time ago what is known as the Wheat-croft report. The Wheatcroft report clearly establishes the principle of festina lente- make haste slowly-and I believe the minister has come to the conclusion now that there should be no ill considered action taken.
As the committee knows, C.P.A. and Pacific Western Airlines have made application before the air transport board, and the matter being sub judice. I have no intention of discussing it other than to say, arising out of the Wheatcroft report, that there are three alternatives which could now apply: first, the status quo, leaving the position remain as it is; next, all-out competition; and, thirdly, a policy which would be midway between the two. That may be what the Wheatcroft report has in mind in effect- gradual competition in the field of these trans-continental air routes.
However, there are many things which come into play in deciding whether or not competition is advisable. There is the density of the traffic, there is the financial implication involved and there are, in addition, such questions as the adequacy of the service, the frequency of the service and the quality of the service. But there is one point on which the Wheatcroft report lays great stress and that is that there are only three routes in Canada where there is enough traffic to sustain competition, and those routes are Toronto-Montreal, Vancouver-Victoria and Toronto-Winnipeg.
I did attempt to discuss this matter at the committee on railways and shipping but I was ruled out of order. I think the ruling was mistaken and erroneous, particularly in view of the fact that the Wheatcroft report had been tabled in the house, but nonetheless I will not take advantage of the opportunity to discuss the matter here other than to say that I believe the effect of competition on Trans-Canada Air Lines is one thing that should be carefully considered and carefully

Supply-Transport
studied having regard not only to the Wheat-croft report but to the whole position of air traffic in Canada.
There is no doubt in my mind that there is no better air line in the world than T.C.A. I have had the opportunity in the position which the minister now holds of using many air lines but I have never found one which better deserves, in the over-all acceptance of the term, the statement that there is no finer air line in the world than Trans-Canada Air Lines. There may be certain misgivings about T.C.A.-I have no doubt there are- and some mistakes have been made, but on the whole few air lines do compare with it.
Now I wish to make a statement which I hope the committee will accept in the right spirit. It is that when men go out of public life it seems they are so often forgotten and that never again is a word said about them. I wish to refer now, in particular, to the work done with regard to T.C.A. by the Right Hon. C. D. Howe. I think the establishment of T.C.A. is a monument which will always live to his credit. I can remember many debates in this house-many heated and bitter debates-having to do with T.C.A., but I will not go into them now in order to keep away from anything which might be contentious. However, I do want to say that now that this great public servant has gone out of public life the committee should be reminded that one of the many lasting things which he accomplished for this country of ours was the establishment of one of the finest air lines in the world-Trans-Canada Air Lines.


George Harris Hees: I should like to say at this moment that I agree completely with what the hon. member for Laurier has said about Trans-Canada Air Lines and the services which it provides. I agree with him completely in that. I think it is absolutely first class, and I am very proud to be the minister who reports to parliament for T.C.A. 1 should also like to agree with him regarding the great contribution which Mr. Howe made to the building up of this fine corporation.


Hazen Robert Argue: I want to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by this item to say that we in the C.C.F. are proud of the operations of the T.C.A. We feel that it is an outstanding example of efficiency and quality of operation. It is a tribute to and an example of what can be done by public ownership in this important field. We know the statements that have been made by government members in the past regarding Trans-Canada Air Lines have not always been complimentary. There seems to have been a great desire on the part of Conservative members to introduce an element

of so-called competition but aimed in a direction which we would suggest would reduce the efficiency of Trans-Canada Air Lines and would merely be of assistance to the Canadian Pacific Air Lines which itself is a subsidiary of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
We have noted with interest the Wheatcroft report and were pleased that it did not condone any early interference with Trans-Canada Air Lines. With regard to its stated attitude toward T.C.A. in the past we hope the Conservative party will change and will maintain Trans-Canada Air Lines intact in the form in which it now exists, will allow the air line to expand and will turn thumbs down on the proposition that transcontinental flights should be turned over to private companies.
The annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines in our view is a solid indication of the efficient service of this company. The fact that it has been able to continue to expand at a very rapid rate and acquire the most modern planes and equipment and increase its service and at the same time reduce passenger rates is a worth-while and welcome respite from the kind of action we usually see these days by private corporations. In scarcely any other service can one find a substantial reduction in prices in 1957. I should like the minister to give us a more comprehensive statement than that he has given thus far as to what the policy of the government is going to be with regard to Trans-Canada Air Line services. I hope he will tell the committee the government has no desire to provide so-called competition -and I do not think it is really competition at all-to Trans-Canada Air Line services.
The Wheatcroft report pointed out that not only does Trans-Canada Air Lines provide highly efficient service but to a degree the provision of service by Trans-Canada Air Lines in areas where passenger traffic is not particularly great is in effect a subsidy for the people in that area. As a person coming from the prairies I am naturally interested in having as good service as possible for that region and I realize if we had to depend upon competitive service only without the operation of a public company like Trans-Canada Air Lines which considers the welfare of the general public we might have much less service and service of a considerably poorer quality than we now have.
I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Laurier and with the Minister of Transport in the tribute they paid to our friend, Right Hon. C. D. Howe. I do not believe there is any one sitting in this committee today who has clashed with Mr. Howe more often than I have. If I have been able to acquire some knowledge of the procedures

of this house and some knowledge of the activities of the Department of Trade and Commerce and in particular some knowledge of the grain marketing business, I can thank Mr. Howe for a good part of it because whenever I asked him a question on orders of the day, even as a new member, he treated me with courtesy and always gave me a full and frank answer. One thing I always liked about C. D. Howe was that he was a good, hard and tough debater. He did not give any quarter and he did not ask any quarter but at the end of a debate one always parted from him on excellent terms.
C. D. Howe is a big businessman. He has acquired much power and authority in the Canadian business world. He has many good qualities but as is the case with every hon. member of this committee he occasionally displayed certain human weaknesses. One quality of his character which I always admired and considered good was that he constantly protected the people within his department and defended the operations of organizations within the purview of his department. When C. D. Howe was the minister in charge of Trans-Canada Air Lines, Polymer Corporation or any other project coming under his department's jurisdiction one could be reasonably assured that the operation would be efficient based in the public interest and would expand.


William Moore Benidickson: He was a great miner for talent for the public service.


Hazen Robert Argue: I believe that is true. I do not think any one could say that in his philosophical make-up C. D. Howe had any particular love for public enterprise and he was probably as anti-socialist as anybody who sat on the treasury benches. But he was a pragmatist and when he saw that public ownership would do a much better job than private ownership in a particular field, in spite of his basic belief he did not hesitate to promote public ownership.
I believe that Trans-Canada Air Lines is one of the best air line services in the world and it has provided excellent service to the Canadian nation without profit. If Canada is going to compete with foreign air lines in providing air services in days that lie ahead we will be more apt to compete in an efficient way and keep abreast of technological improvements if we maintain this publicly owned corporation and refuse to turn it over to private hands. Canada in competition with the air lines of the world should tell the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, the United States and other nations that we have a publicly owned corporation that has the backing of the Canadian government and the
Supply-Transport
Canadian people and that we intend to compete efficiently with all comers. I am hopeful that the Minister of Transport will tell the committee there is no intention on the part of his department to turn Trans-Canada Air Lines over to a private company and I ask him that question.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite sure what the hon. member has asked. Is he implying that this government is intending to hand over Trans-Canada Air Lines to some private company or is he suggesting that if the air transport board should decide some measure of competition would be beneficial the government should simply refuse to accept the decision of the air transport board?


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the last part of the minister's question I will say yes. The fact that we have established a certain board does not mean that board is paramount to parliament. The board is not paramount to parliament. In recent months the board of transport commissioners allowed an increase in freight rates. The governor in council, by its authority under the law, refused to allow the increase to go into effect. I am asking the minister whether the government-never mind the air transport board -has a policy of maintaining the T.C.A.'s present position on the trans-Canada air lines runs, or whether it is prepared, in the words of the minister, to allow competition in this service?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member knows and as all hon. members know, the air transport board was established to examine applications brought before it by various air lines in Canada. That is being done at the present time in the case of an application for a trans-continental route. Two air lines have applied for the right to operate on that route as well as the T.C.A. In accordance with the terms of reference under which the air transport board operates, those applications will be heard and the recommendation of the air transport board will be transmitted to the government and the government will examine that recommendation. That is the course we propose to follow.


Hazen Robert Argue: From my point of view the minister's answer is entirely unsatisfactory. Of course, what the government does in the future can only be determined by events. After the government receives the recommendation from the air transport board, if it should acquiesce in allowing so-called competition which will do nothing but hurt the services in this field the government will be doing a disservice to the people of

Supply-Transport
this country. I am hopeful that in the days that lie ahead the minister will support Trans-Canada Air Lines as it now exists, with the rights it now has, and will maintain an expanding Trans-Canada Air Lines and oppose any diminution of Trans-Canada Air Lines rights and will refuse to allow so-called competition. In the tribute that the hon. member for Laurier has paid to Trans-Canada Air Lines there is implicit in his remarks, though he may not agree, that in the light of its history Trans-Canada Air Lines should be given a full and unimpeded opportunity to continue to improve its now excellent service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telecommunications division-
452.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $11,385,000.
Mr. Bourget:: I tried to find some details on page 571 but I could not find any. I am not going to delay the committee, but I would ask the minister whether he would not follow the pattern established by the Department of Public Works and on the last pages of the estimates book give details of the projects that are mentioned in this item so that we would have some idea of the projects in the different provinces for which he is asking money.


George Harris Hees: I can give the information on the main items but I emphasize-


Lionel Chevrier: He wants the minister to do it in the future.


Maurice Bourget: I am not asking for it this year but in future years. Details of the vessels that are to be built are given for this year, but with respect to this item for $11,385,000, I am asking the minister whether in future years we could not have details of the different projects that are included in the item so that we would have information on the projects, as we have been doing in public works.


George Harris Hees: We will give every possible consideration to doing that. The only difficulty is, it would be a tremendous volume of details but we shall give every consideration to the possibility of doing what the hon. member requests.


Maurice Bourget: I am not asking for all the small projects but just for projects over $100,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio Act and regulations-
453.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $2,359,295.
William Moore Benidickson: The other day a question was asked about the opportunity to introduce

United States television programs by the introduction of a cable into Canada. I do not think the minister has replied to that question yet but I, of course, am interested because the location in question in Canada was Fort Frances. It was indicated that a United States firm felt that, without insisting on approval from the department, it could bring in to Fort Frances a program which in turn would be paid for by installation charges paid by the United States company. Another common practice in some communities that cannot get good reception is to pay a monthly rental fee for the service. I heartily approve of this in this particular location because I have some experience with the long delay in getting the C.B.C. sound radio programs in that area. They are 150 miles from the microwave television network and I surmise it might be rather late in the program of the C.B.C. to provide them with service. I think this comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and I wondered whether the minister could tell us that his department has been dealing sympathetically with the application of International Television Cable Corporation to allow residents of Fort Frances who have subscribed a certain amount of capital for this service and who feel keenly that they are getting television reception from nowhere, to take advantage of it. Is the minister aware of this situation?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we have just heard of this matter informally. The government has no control over a cable of this kind.


William Moore Benidickson: The minister asserts that if a company crosses an international river by means of renting a telephone company's lines and introduces programs that it will be possible to recable it on the Canadian side?


George Harris Hees: I am adviced by my officials that if they wish to bring in this cable they can do so.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this item covers the administration of the Radio Act and regulations. Very briefly I wish to mention four matters which I have been asked to raise on the floor of the house by various organizations and persons in my constituency.
No doubt the minister is aware of the fact that in Kootenay West we have had great difficulties with respect to radio interference occasioned by power lines. The matter has been taken up repeatedly and the minister's officials have visited the district to try to locate the causes and advise the local people how best to overcome it. They appreciate that but I do suggest that the department do everything possible to continue to assist those

people who at the present time are almost denied radio reception completely because of interference from power lines. However, I do suggest that this problem will not be corrected until we have the necessary low-power relay stations.


George Harris Hees: If the hon member is going to ask all four questions, perhaps I can deal with each one as it comes up. In answer to that question, Mr. Chairman, we are working with the power company in this regard. The difficulty so far is that the signals are very weak indeed. We are continuing to work with them and will do everything we can to be of assistance.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his reply, and I was coming to that point. I think the signals are so weak the only solution will be the erection of two or three of these low power relay stations. I hope the minister uses his influence with the Minister of National Revenue, and together they will soon have these stations erected.
The other matter to which I wish to refer was piped-in television. I want to explain to the minister that I am not mechanically minded. My mechanical ability ceases with the lawnmower and wheelbarrow. We have piped-in television around the Nelson and Trail areas through coaxial cable service and a reflector on the mountain top. There has been a great deal of complaint about the rates and fees charged when there is a change of occupancy in a house, and things of that sort. I have taken this matter up with the department, and I understand the department issues a licence but has no control over the fees and charges. I have taken it up with the public utilities commission in British Columbia, and they say they accept no responsibility in that respect. Apparently, therefore, the administration of this business lives in a vacuum. I ask the minister if it would not be possible for the officials of his department to take the matter up with the public utilities commission so there is some regulation with respect to fees, charges and other costs exacted by these companies.


George Harris Hees: My suggestion is that if these people believe these charges are excessive, this would be a matter to take up with the new regulatory board which is in the process of being established.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for that answer. This is like a cricket match, one wicket at a time.
The other matter I should like to mention relates to community television. I have one or two groups in my constituency who have a co-operative arrangement for the use of some sort of reflector on the mountain top 57071-3-276
Supply-Transport
reflecting signals for television, without cables, to certain vital areas in the district. I understand they have been refused the right to instal this system as there is some distinction in law between the use of the air in that way and bringing signals in by coaxial cable. Would the minister inform me why these people are refused the right to instal their own television system when they are unable to obtain any other, and the distinction between this form of television and the one I previously spoke about which is piped-in?


George Harris Hees: This operation would be completely dependent upon United States programs, so we considered that it would be advisable to hold this matter up and let it be considered by the new board. This is quite an important matter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did the minister say that would be referred to the new board?


George Harris Hees: Our suggestion is the applicants should refer this matter to the new board as soon as it is appointed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one other matter, and then I shall subside for a few minutes. I have had it brought to my attention, Mr. Chairman, and been asked to obtain information as to why the government does not demand commercial operator's standing for station engineers the same as is required under the federal communications act in the United States. I understand our present act allows anyone to operate the physical equipment at a transmitter site and also automatically-operated equipment under the juke box principle, and according to my information this negates the need for any Canadian studying or taking exams in the field of radio broadcasting. I have been asked to inquire of the minister to see if the act could be amended to require licensed personnel as the operators of radio stations?


George Harris Hees: The technical qualifications of such engineers have to meet the standards set by the department, so in effect what the hon. member believes is not so. We do not allow engineers to operate these stations unless they come up to our technical standards.


William Moore Benidickson: May I revert to my former question, and ask whether another form of T.V. service might be provided at a border town? I take it that the minister's department, under the Radio Act, would have control of an organization that picked up a United States broadcast and then relayed it within Canada, but that if a United States company simply provided their service by cable they are exempt from regulation?

Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
455. Administration, operation and maintenance, $277,802.
Mr. Batten:: I have one or two questions to ask on this item. Does the Department of Transport operate any telegraph or telephone services within Canada, and if so how many?


George Harris Hees: There is the Magdalen islands service, the service in Cape Breton and a small service in New Brunswick.


Herman Maxwell Batten: May I ask the minister, are these land lines or are some of them wireless systems?


George Harris Hees: They are chiefly land lines, Mr. Chairman, but there are some radio links.


Herman Maxwell Batten: I have one more question, and I do not expect the minister to answer this question now. I wonder if, when it is convenient for him to do so, he would give me the population in the areas served by these systems?


George Harris Hees: Yes, we shall be glad to convey that information to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological division-
457. Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,708,161.
Lionel Chevrier: There is one word here which I cannot resist saying because, at times, there is some criticism about the fact that headquarters buildings are removed from Ottawa and given to other cities. I have reference to the printing bureau, which has gone to Hull; to the national film board, which has gone to Montreal; and the seaway headquarters which are alleged to go to Cornwall. I want to say here that, perhaps unknown to the house, the meteorological service of the Department of Transport have their headquarters in the city of Toronto. This is a decision that was taken earlier, and I know when I was holding the position which my hon. friend holds there was a difference of opinion between certain officers of the department and I had to take a decision at one time as to whether the headquarters would be brought back to Ottawa or remain in Toronto. In order that there may be no doubt about the view of the present officers, I can say that those who discussed the recommendation with me are no longer with the department. They have retired.
I did have to seek advice as to what was the best thing to do under the circumstances. I sought the advice of Dr. Andrew Thompson, who is director of the meteorological services.

Of course, he was strongly of the opinion that this service should remain in the city of Toronto. I remember one evening getting a telephone call from the president of the University of Toronto, who is now the Secretary of State for External Affairs, giving strong reasons why, because of the association of the University of Toronto with meteorologists, it was so important that that service be maintained in the city of Toronto. I need hardly tell the house that the decision was taken to leave the headquarters where they are.
My only reason in rising at this time is to say that sometimes it is in the national interest that headquarters buildings be removed from the city of Ottawa and established elsewhere.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister if he could give the committee a report on the meteorological stations in the Arctic. How many of such stations are under the sole control of Canada; how many are under joint control; and how many, if any, are by agreement under the control of the United States? Can he tell the committee what progress is being made to ensure that Canada eventually will be able to take full responsibility for this important work in the Canadian Arctic?


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. gentleman's question may I say this. There are five Canadian stations, five joint stations and no United States stations. We have been increasing our component every year.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give some idea as to the respective participation of Canadians and Americans in those five joint stations?


George Harris Hees: We have in each case the officer in charge. We provide 50 per cent of the supplies. We undertake the supply work. We have the majority of the operators in each of the stations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister anticipates that, as Canadian technicians are trained and made available, it will not be very long before we have complete responsibility for the maintenance of those five stations?


George Harris Hees: Our primary responsibility is to have the new stations on a 100 per cent Canadian basis before we start taking over the joint bases.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation division-
459. Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $1,866,225.
Lionel Chevrier: There is just one matter here that comes to my attention. It has to do with

the statement that the minister made in the house earlier, namely that it would be in the public interest that licences for air services using only the small type of aircraft be granted freely on request. The minister will recall that I asked him a number of questions on that matter because I had received representations from smaller air carriers protesting against that decision. I want to bring it to his attention now, not in order to delay the committee but to point up some of the difficulties that arise. The decision that was taken and announced by the minister is, in my opinion, one which is not in the general interest of these carriers because it opens up the charter aircraft field to wide-open competition. I have grave doubts about the matter lest it bring about bad results which will affect these companies that are operating under difficult circumstances in wide areas of the country at far away points. It strikes me that they will be seriously affected by this decision.
I will go so far as to say this. The minister stated earlier that there should be wide-open competition and that, because of the Wheatcroft report, there had to be a change in policy. It may very well be that it was decided to make that free and wide-open competition in this restricted field; and it may well be that, in order to carry out in part at least the statement or the promise made by the minister earlier, this was being done.
I should like to bring to his attention the fact that many of the air carriers in the class "C" category are greatly disturbed about this decision. They have been established at great sacrifice to themselves and they will be materially and unfavourably affected if this policy is allowed to be carried out. All I want to do is to bring the matter to the attention of the minister and to ask him if he will not reconsider it. I ask him if he will not bring the matter to the attention of his officers, particularly the air transport board, so that they might give consideration to the representations which I am sure these small carriers will want to make to the board, and which I am sure they have already brought to the attention of the minister. Without saying more, I will resume my seat in the hope that the minister will give consideration to what I have said.


William Moore Benidickson: On vote 459 which I think comes under the administration of the controller, although my remarks might be equally applicable under vote 460, I just want to raise one or two matters very briefly. When I was the parliamentary assistant to the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier, I had the honour of opening a modest expansion to the Winnipeg 57071-3-2764
Supply-Transport
airport. At that time I said frankly on behalf of the department that this extension was recognized as being merely a temporary expedient. Since then there has been an addition. But on the other hand, the minister's predecessor wrote me in 1956, prior to the change of administration, that he had every expectation that construction of a new terminal building for Winnipeg would commence in 1957. I am wondering whether the minister would tell us something about progress in this respect.
I have another item; and I must say that generally I receive from the Minister of Transport the utmost consideration. I am only going to draw his attention to a little incident that is not going to affect our personal relations very much. I want to point out to him that I made a written inquiry about new construction on the Kenora airport on April 25. While his letter to me was dated June 6 in reply, indicating that it was expected that they would soon obtain a contractor for the work at the Kenora airport, it just so happened that the defeated Conservative candidate in the district was able to make an announcement about this matter two or three days prior to the receipt by me of the letter from the minister. I do not think that is typical of the minister. I am sure it was just an oversight that the letter did not, in the usual channels through the mail, reach me as it should. I am sure the minister would not want that to happen as a regular practice. He will recognize from the dates I gave that I had shown a great interest in this matter long before a reply was possible. Then for some reason or another I did not receive the letter dated June 6 until after the announcement had been made in the Kenora papers by someone else. However, I must give him the full benefit of any doubt; in fact, I really have no doubt. From my own experience I know that sometimes mail presented to me by a secretary is typed for a certain date, and I do not necessarily change the date if I have not had the opportunity on that particular day to sign the letter. I am sure it was not deliberate. However, I am just hoping that the minister will try to avoid that type of thing in the future.


George Harris Hees: I wish to assure the hon. member that was not intentional.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
460. Civil aviation services, and to provide, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, that the treasury board may authorize arrangements to be made for the operation of hotel, bakery, restaurant, staff messing,
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
staff accommodation and similar facilities at airports and may authorize the disbursement of revenues derived therefrom and payment of deficits that may occur in the management and operation of these facilities, $14,342,200.
Lionel Chevrier: There is just one question I wish to ask. It has to do with the Dorval airport. As the minister knows, the air terminal was envisaged some years ago and there was then designed a plan for this international airport. There are three questions that come to my mind. The first is this. What was the original estimate? What was the intermediate estimate? By that, I mean the one that was made by the immediate predecessor of the minister. Finally, what is the estimate today, in 1958. Then I should like to know from the minister, if he will be kind enough to tell me, why it was necessary to revise these estimates. I take it that it was because of the fact that, during the planning of this important air terminal there were changes in design brought about by the jet era. Strips must be longer and stronger. Where a strip of 4,000 feet or 5,000 feet sufficed at one time, now it is necessary to have strips two or more miles in length.


An hon. Member:: Four miles?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes; there is a strip several miles in length out here at Uplands airport which is in operation at the moment. Because of the new instruments and so forth it also becomes necessary to amend the plans and specifications. I wonder, therefore, if I could not get an answer in respect to those questions.
There is another question having to do with air conditioning, and I do not want to repeat what has been said earlier. I know the reasons why at the outset it was decided against air conditioning. These were because it was not the policy of the government to put air conditioning in their buildings because it would have brought about a serious delay and would have increased the cost, but I think that in view of the developments in the aviation field a complete change has been brought about with respect to this aspect of the question. There are a number of alternatives which have entered the picture, more particularly the strong recommendation by the international civil aviation organization which strongly favours the air conditioning of new terminal buildings. I therefore hope it will be found possible to make a complete study of this matter and to come up with a recommendation which would favour air conditioning. I also hope the minister will be able to answer my earlier questions.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to do so.

First, with regard to Dorval airport, various cost estimates were made at various stages, although a complete cost estimate was not possible until 1957 because final plans and specifications for the building itself were not completed until that time. Earlier estimates varied from $10 million, when the plans were in the early stage of preparation, to $12.5 million in 1956 and, last year, to $15 million, as the plans and specifications were completed. These amounts were for the terminal building only and not for the ramp area and aero quays and fingers connected with the ramp area. The cost of the fingers and the aero quays is estimated to be about $2 million and if air conditioning is added to the public waiting room, this could run to another $500,000 which, when added to the cost of the main building itself, would give a total of around $17.5 million. It has been necessary because of changing conditions in aviation to modify the plans on more than one occasion. The ability to do this has indeed been an advantage in providing for a more modern terminal since that time and if the plans had been made inflexible in the first instance they could not have kept abreast of the changing requirements of the air lines and indeed the building might have been obsolete in some regards when completed.
The interior layout plans were adjusted on several occasions as the result of discussion with the air lines and with customs and immigration, whose requirements continued to evolve throughout the period. The most difficult issue and one which has only recently been settled related to the fingers and aero quays layout for the movement of passengers to the aircraft.
With regard to the matter of air conditioning, I quite agree with the hon. member for Laurier and with other members who have spoken. In fact a number of the members from the Montreal area have spoken to me about this matter outside of the house and I and my department agree that air conditioning is very desirable if it can be put in without serious delay. During the past week we have been carrying on an intensive study and we shall continue to do so to see if this can be done. As I indicated yesterday, I hope to be able to make an announcement on this matter very shortly.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I might follow that up with one or two questions. I believe the various estimates mentioned by the minister were $10 million to $12.5 million, then $15 million and lastly $17.5 million. I take it that these various estimates were made necessary because of a change in the design and plans required by the circumstances which existed from time to time?


George Harris Hees: That is partly true, Mr. Chairman, and as my officials have advised me, we knew more about the costs of materials and other factors going into the layout as the plans were developed and it therefore became easier to arrive at a more definite figure.


Lionel Chevrier: And the first estimate of $10 million to $12.5 million did not include the fingers which the minister mentioned and the other item which escapes me?


George Harris Hees: The fingers and the aero quays and the possible air conditioning.


Lionel Chevrier: One last question-I understand that this building has been divided into a number of contracts.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: There was a contract for the steel, there was one for the foundation and another for the frame of the building. Could the minister tell the house how many contracts have been awarded for this building?


George Harris Hees: I am advised the number is five.


Lionel Chevrier: Could the minister give the breakdown of those five contracts?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am advised that first of all there was a contract for excavation and foundation, second, for steel structure, third, for the curtain walls, fourth, for the stone work and fifth, the general completion.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to be sure I understand what the minister has said. Is it a fact, then, that in 1956, which I believe was the date he gave, the estimate for this airport building was $12.5 million and then in 1957 it was raised for reasons which the minister mentioned to $15 million, and that if you add the $2 million for what are called aero quays and fingers and the $500,000 for air conditioning, you get a figure of $17.5 million- is that correct?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister who were the lowest bidders in each case and was the contract given to the lowest bidder?


George Harris Hees: In each case I am advised the contract was awarded to the lowest bidder. It would take some time to give the names and the amounts, but that information could be made available later on if the hon. member desires it.


Maurice Bourget: I will be satisfied if the minister will let me have the names later on.


William Moore Benidickson: Would the minister make comment now about the plan for a permanent terminal at Winnipeg? I imagine the minister
Supply-Transport
is very much like his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, who said-although I believe facetiously-that attention would be given to the requests of hon. members in just about inverse proportion to the amount of time they took at this stage when ministers want to pass their estimates. Therefore, I do not want to elaborate on the matter of the development of a public service airport at Atikokan and at Fort Frances. My constituents, however, would feel that I was remiss if I did not at this stage of the debate draw these matters to the attention of the committee of supply for it is of great concern to them.
Thirdly, a public air service between Winnipeg and the lakehead, something which has been lacking for a great many years, was inaugurated when the minister granted a licence for it but has at the moment bogged down because of a lack of adequate airport facilities. The minister does not need to reply to that. He has invited me to speak to his deputy minister and I have had preliminary discussions with him. But has the minister approved anything with respect to the Winnipeg development?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have been working with the air lines for the past nine months to try to arrive at satisfactory plans for what we intend to be a first class building. We have worked our way through four different sets of plans to date, and we hope that we are working now on the final set of plans. As soon as this matter is decided, we will be able to go ahead with the construction.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: On this matter I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. I understand that the Department of National Defence or T.C.A. are erecting a terminal at Bagotville airport. I should like to know if this means that the department has completely abandoned the idea of establishing a civil airport within the boundaries of the counties of Chicoutimi and Lapointe. I hope the minister has not given up this idea, because this will help me to keep even more pleasant memories of my association with his department.


George Harris Hees: Bagotville is in the long term plans of the department. At the present time we are moving the civil terminal from its present location to a new location. I am advised by my officials that we are planning a new airfield in the long run but that, as I have said, is a matter of long term planning.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to bring up a matter- I think this is the right item-and I wish to do so in no critical sense because I have nothing to criticize. However, I want to impress on the minister, though perhaps he does

Supply-Transport
not need it, the importance of an airfield or an airstrip at least on the north shore of Georgian bay between Sudbury and the Sault to serve what is perhaps the most important industrial development in Canada, that is the Blind River-EUiot Lake uranium development. The population of this Elliot Lake north shore area has grown in a few years from almost nothing to between 25,000 and 30,000. It is the centre of a large investment and of high uranium production. In these circumstances, air travel and air transport are becoming increasingly important. I know that the minister's department is looking into this matter and I know that his officials are co-operating with the local authorities there, but I would venture to emphasize the importance of air transport for this development.


George Harris Hees: We are examining possible sites in the area, but it is somewhat difficult to find a site which is suitable. However, we are making progress.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
462. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, and amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, $61,348,000.
Mr. Morris:: I should like to ask the minister three brief questions having to do with the Halifax international airport. Would he be in a position to indicate to us when it is anticipated that the new Halifax international airport will be open for business? When will aircraft be able to fly on and off that airport?


George Harris Hees: I will answer those questions one at a time if I may. The runways can be used at the present time. The building has just been started and we expect it will be ready in the winter of 1959-60.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Can the minister indicate whether any other air lines have evinced any interest in securing hangar accommodation on the airfield?


George Harris Hees: Not as yet.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Finally, has T.C.A. determined its hangar requirements on this site?


George Harris Hees: No, they have not advised us of that.


Lionel Chevrier: I have two questions I should like to ask the minister about airports. One concerns the airport at Flin Flon. Can the minister advise the committee when the airport will be built there estimated to cost $2

million; when will it be commenced and what is the expected date of completion?


George Harris Hees: We have plans in quite an advanced stage. We picked out a site which appeared to be suitable but I am now advised that we have received word that it is not suitable to the municipality, so the position is uncertain at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand, then, that the department will not proceed until such time as there is an agreement between the departmental officials and the municipalities with regard to a site.


George Harris Hees: That is correct. The municipality has to operate the field and of course it must be in a location which would be satisfactory to the municipality.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it that providing there is agreement an airport will be built there which will cost in the vicinity of $2 million.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. May I ask a
question with reference to the airport at Three Rivers? I understand that there is a question of constructing an airport at Three Rivers which would cost in the neighbourhood of $5 million. Is that correct and, if so, may I ask how that airport will be built?


George Harris Hees: The estimated cost is between $3 million and $5 million. The city provides the site and operates the field and we build the airport.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the present position of the negotiations between the department and the city of Three Rivers with respect to the establishment of this airport?


George Harris Hees: They have agreed to this plan. We expect to award the contract this winter and a survey is going on at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one last question about the airport at Cornwall? The minister knows this has been under discussion for a long time. It was even included as an item in the estimates on one, if not, on two occasions, and that, I think, was found necessary because of the fact that this community is in the centre of the seaway operation and it was felt that it would be a desirable location.
Since then I have seen something which has interested me very much and upon which I must commend the minister. It is that the department intends to establish an airport at Brockville. I commend the minister on this, if it is the case, because I think it would be an excellent idea if there was a milk run between Montreal and Toronto along the St. Lawrence ports to serve places such as Cornwall, Brockville, Kingston and Belleville.


William Moore Benidickson: As is the case on the
Winnipeg to the lakehead run.


Lionel Chevrier: If it is the intention to proceed in this fashion at Brockville I am sure the minister will want to give Cornwall the consideration it deserves and state that an adequate airport will be established there on the same basis as in the case of Flin Flon and Three Rivers.


George Harris Hees: Yes, we are willing to enter into the same kind of agreement with Cornwall as with Flin Flon, Three Rivers and other municipalities on the basis of their providing the land and operating the field. We will build it, and we have recently received a request to resurvey a possible site.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I make one further suggestion there? It is that perhaps the Cornwall case might be envisaged in a different light in view of the fact that it is now considered the hub of the seaway for both power and navigation. I know there are exceptions to the cases the minister has mentioned in the department in that sometimes, because of special circumstances, the department undertakes to pay for all the facilities. I am wondering if consideration cannot be given to that because of these special circumstances?


George Harris Hees: We will certainly give every possible consideration to it.


Maurice Bourget: May I ask the minister to
apply my remarks on a previous item to item 462? Here we have the biggest item in the estimates, amounting to $61 million, and we have no details at all. The minister will realize that with the possible exception of the hon. member for Laurier who was formerly the minister of transport hon. members have difficulty finding out where the money is going to be spent and it is therefore difficult to ask questions intelligently.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We will certainly see what possibly can be done. We will study the matter and make recommendations to the Department of Finance in this regard. As the hon. member knows the Department of Finance would have to agree to anything we may suggest. We will have a go at it.


Maurice Bourget: May I suggest that you follow the pattern established by the Department of Public Works. That is a good pattern.


George Harris Hees: We will do what we can. I agree with the hon. member about the desirability of following that pattern.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree at all, Mr. Chairman, I think the Department of Transport is a superior one to the Department of Public Works.
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Thank you. I agree heartily with the hon. member for Laurier in that respect.


Maurice Bourget: The hon. member for Laurier was away from the house for three years.


Mr. Lambert:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister if there is a firm date for completion and operation of the new international airport at Edmonton?


George Harris Hees: There is no firm date, Mr. Chairman. At present it is estimated that it will be ready in 1961. We certainly hope so.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
464. Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations, including contributions to appropriate authorities in respect of airports at Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon and at Harrington Harbour, Quebec, $125,916.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the minister a question on this item and I shall use the utmost paucity of language. Under this item there have been certain improvements suggested to the Castlegar airport. I know the minister's engineers in British Columbia examined it, interviewed the manager of the airport and made a report.
I do not see any particular figure here but knowing what the words "contingencies" and "incidentals" can cover, I wonder if the minister could inform the committee if there is any provision in the estimates this year for improvements to this airport disguised under the nom de plume of contingencies?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that because of the characteristics of the location there is nothing we can do to further develop that particular field. I am familiar with it as I have landed and taken off from there several times and I know the problem. If there is anything that can be done we will do it but the limitations are those imposed by the particular terrain.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Did I understand the minister to say that if anything can be done to improve the situation it will be done?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it certainly will, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Transport Board-
467.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $337,179.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to hold up the minister. Yesterday the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate made some remarks to which I believe I could simply say "ditto". The minister knows I have had some qualms about the rigidity of the protection of a base under all circumstances within a radius of 25 miles for a

Supply-Transport
class 3 type, I believe it is. On the other hand this seems to be a most radical departure the minister has in mind. It has caused extreme consternation among the smaller air operators in the country. I would imagine that at least 50 per cent of the time spent by the air transport board in the past must have related to applications that are of a type that the minister is going to put in the unregulated field. I believe a second look should be given to this question. I believe there were some rigidities which were not necessary but the complete plunge that is proposed is undesirable in my view. If I am right in thinking that about 50 per cent of the time of the air transport board has been spent in the field of the smaller operators can the minister advise the committee what economies and reduction in staff are likely to result in consequence of this decision. Will the board be reduced? Will the total number of personnel be proportionately reduced as a result of no longer having anything more than what will probably be a routine look at this type of application? As I say, I protest the policy but I wish to know what kind of economy will come as a result of it.


George Harris Hees: I am advised by my officials that the type of licence referred to covers only 3 per cent of the total traffic in the country.


William Moore Benidickson: Perhaps that is so but I am not thinking in terms of mileage or dollar volume. I am thinking about my own correspondence and in terms of the time that would be involved in processing the charter applications. I am wondering to what extent the minister considers that the board under this policy will show a reduction in personnel of civil servants.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the percentage of time spent by the board in the past in working on applications of this type amounted to about 10 per cent. There will be no reduction in personnel in the board. It will simply enable the board to get ahead faster with other types of applications.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I must continue to urge the minister to have another look at this when the session concludes. I know that at the moment he is receiving very strong representations from the aviation industry of this country. They are alarmed and disturbed and I hope a final decision has not been made. I have always felt some modification might be desirable for all classes of licence but I believe the minister has gone too far in the announcement he made to the house this session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
468.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,013,742.
Mr. Roberge:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that under this item one can discuss in general terms matters relating to the board of transport commissioners. My remarks will have to do with the railway grade crossing fund.


Some hon. Members:: Go ahead.
(Translation):
I understand those grants were made by the various governments and by the Board of Transport Commissioners for the purpose of giving the general public adequate protection at grade crossings.
Everybody knows that this legislation was enacted some years ago to provide protection at level crossings, because of the increase in highway and railway traffic.
On looking into the matter I have noted that this legislation has been improved from year to year. In fact, there is a government motion on the order paper calling for further improvements.
A case that I would like to deal with more specifically is that of proposed level crossings. I believe that according to the provisions of section 265, paragraph 6 of the act as amended in 1955, a level crossing must have been in use for three years before the Board of Transport Commissioners can make the grant requested.
(Text):
I should like to know if it is the intention of the government to further amend the law so the railway grade crossings to be constructed will benefit from those grants?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, there is a bill before the house at the present time which outlines exactly what is going to be done. Any application that has been approved by the board since January 30 of this year, when I made the announcement of an additional amount of money to be set aside for this purpose, will be eligible for the additional grants which will be made available by the legislation which I trust will be passed by parliament on Monday.


Gabriel Roberge: Did I understand the minister to say that this will apply to railway crossings that are to be constructed or just to those that are actually recommended?


George Harris Hees: Anything that comes up from now on during the next three years and any applications that have been agreed to by the board of transport commissioners since January 30 of this year.


Chesley William Carter: Has an agreement been reached between the board of transport commissioners

and the provincial government of Newfoundland with respect to the overpass between the trans-Canada highway and Isle Morte road at the Port aux Basques terminal?


George Harris Hees: My officials advise me that they do not think that is the case but they will check the files and advise the hon. member next week.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister. If agreement has been reached perhaps he can also say what, if any, contribution the federal government is making toward this.


George Harris Hees: Yes. I will give that information to the hon. member.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I have a few remarks to make about a problem in the ridings of Hochelaga and Maisonneuve-Rose-mont under this item. I am going to say a few words in French and then at the end of my remarks I will sum up and ask a few questions.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of calling the minister's attention to a problem which is peculiar to the ridings of Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Hochelaga. If I include Hochelaga, it is because the hon. member for that riding (Mr. Eudes) has been confined to his home by illness for over a month.
I refer to an old railway line which crosses the ridings of Hochelaga and Maisonneuve up to Montreal East. For about ten years now we have tried to get the C.N.R. authorities to remove this old track and use the one bordering on Montreal harbour. The old track is not only a nuisance, but a hazard to children.
Ten years ago, the Businessmen's Association of Montreal East set up a committee which, after an on-the-spot investigation, made representations to the C.N.R. authorities. Furthermore, the member for Hochelaga and myself met several times with the C.N.R. authorities and tried to make them see that it was time that this track be lifted out, so as to clear up this section of Montreal. To this day we have not been able to convince the authorities that it is a matter of public interest to remove this track and to divert tank car and freight car traffic to the track bordering on Montreal harbour. The C.N.R. management claims this track still serves 25 to 30 industries situated along the track. We doubt this is still the case; at all events, 57071-3-277
Supply-Transport
these trains make several daily journeys across these ridings especially during rush hours, that is, towards 5.30 p.m., with the result that all the north-south and east-west traffic in Montreal East is brought to a standstill for more than five minutes at a time.
Mr. Chairman, this eastern part of Montreal is developing considerably, not only from a residential point of view, but also from a commercial point of view, and the continued use of this track in 1958 is a disgrace for the eastern part of the city, not to mention the resentment and discontent it causes among local residents. There is no reason why Montreal East should be treated differently from Montreal West, and even if the C.N.R. management could show that this track is still a paying proposition, I feel this is no reason for putting their own interest above that of the public, which requires that this time-worn, outdated, obsolete track disappear from our streets.
(Text):
I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to ask the minister to take the proper steps and make recommendations to the Canadian National Railways to have the old railway line in the east end of Montreal removed so that the C.N.R. will transport its freight, and so on, along the shoreline of Montreal and not cross the east end of the city. I should like to ask three questions which the minister can take as notice and perhaps give me the information in a few days. If in the meantime the session ends I shall be satisfied if the minister will write me a letter to that effect.
First of all, I would like to know whether the old railway line crossing the east end of Montreal does so under a contract with the city of Montreal? If so, when was this contract signed and when does it terminate? How many industries and industrial plants are served by this old line actually, and what are the names of those industries concerned? What has been the volume of freight on this old line in the past year? What was the volume of freight in a comparative year, let us say 1950 and 1951?
Before taking my seat I would like to say that this old railway line is an eyesore which is impeding the progress of the east end. In a large measure this monstrous railway line which crosses the territory is one of the reasons why the eastern part of Montreal has been slower in its development than the western section. It is not only an ugly sight but a hazard. The minister would certainly

Supply-Transport
render a humanitarian service to our community if he would intercede with the Canadian National Railways and ask them to place the interest of the whole population of the eastern part of Montreal above their financial interests.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to look into these matters and advise the hon. member early next week.


Mr. Campeau:: I should like to make a suggestion regarding the problem of the elimination of railway grade crossings. I take this opportunity of congratulating the Minister of Transport upon having the courage and wisdom to bring forward the most drastic solution to this serious problem of railway grade crossings ever proposed since 1909.
During the last 50 years each succeeding government has had to face this problem with its increasing toll of human life and suffering as well as the detrimental economic losses. However, it is sad to note that even with increased financial help from the federal government from 1909 to 1957 not more than 4,000 level crossings have been protected, of which no more than 1,500 were grade separated, leaving almost 30,000 crossing without any protection.
There is no doubt that with the urban development which has taken place throughout Canada, the increase in the speed of trains, the increase in the number of automobiles, the $63 million which was spent from 1909 to 1958 by the federal government, the provinces, the municipalities and the railway companies, the amount of money spent so far has been only a palliative and not a solution of this problem.
In the city of Montreal itself, the metropolis of Canada, there are about 140 railway crossings, 80 of which have grade separation, 40 are protected only by bells and other systems, and 20 have no protection at all. In addition, there are about 150 sidings crossing city streets which are absolutely unprotected. Statistics prove that in the city of Montreal accidents are 21 times more numerous at level crossings protected by manually or automatically operated gates than at unprotected level crossings. This proves that the only thorough manner of eliminating railway accidents at level crossings is by a long term program of grade separation. However, there has been very little done throughout Canada towards improvement in this direction during the last 50 years.
The proposed measure providing $10 million for grade crossing improvement and elimination is a very constructive one, particularly since one of its main results will be to ease the financial burden on municipalities. This is one of the main reasons that the efforts

made up to date have not met with too much success. In fact, for the next three years, the board of transport commissioners will be empowered, if the proposed measure now before the house is adopted, to increase its share of the cost of these works from 60 per cent to 80 per cent, while the maximum contribution from the board will go up from $300,000 to $500,000. These provisions will most certainly promote the actual separation of rail from road. The government believes it will have this effect because they have announced their intention to make available $10 million annually for the next three years to the railway grade crossing fund. This is almost twice as much as the amount spent by previous governments from 1909 to 1957.
Now, Mr. Chairman, we have had the announcement of a great national development program by the present government, which is being gradually implemented by appropriate measures, which will integrate the human, physical and economical forces of all regions of our great country towards full employment, and which will fully exploit on a long term basis all our potentialities from the Atlantic ocean to the Pacific ocean and even deep into the Arctic regions. The proposed measure tending to reduce useless deaths and suffering and increase the efficiency of our railways and highways certainly is justified in view of the goals set for such an integrated national development program, namely the betterment of the standard of living of every Canadian citizen; the preservation of our human capital and natural resources; the tapping of our numerous undeveloped resources; the broadening of our basic production and the binding of the Canadian economy into a solid, compact unit giving an equal opportunity to every province.
This integral national development program, Mr. Chairman, is bound to provoke the construction of many new highways and the extension of many railway lines as part of a program of public works which is an integral part of this national development program of ours. It would be regrettable if in the implementation of such a program we were still to suffer the plague of level crossings with their useless toll of life and efficiency.
As the present Minister of Finance so aptly said in 1955, it is true that grade separations cost a lot of money but one has to consider also the economic losses and the suffering which occurs every year at level crossings, and which could be avoided. One has to take into consideration also the effects of fast and efficient transportation on the Canadian cost of living. The main obstacle in

the past has been the inability of both railway companies and municipalities to meet the cost of grade separation. Since 1909, the federal government has been forced into showing more and more interest in the national problem of railway grade crossings. Experience has proven that federal aid had to be constantly increased over the years. However, it is to be noted that it was during the economic crisis that most of the grade separations were effected because additional funds were granted to the railway grade crossing fund and even contributions of 100 per cent could be made by the then board of railway commissioners towards these projects.
The present measure provides the most daring effort ever made by any government towards an efficient solution of this problem, and I am entirely in favour of its adoption. The proposal is for a three-year period, probably as a means of testing the effectiveness of the measure with a view towards finding a permanent solution. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that during this three-year testing period intensive research be conducted towards finding a way of relieving the municipalities of the financial burden which is worsening their already poor financial situation. If we could integrate these grade separation projects within the national development program we would thus ensure the implementation of an efficient and realistic program of railway grade crossing elimination within a reasonable period of time to the great benefit of our constantly increasing urban population.


Norman Platt Lambert: I wonder if the minister could advise whether or not there are outstanding before the board of transport commissioners any applications for proposals from the city of Edmonton with respect to overhead or subway crossings of the mainline of the Canadian National which comes into the city of Edmonton? In this particular respect I should like to draw his attention to the necessity for the early construction of some form of grade separation at the western limits of the Calder yard on the mainline of Canadian National at 127th street. Because of the very rapid expansion of the residential area in Calder, and the use of this single crossing of the mainline of the Canadian National which is the only crossing for nearly 2J miles and because of the residential developments in connection with the Namao and Griesbach military camps, it is of great necessity within the near future to have grade separation constructed in this area. There is a great deal of traffic and horrible tie-ups result at the wrong time of day.
57071-3-277-1
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: In so far as the question of the hon. member is concerned, we have not that information available here, but we will get it for the hon. member.


Mr. Gour:: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport the fact that I have innumerable level crossings in my riding over both the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways. A great many accidents have happened, most of them within the city of Ottawa. I find that there is too much delay on the part of the two railroads in deciding to have special protection at these crossings within the city of Ottawa. I can think of at least four accidents that have happened within a year, most of them in the Alta Vista and Riverside drive area.
In my own village the railway runs through the middle of the village and now that people wish to travel so fast, these special trains go through at rates that appear to be about 100 miles an hour. The trains are not going that fast actually, probably only about 70 miles an hour. In my own village there are five very dangerous railway crossings. I find that the solution suggested by the railway is too high in cost for that small place. It will cost a considerable amount for the small municipality. With the increase in the estimate this year I should like to bring to the attention of the CNR that they should have gates or at least the lights. I refer to blue lights or rather red lights. The government is the former colour; I prefer the red lights anyway.
I congratulate the Minister of Transport. He is doing a good job. He is a good imitation of his immediate predecessor in office. If he will just go ahead like that he will be a first-class imitation of two first-class ministers of transport, namely Mr. Marler and the present hon. member for Laurier.
I will not say any more at this time except that I think it would be only reasonable that trains slow down when they pass this Cassel-man crossing and that they should not pass it at a speed greater than 40 miles an hour. I understand that people want to travel fast today but I think they are going a little bit too fast. People get on the train and they think they can be in Ottawa right away. The old people are not going so fast and I think they should have some protection at this Casselman crossing. The same applies in other places such as Limoges, where trains pass in the middle of the village. In every place where they pass in the middle of a small village or town, they should slow down to a speed of not more than 40 miles an hour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
469.	Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount, if any, to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund and for the purpose of contributing towards the cost of an exceptional number of railway grade separation projects on the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, $10,000,000.
Maurice Bourget: I understand that this is a new item, that it was not in the estimates last year. Can the minister tell us what will be the amount for the purpose of contributing towards the cost of an exceptional number of railway grade separation projects on the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, or what part of the $10 million will be attributed to that purpose?


George Harris Hees: Approximately $2 million.


Maurice Bourget: Is there a special agreement with the province of British Columbia for that purpose?


George Harris Hees: There is no agreement. There are several projects which will be proceeded with under this vote.


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister give us some comments on the matter? I cannot understand exactly the purpose of that vote. Frankly, I have no objection to it but I should like to know how it works and what is the procedure followed in the circumstances in connection with the province of British Columbia. I know there are a number of railway grade separation projects because I have been on that highway. However, I should like to know what is the procedure to be followed.


George Harris Hees: I think this gives the hon. member the answer to his question. On October 1, 1957 there was in the fund an uncommitted balance of some $2,400,000. However, the cost of current urgent projects which should be undertaken during the present fiscal year exceeds this uncommitted balance. Hence if grants were to be made available to trans-Canada highway separation projects in British Columbia, no funds would be available for allocation to current projects elsewhere in Canada. On the other hand, if funds are not made available to solve the problem occasioned by the construction of the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, the province can rightfully claim that this constitutes a departure from the treatment accorded all other provinces in the past. I am advised that other provinces have received the same type of treatment. It just happens that it is more expensive in British Columbia.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to tell the minister that in the city of Quebec there are many railway grade crossings. The city of Quebec is not
[Mr. Gour.l
in a financial position to do that work. I was wondering whether the city of Quebec, for instance, even though it is not on the trans-Canada highway, could make application under that "special contribution" as it is described here.


George Harris Hees: The city of Quebec and any other municipality may make application under the railway grade crossing fund at any time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian Maritime Commission-
470.	Administration, $153,488.
Mr. Howard:: I should like to inquire from the minister as to what are the arrangements at the moment with respect to the subventions to be paid to shipping companies on the coast of British Columbia; what companies are to be paid; the amounts and the routes to which the subventions apply.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. At the present time the Canadian maritime commission is negotiating with Northland Navigation Company Limited for the establishment of the services on the west coast of Vancouver island on the one hand and to the Johnson straits-Bella Coola and northern ports area on the other hand. For the west coast of Vancouver island the subsidy will be based upon the annual rate of $100,000; the contract will cover the period from August 13 to December 31, 1958; there will be a recapture provision preventing excessive profits. The contract will provide for weekly service to the following ports with the former Canadian Pacific railway vessel Princess oj Alberni:	Vancouver, Sointula,
Port Hardy, Bull Harbour-at the contractor's option-Fisherman's Cove-at the contractor's option-Chamiss Bay, Esperanza Inlet, Zeballos, Ceepeecee, Tahsis, Nootka, Gold River, Moyah Bay, Hesquiat, Hot Springs Cove, Clayoquot, Ahousat, Kakawis, Tofino, Clo-oose, Port Renfrew and Vancouver. This is not the same service as formerly provided by the C.P.R. and if it is not as satisfactory there is an option in favour of the crown to revert to the former service. The contract will contain a further option in favour of the crown to make the service fortnightly with service on alternate fortnights to the Queen Charlotte islands covering the ports of; Vancouver, Queen Charlotte City, Sandspit, Massett, Port Clements, Justkatla, Port Hardy, Sointula and Vancouver.
For the service in the Johnson straits-Bella Coola and northern ports area, subsidy will be paid at the annual rate of $194,500; the contract will cover the period from the first sailing, a couple of weeks ago until

March 31st, 1959. There will be a recapture provision similar to the one mentioned in the previous paragraph. The following ports of call will be served on a weekly basis: Vancouver, Englewood . . . Alert Bay, calls at Rivers Inlet, at the contractor's option provided they do not interfere with the schedule, Namu, Bella Coola, Ocean Falls, Bella Bella, Klemtu, Butedale, Prince Rupert, Port Simpson, Kincolith, Stewart, Alice Arm, Prince Rupert, Kitimat, Butedale, Klemtu, Bella Bella, Ocean Falls, Bella Coola, Namu, Alert Bay, Englewood, Vancouver.
In the near future I will be placing a submission before the treasury board to authorize the transfer of the money formerly voted for the Canadian Pacific railway subsidy to the Northland Navigation Company. This will take some time as the company has not yet filed with the commission all the necessary information for this purpose. The service has already started.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would like to congratulate the minister on his pronunciation of some of the names, and I appreciate his difficulty because they are very difficult to pronounce if you are not familiar with them. I understood the minister to say that the maritime commission was presently in communication with this company with respect to the services with which he has just dealt, so that there is nothing definite at the moment.


George Harris Hees: The contracts are not yet signed, Mr. Chairman, but the service has already started on the basis I have outlined.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have one or two remarks to make with respect to shipping on the coast of British Columbia. The report of the royal commission on coastal shipping was made public not too long ago, which cost the taxpayers some $251,000. I am sure residents in other parts of Canada who are affected by coastal trading and shipping generally were interested in this report, but those of us from British Columbia, who are naturally interested in shipping, were hoping for something fairly decent in the way of recommendations by this royal commission. In so far as the British Columbia shipping is concerned, however, it was a complete waste of a quarter of a million dollars. The shipping needs of the people on the coast of British Columbia appear to have been disregarded or forgotten by the gentlemen who composed that royal commission.
For quite a number of years now the attitude of the governments of Canada-and this remark does not apply to any particular government or to any particular minister- with respect to shipping on the coast of British Columbia has been one of negligence. They appear to be fumbling from one year
Supply-Transport
to the next, hoping that not too many difficulties will arise at the start of the year and when the year is at an end they say, "Well, nothing serious happened; we have got through another year, so we don't have to worry too much about it." I am sure the minister will agree with me that this is not too sensible an attitude to have adopted in past years. The needs of the people living in the communities all up and down the coast should no longer be disregarded, nor should the service to them be disregarded in the development of any shipping policy so far as the Canadian government is concerned.
Unfortunately, in the past few years a number of charges have been made that political consideration was the main factor in respect of our coastal shipping. Union Steamships Limited, for instance, is a company which has been operating on the coast of British Columbia for quite a few years, and some years ago it came under the ownership of an hon. member of the other place, a senator who belongs to the Liberal party, When this took place one heard charges laid that the government of the day, which was a Liberal government, was playing political favourites with Union Steamships because the owner of the company was a member of the Liberal party. That, of course, did not help the situation too much; it in fact clouded over the issue and it is unfortunate that these things were said. Then we had another company which was mentioned just a moment ago by the minister, Northland Navigation Company Limited. Until this year this company was actively engaged only in a freight service, but this year it entered into a passenger service on the coast. Charges were made that the Northland Navigation Company had very close connections with our Social Credit government in Victoria, and as a consequence was able to get special favours in respect of the shipment of goods coming under the jurisdiction of that government. That, of course, did not help matters either, but it too tended to cloud over the issue.
Last year we got into a most difficult situation owing to the difference of opinion between one of the companies operating on the coast with respect to the amount of subsidy they needed and for some months during last winter we had no adequate passenger or freight shipping facilities on the coast of my province. The whole program, the whole schedule of routes which had been established over many, many years, and which were adjusted from year to year by the companies concerned, was entirely upset, and many communities were isolated. I got telegrams, letters and phone calls galore, as I am sure did the

Supply-Transport
minister or the officials in his department, as a result of this turmoil in shipping last January.
Unfortunately the picture in so far as the possibility of further charges of political considerations in respect to shipping on the coast of British Columbia is concerned, is a bleak one. I say this because we know that the Northland Navigation Company-and it is certainly within its rights to do this if it wishes and I am not suggesting that these things should not have been done; but I merely raise this to point out that it once again lays the question of shipping on the coast open to charges of political connivance and of favouritism to a particular company- or an officer of that company contributed to the campaign funds of the Conservative party. This is very unfortunate, because the people who suffer are certainly not to any extent the shipping companies and certainly not the federal government, but the hundreds of people living in the many small communities all up and down the coast of the province of British Columbia. There are a number of question marks which we must raise with respect to this particular arrangement which has today been announced by the minister.
We understood, and it was announced by the minister, that when Northland Navigation bought two ships from the C.P.R., the Princess Alberni that used to run along the west coast and the Queen of the North that used to run on the upper coast, those two ships would be operating under the same subvention arrangements that were made with the C.P.R.-the regulations might be changed a little here and there, but nothing too drastic. Northand Navigation entered into an agreement to buy the ships knowing that certain subsidies were in question and that certain routes were involved. Union Steamships and Northland Navigation serve certain parts of the coast and the attitude should have been: no change in the subvention, no substantial change in the routes to be followed; no drastic adjustments in the ports of call. They should be able to operate under the conditions and under the subvention arrangements that existed before they bought the ships from the C.P.R. unless they knew in advance they were going to receive some different consideration.
But we find that Northland Navigation is not going to operate on the same routes as the C.P.R. Whether it is for better or for worse, time will tell, but we find that Northland Navigation is going to change its routing around Vancouver island. Instead of going around the southern end they are to go around the northern end, under subsidy, to compete in effect with a service by another

company to the same areas operating on a non-subsidy basis. We find that part of the northern run the C.P.R. was operating is going to be abandoned. An announcement was made by Northland Navigation a few days ago that the former Queen of the North -I do not know what the name is now; they have changed the name of it-that was operated by the C.P.R. is not now going to call at the Portland canal ports, Fort Simpson, Kincolith, Stewart island and so on. The former Queen of the North is not going to call in at these places. The run to Stewart is going to be abandoned by the ship that was formerly the Queen of the North and added to that is the route into Bella Coola under subsidy competing with the company operating into Bella Coola now without subsidy. We find that Northland Navigation, because it has abandoned the northern route, an additional round trip of about 80 miles, is able to revise its schedule and come into certain ports on the coast about one and a half hours before the Union Steamships are scheduled to call there, they being under subsidy, and Union Steamships not under subsidy.
I understand that under previous subvention arrangements it was difficult for a company receiving a subvention or a subsidy to change its schedule. It had to have prior permission from the Canadian maritime commission, which was most difficult to obtain. Apparently Northland Navigation does not have that difficulty in view of the announcements they make from day to day about changes. It has always been my understanding that the attitude of the governments in the past and the attitude of the Canadian maritime commission is that you should not subsidize one company to compete against another company that is not receiving a subsidy, but that is precisely what is happening in this case.
As I said earlier, the people who will suffer will be the people who live all along these coastal points. From the knowledge we are able to get of the work which will be done in the logging industry on the coast of British Columbia it is likely they will be operating to full capacity with the industry going as far as they can into the winter regardless of the amount of snow because they are short of logs and because markets are picking up to some extent. We find, and I am sure, the government will find this winter, that it will not be necessary to pay a subsidy such as they set out just a moment ago. That is something that should have been taken into consideration in years past. It should have been studied. It should have been looked at. I am sure many people who are interested in this, maybe from a particular point of view, would

like to know-but I do not know-why there was a sudden change in attitude with respect to subsidies that were being paid. I have copies of a couple of telegrams which I would like to read into the record. One is a copy- it did not come out too well, but I believe it is dated August 8-of a telegram to Captain J. A. Macdonell, of Union Steamships Limited, Vancouver, B.C. and it says:
As result various proposals discussed am now authorized advise you submission to treasury board will be made requesting authority pay to you subsidy on basis $150,000 per year prorated tor time served from date of contract to 31 March 1959 calling with vessel Catala at ports listed for Catala route your letter 25 July 1958 with call at Campbell River at your option. Contract will contain recapture clause as outlined to Chestnut. At same time concluding arrangements with Northland Navigation for service similar to former C.P.R. service with Queen of North result of which will be duplication of service at Alert Bay, Namu and Ocean Falls only. No action being taken on your other proposals. Expect Northland to undertake service to four northern ports for which you receive interim subsidy on August 12 so anticipate discontinue interim subsidy accordingly.
That was on August 8 and it was signed by Mr. L. C. Audette, Chairman of the Canadian maritime commission.
On August 11, a Monday, over the week end another wire was sent to Captain J. A. Macdonell of Union Steamships signed by L. C. Audette of the Canadian maritime commission. This said:
Cancel my telegram August 8 concerning your proposals for subsidized steamship service. Urge no action on your part based on my previous telegram.
So during the week end the Canadian maritime commission obviously-and I am quite sure it was this way; certainly not on its own but in consultation with other officers in the department-had decided that certain arrangements were going to be made. Then on Monday the mind of the maritime commission was changed for it and other arrangements were entered into. We wonder why the decision was reversed. We can expect, I am sure, that it was because Northland Navigation Company Limited said: we are able to operate this service at a subsidy or a subvention much lower than that which you have had to pay in years past. The departmental officials undoubtedly looked at this and said: that sounds like a good idea; it is going to cost us less money. Go ahead and do it. And they did this without any investigation of the requirements on the coast other than the cursory one last January when they had to do something. There was no thorough study, no idea of passenger requirements or freight requirements. Why was this decision suddenly taken to reverse completely what had been decided?
Supply-Transport
That, coupled with the fact, as I mentioned earlier, that political consideration has been dragged into this question of shipping on the coast in years past certainly makes one wonder whether that is still being given consideration.
I certainly do not wish to place on the record any mention of the amount of those contributions or to whom they went, but they were made. It is most unfortunate that after the experience of last winter the government has decided to go ahead with certain subsidies to a specific company for certain routes without giving too much thought about what may happen in years to come. This demonstrates a lack of foresight. When this government took office I sincerely hoped there would be a change of attitude and that there would be someone appointed with a thorough and comprehensive knowledge of shipping and shipping requirements to study completely and thoroughly the problem along the coast of British Columbia and make recommendations and if it were found that subsidies are necessary that person could have decided what they should be, when they should be applied and to what routes they should be applied but so far we have had nothing of that nature.
I repeat again that in my opinion and in the opinion of C.C.F. members as far as transportation is concerned and specifically transportation on the coast of British Columbia there is only one solution. I have heard a number of people who do not belong to the C.C.F. and who certainly are not partial to it agree with the contention that in order to provide adequate service there it must be done through one agency and not through a group of companies, some under subsidy one year and some under subsidy another year depending on who is in office, some having shipments channeled by the government depending on how friendly they are and, all in all, service being a secondary consideration. I am not familiar with the shipping situation in other parts of Canada but unless we can operate shipping on the coast of British Columbia through one agency we are going to continue to experience this turmoil.
I would hope there will be a detailed analysis of the requirements of shipping and transportation on the coast of British Columbia and arising out of that study sensible recommendations made on the basis of the service necessary for those communities that have been disregarded for almost a year.
I hope, just as I am sure the minister hopes, that the announcement he made a moment ago with respect to subventions and the routes they are to cover will not lead us into the same difficulty and confusion we experienced last winter when ports of call were abandoned.

Supply-Transport
I am sure there are not many in the department or on the government side of the house who know whether or not the subsidy arrangements will work out satisfactorily. I am sure they hope as I do that they will. With all due respect to Northland Navigation my fear is that the company will not be able to perform the service at the suggested price under which it got the contract. I understand that already the company has had to make changes in the number of personnel manning the ships. It has encountered difficulties and already the operating costs are somewhat near those experienced by the C.P.R. when that company was providing the service and of course the C.P.R. was able to absorb substantial losses because of its size.
I appreciate the opportunity of mentioning these things. Doubtless I have repeated statements I have made in other related debates but I felt it necessary to do so. Under our present system I am not partial to any particular company operating in preference to any other. I am concerned only that service be provided to these communities. In my opinion the only way that can be done is through one comprehensive organization-a crown corporation, if you wish to put it that way-that will have as its supreme consideration service to isolated ports.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity of clearing up several of the points raised by the hon. member for Skeena. First of all I am glad to be able to assure him that the four ports north of Prince Rupert will not be abandoned. Service will be continued but by a smaller vessel, the Alaska Prince, which will make it possible for the larger vessel, the Queen of the North, to make the long run, 60 miles in and 60 miles out, to Bella Coola which service the hon. member last winter was very keen on having carried out.
I am glad to be able to assure both the hon. member and the committee that rather than Northland Navigation being able to get the same subsidy for a smaller number of calls, actually the company is adding one extra call, that is the long trip into Bella Coola, and is doing it for exactly the same subsidy as the C.P.R. received.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one further comment. You will have noticed that I was very careful to say the Queen of the North was abandoning the run.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member apparently misunderstood me. I simply said that these ports were not being abandoned and that a similar ship would be servicing the four ports north of Prince Rupert and would enable the Queen of the North to make the long run into Bella Coola which

run the hon. member last winter was very keen to have made. It will make the long run into Bella Coola and out again.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We are probably agreeing with each other but using different words. Before this item passes I shall make one further comment. The minister made reference to a ship that would service the Queen Charlotte islands. It will never be able to do it. If it attempts to cross Hecate strait or Queen Charlotte sound in the fall or winter there will be no ship at all because it will be at the bottom of the water. There is only one ship on the coast that is adequate to service the Queen Charlotte islands. Any attempt to subsidize the ship of another company to service the Queen Charlotte islands will be detrimental to the requirements of the people there.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
471.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,898,000.
Mr.   Carier@: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister to whom the Newfoundland portion of these subventions are paid, in what amounts, and on what basis?


George Harris Hees: To the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Chairman, and the amount is $2,800,000.


Mr.   Carier@: I know the amount, Mr. Chairman. Does any one else other than the C.N.R. get any payment?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr.   Carier@: Can the minister say on what basis that is calculated?


George Harris Hees: It is paid on a straight deficit basis.


Mr.   Carier@: Deficit?


George Harris Hees: Yes, deficit on operations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National Harbours Board-
472.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1958 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	$ 855,000
Saint John	 100,000
Chicoutimi	 400,000
Quebec	 5,000,000
Generally-
Unforeseen and miscellaneous 200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from
replacement funds	 25,756
Hazen Robert Argue: Under this item I believe I can raise the question of tolls charged on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges in Montreal. I do so because this problem has been brought to my attention by a number of residents of Montreal and of other residents of the province of Quebec, including Mr. Michel Chartrand, the leader of the C.C.F. party in that province. I am informed that those tolls add to the taxation burden or the burden of doing business in the Montreal area and are a real nuisance to the people who have to pay them. I understand that the Victoria bridge, at any rate, is an old bridge that was paid for many years ago. As far as Jacques Cartier bridge is concerned, its operation is by agreement among the government of Canada, the government of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal. Under this item, can the minister inform us what consideration has been given to this problem and whether the people of Montreal can look for action from the government which will result in the removal of those tolls in the near future, about which the people of this area feel very strongly?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: As a citizen of Montreal, I should like to say a few words on the problem of those two bridges. Is the minister aware of the tremendous increase in traffic which has taken place in the past few years and the difficulties that the people have, especially on week ends, to cross those two bridges in their cars?
If possible, I would like the minister to promise me that one of those week ends after the session is over he will take his car and try to cross one of those bridges on a Sunday. If he does that, I am sure he will come back and will find a way if possible to facilitate the movement of cars over those bridges. What remedies can be brought to bear on the problem I do not know. I did not make any special study of the problem, but I just wonder whether, until we build a third bridge in the east end-and all across the country where there is a similar problem-on Sundays we could remove all tolls on all bridges that come under the jurisdiction of this board. I do not want to say any more on this problem at the present time but I should like the minister to examine the possibilities of accelerating the movement of traffic on those two bridges.


George Harris Hees: I would like to answer these questions as we go along. First of all, with regard to the question of the hon. member for Assiniboia with respect to the removal of tolls on those bridges, this matter has been considered very seriously and there are no plans at the present time for removing those
Supply-Transport
tolls. With regard to the question of congestion on the Jacques Cartier bridge, the national harbours board will be calling tenders for the building of one additional lane on that bridge in about two weeks time.


Mr. Denis:: May I suggest to the minister that he communicate with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec. I understand three parties are concerned in this toll business on the Jacques Cartier bridge. I think the city of Montreal has something to do with it and so has the province of Quebec. If I recall correctly, during the regime of the former government a question was asked by the former member for St. Mary. The minister at the time answered that the federal government was ready to negotiate a way in which to abolish this whole business of tolls if the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec would undertake to negotiate with the federal government at that time.
Will the minister try to communicate with the province of Quebec and see whether the provincial government is still interested because there are so many things we are stuck with. It looks as if the minister is afraid to communicate with the province of Quebec to see whether the present government of Canada or the government of Quebec is to blame. The people would like to know because the Jacques Cartier bridge and the Victoria bridge are an obstacle to the movement of traffic. Montreal is an island. We have over a million people on that island. Like the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, I suggest that the minister take a drive down there on a week end. If he lived in Montreal I am sure the minister would never use his car on Saturday or Sunday. This is so important that my colleague might want to make another province of the city of Montreal. I do not suggest that he is absolutely wrong. I suggest that the minister communicate with the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal to see whether a means can be found to get rid of tolls because they are obsolete. It is time that we organized Montreal as well as the rest of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question? I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend but I am going on to another subject, namely the amount of money allocated for the port of Quebec. Will the minister give details of that expenditure?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to, Mr. Chairman. Reconditioning and widening of berth No. 18, $900,000; marine towers and receiving galleries of berth No. 18, $1,500,000; addition to grain elevator, $2,000,000; improvements to electrical system of Princess Louise docks, $150,000; construction of shed No. 8,

Supply-Transport
$350,000; partial dust control system in grain elevator, $25,000; concrete wall at open berth No. 27, $25,000; additions and changes to existing grain elevator system, $50,000; total, $5,000,000.


Lionel Chevrier: What will be the additional capacity of the grain elevator?


George Harris Hees: It will be 2 million bushels.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that extension being made in anticipation of further grain trade arising out of the development of the seaway?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Chairman, I have been asked to bring some figures to the attention of this committee, but first may I say that yesterday the hon. member for Halifax placed figures on the record which showed the very serious disproportion of trade of Canadian produce leaving this country through United States ports rather than Canadian ports. I wish to associate myself in every respect with the remarks he made at that time. Perhaps I should commend him upon the fine research work he did in this regard. This subject has been mentioned on previous occasions in this house, but the hon. member has come up with a very fine bit of work which calls attention to this problem in a very pertinent way. I hope that in later sessions we will have the opportunity of going into this problem in greater detail.
Referring particularly to the port of Saint John, which is my main consideration here today, I want to say at the outset that we are very optimistic about our future. Our industrial expansion in the city has been commendable. We appreciate the new facilities that the Department of Transport is planning. There is a new marine agency wharf, and I understand that plans for a long wharf will be produced shortly. It might be in order also to mention the leadership of the minister in negotiations which are nearly completed with regard to a new oil refinery that will be established there, and the part that the national harbours board played.
However, keeping in mind that optimism, we are a bit worried about the future, particularly in so far as the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned and its impact on the shipping and freight of this nation. We are keeping our eyes open in that regard. Incidentally, I have here, Mr. Chairman, figures which perhaps are not as widely circulated as the tonnage figures issued by the national harbours board. The tonnage figures, of course, do not give the complete story of the actual work a community receives from the movement of freight in and out of that particular port. The figures that are now available, I

think, point up some trend that could be serious for both Halifax and Saint John.
The international longshoremen's association and the shipping federation of Canada keep a record in Montreal, which is audited by Clarkson, Gordon and Company-I have them here and they go back to 1954-which shows the amount of hours and the amount of pay that longshoremen alone received. This record does not refer to any other workers in a port, only the longshoremen. This record is maintained in connection with their various social benefits and particularly in connection with the new retirement plan. I will not put the entire figures on the record today, Mr. Chairman. As I say, they do not necessarily prove anything at this stage, but I should like to compare the eight-month period ending July, 1958, with that same period ending July, 1957. These records show a loss of manhours in the port of Saint John of 345,024; in Halifax of 310,339; Montreal is down, but only to the extent of 176,305, and Quebec is not greatly affected since the loss in this period is only 31,677.
I merely draw this to the attention of the house because it suggests that Halifax and Saint John are going to have to watch their position very closely in the future, particularly when the seaway is open. This may be the beginning of a trend towards a serious decrease in the manhours which the longshoremen work in these particular ports. I know that the department and the national harbours board are on their toes so far as port business is concerned, but I suggest that we will have to come up with some idea of specialized port traffic, something to take away from the extremely seasonal nature of the work and the dependence we have upon the few short winter months that now exist.


Lionel Chevrier: I have one last question. Can the minister tell me when the work was started on the extension of the grain elevator at Quebec?


George Harris Hees: January 1, 1958, Mr. Chairman.


Charles-Édouard Campeau: I should like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport a major traffic problem in relation to the harbour of Montreal. When the St. Lawrence seaway is completed the harbour of Montreal will no longer be located in a cul-de-sac, and will have to face intensive competition from other Canadian urban centres. This competition will mean Montreal will have to offer better conditions and facilities in its harbour, especially from the point of view of traffic. An extensive study recently made by a McGill University group has demonstrated this very point. The report has shown the need for renovating the traffic facilities in the harbour area.

If one looks at the access roads to the harbour he will be convinced that they were designed a long time ago for means of transportation other than those presently in use. Furthermore, the harbour of Montreal cannot be dissociated from the rest of the city. There is no doubt that the east-west expressway planned by the city along the waterfront should be integrated with the future development of the harbour. In fact, from McGill street to the Jacques Cartier bridge, such an expressway could very justly be considered as a vital part of the harbour itself. Millions of dollars may be spent on grain facilities and other freight sheds, but all these improvements will be useless unless they are served properly by adequate traffic facilities from the city. Let us point out as an example the loading and unloading of trucks in the middle of Commissioner street, which is certainly the least efficient solution which could be found at the present time to these trucking problems.
In this connection the harbour could gain much needed vital space in its most crowded and active section by co-operating with the city of Montreal in the implementation of its project for the rehabilitation of the old warehouse and wholesale district between Place Royale and Bonsecours church, and the integration of the east-west expressway within that rehabilitation project.
May I point out also that parking accommodation is lacking, although the stevedores alone do park more than 500 cars today in the harbour area. Some thought could be given to the suggestion made by the local unions for using the roofs of sheds for parking accommodation until the time when ground space will become available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loans, investments and advances-
St. Lawrence seaway authority-[DOT]
512. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and condition as the governor in council may approve, $128,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry to hold up this item, but I feel that I should make a short comment. It is to tell the minister that I think he has in the seaway authority three excellent officers to carry out the work which was begun. He has an expert in finance, an expert economist and an expert engineer, the three of whom are quite familiar with all the work that remains to be done. I had the opportunity of visiting the seaway recently, and I was happy to see that progress in the work was going ahead at a rapid pace. There were some difficulties in the way. I see by the press that many have been ironed out. I refer particularly to the
Supply-Transport
bridge at Cornwall, which I understand will now be completed in time for the month of November as first anticipated. Water has been, I understand, put in the Lachine section at Caughnawaga, and that operation has been successful.
I should like to have the minister state that the work is progressing according to schedule. Then, there is one final word, and I do not apologize for stating it at this time; it has to do with the headquarters building at Cornwall. I regret very much that there is misunderstanding in connection with this building. I want to make it quite clear that it was always the intention, in the minds of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, to establish at Cornwall the headquarters building of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. That was decided by the government at the time. If that decision is not carried out, I think an injustice will be done to the citizens who reside in that community. At the time what was envisaged was that there would be brought to Cornwall all of the officers of the St. Lawrence seaway authority save and except the head office group which would remain in Ottawa. Over and above that, the headquarters of the canal services would be moved to Cornwall. There would also be the technical engineers and staff of the international board of control that are to remain in existence for a period of 10 years. This is the group that will supervise the operation of the seaway at the level 238 for the first 10 year period after which it will go up to 242. The resident engineers of that board were to be established there as were the toll collectors. Those who would be responsible for the collection of tolls were to go to that area as well as the administrative officers of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, making a group of 250 to 300 people. I was keenly disappointed the other day to hear that only about 125 people are going to occupy this building. I hope that is not the case. I hope the minister will see to it that the decision which was made by the earlier government is carried out. It is true that the minister and this government can change that decision; they have the power to do that. However, if they do it, I think an injustice will be done. There is in Cornwall a building which has not been too costly and which is being operated at little or no cost because the then directors, the members of the St. Lawrence seaway authority had, in my opinion, the good sense to rent the ground floor to the Canadian Bank of Commerce for a period of many years, on a long-term lease. I believe that is the only occasion of which I am aware where a crown agency has done that, although I may be wrong. That decision makes it possible for that building to be maintained without cost to the government of

Supply-Transport
Canada. It therefore seems to me that no vacant space should be left in that building. I appeal to the minister to carry out our decision.
I hesitate again to take up another two minutes but I regret the statement which was made yesterday by the hon. member for Dan-forth when he paid tribute to the decision of the Canadian government to get tough on the question of the St. Lawrence seaway, when he paid tribute to the former administration for their determination to see to it that if there was not to be co-operation with the United States government, Canada would go ahead and build the seaway alone. Having said that, with which I find myself in agreement, he went on to add this paragraph which in my opinion is unfortunate and with which I entirely disagree. I quote from page 4290 of Hansard:
But after that our tough policy was watered down. It became lukewarm and the United States eventually took over and dictated the whole policy as far as the St. Lawrence seaway was concerned.
That statement is absolutely incorrect and inaccurate. The whole policy or a great portion of the policy in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway is being initiated by the federal government. It was dictated by the last government and it is being handled by this government in co-operation with the United States government. What we must not forget is this. The St. Lawrence seaway authority has succeeded with the present administration in following the recommendations made by the former administration that all of the tolls-although much of the traffic is going to be on the United States side-Canadian and United States are going to be collected in Canada by the St. Lawrence seaway authority on behalf of the United States authority and turned over to them. This is certainly not dictation by the United States. Furthermore, two-thirds of the canal is on Canadian territory. Two-thirds of the cost is being paid by Canada. It is a joint enterprise so far as operation is concerned. But as to decisions that were taken, certainly Canada has not become lukewarm in the slightest degree. On the contrary, Canada has respected the rights and obligations of others and I believe that Canada is acting in the way it should act under the circumstances.


George Harris Hees: I am glad to be able to assure the hon. member for Laurier and other hon. members of the house that work on the St. Lawrence seaway is proceeding on schedule.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canal services-
513. To provide for the acquisition of land required in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation system, $100,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister say what this vote is for?


George Harris Hees: This is to buy the land that would be necessary in the event that we decided to build an all-Canadian seaway at some future time.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That gives me the opportunity just to say a word because it bears on the point that has been raised by my hon. friend. As the minister knows, this provision was made in order to make certain that in certain circumstances, whether the United States liked it or not, we would have an all-Canadian seaway. Those who say that we have been dictated to by the United States in the development of this waterway, this power development and navigation development, do not know very much about the diplomatic negotiations that went on leading to this development. Those who say that we should have from the beginning insisted on constructing an all-Canadian seaway do not seem to understand that if that was to be done without any power development going along with it, it would have meant a phenomenal expenditure and perhaps be beyond Canadian means at this time. Once it became a power and navigation development, once that power had to be secured from boundary waters, then both governments were involved and there was no other way of doing it. You cannot have a power development halfway across a stream. As it was agreed to be both a power and a navigation development, it was bound to be an international development unless, as I have just said, we had decided to construct a purely navigational development on the Canadian side; and surely that was impracticable.
But we did at that time-and this item in the estimates confirms it-make it quite clear to the Americans that in certain circumstances we could, once the power and navigation project was completed, build another Canadian channel which would make it an all-Canadian seaway. The United States at that time took strong exception to that suggestion. I attended some meetings which dealt with this matter and the language was extremely frank indeed. We were told that this was at the time contrary to their understanding of the original arrangement. We felt that we were acting only in Canadian interests and were acting fairly in this regard. The result was that this action was taken, and there is a continuation in this particular

item of that action which will make it possible for us in the future to have an allCanadian seaway if and when it is desirable.


Mr, Hees:: I should like to reply to the hon. member for Laurier and the Leader of the Opposition by saying that since I have held this portfolio and in the dealings this government has had through the seaway authority with the authorities of the United States there has been no attempt at all by the United States authorities to dictate in any way to us and there has been nothing but complete co-operation and harmony existing between the seaway authority of Canada and the seaway development corporation of the United States.


Lionel Chevrier: I just want to add one word and it is this. This item is just one of three things that were done in order to prepare the way for an all-Canadian seaway in case of the accomplishment of the conditions envisaged in the exchange of notes between Canada and the United States, for which my friend the Leader of the Opposition was responsible at the time, came about. The three things were as follows: (1) The construction of a structure in the dike at Cornwall in order to provide for future 27-foot navigation on the Canadian side; secondly, the dredging of a channel 27 feet in depth on the north side of Cornwall island leading to the structure in the dike; and, thirdly, the expropriation of land on the Canadian side from the dike right down to the present locks. These three things provided for a complete canal on the Canadian side of the line in case the volume of traffic was such in, say, two, three, five or more years, that it would be necessary to duplicate facilities on our side of the line. These three things have now been done, which means that 50 per cent of the work leading up to an all-Canadian seaway has been terminated, so that if at a later date it becomes necessary to expand because of the volume of traffic it will be as easy for us in Canada to duplicate the facilities in the international section as it will be for the United States to do so. The thing to do at that time would be to say to our friends in the United States, "We will duplicate at Cornwall, and since we, in Canada, have built at Iroquois, you in the United States go ahead and duplicate opposite Iroquois. Then we will have a Canadian lock on the Canadian side and you will have an American lock on the United States side, the one to circumvent the Long Sault rapids, the other to circumvent the control dam at Rockway point on the United States side." That, I hope will be accomplished one day.
Supply-Transport


Hazen Robert Argue: The Minister of Transport has said that there has always been agreement and great harmony between the Canadians and the United States seaway authorities, and I wonder whether that statement indicates that no representation has been made by this government for lower tolls or for a toll-free St. Lawrence seaway. I am all in favour of harmony and agreement, as far as construction and other aspects of the matter are concerned, but as far as tolls are concerned I think that Canada's interests would best be served by a toll-free seaway. The minister's statement that there has been all this harmony leads me to ask him whether the government has pressed for a toll-free seaway.


George Harris Hees: Several weeks ago I announced in the house a proposed schedule of tolls to be paid by those who use the seaway which would be examined in both countries. I said at that time that hearings would be started on August 6 in Washington and in Ottawa, at which hearings those who would be using the seaway could put forward their views regarding these proposed tolls. The proposed tolls were agreed to by both the Canadian and United States governments. I do not think I can say anymore.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope my hon. friend the member for Assiniboia who has just spoken, will not feel that I wish to enter into an argument with him when I make the following remarks. I think I should remind the house, however, that in 1951 parliament agreed to the imposition of tolls-there is no doubt about it. It was included not only in United States legislation but also in Canadian legislation that this was not to be a charge upon the taxpayer but was to be payable by those who use the seaway. The hon. member for Assiniboia was a member of the house at that time, and I believe must have voted for it, because my recollection is this was unanimously passed-


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: -by all parties in the house. I cannot see how, in view of the circumstances, firstly, the agreement between the United States and Canada and, secondly, the legislation passed in this house, it would be possible to have a toll-free seaway at this time.
That does not cover the question of the Welland canal, which is another matter altogether. Whether or not tolls should be extended to that canal is another question, but I think it did envisage a through toll, that is to say from the head of the lakes to Montreal, passing through the Welland canal. As to whether or not there should be tolls

Supply-Transport
on the Welland canal itself, that is to say, for the local traffic, is another matter on which I am not pronouncing any judgment at the moment. I do feel that I should say, however, in fairness to parliament, that in 1951 this matter was clearly established and clearly approved of. This parliament, of course, can alter that, but the impression that was given by the then government and by myself as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority was that all of these charges were to be paid by those who would be using the facilities and would not be a charge against the taxpayers.


Hazen Robert Argue: All the statements made by the hon. member for Laurier as to what has taken place may be correct. We have all had the experience of voting for something of which we were completely in favour in principle but which we would like to see amended in some detail, and if the St. Lawrence seaway project was before the house at this time in precisely the same terms as it was back in 1951 I am sure I would support it now as I did then. However, 1951 was some years ago and every session parliament amends acts to bring them up to date in terms of modern thinking. I am suggesting that as the years go by the direction toward which this matter will go -I hope at any rate this will be so-will be in the direction of reductions in tolls on this vital seaway and not in the direction of increasing them. I think that it is perfectly consistent and proper to voice at this time on behalf of many provincial governments and many organizations the request that the seaway be toll-free and to emphasize particularly that as far as the Welland ship canal is concerned it should be toll-free and should be toll-free without any question.
I wish to say to the hon. member for Laurier that while we agreed in 1951 on the seaway project as it was then contemplated and would today agree to the same project, it is nevertheless quite proper to suggest that certain improvements should be made at this time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
Aids to navigation-
630. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $326,523.
William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister a new policy with respect to the Kenora subagency aids to navigation? Is it to be combined with Selkirk?


George Harris Hees: They are related subagencies, Mr. Chairman, but the final decision has not yet been made as to staffing.


William Moore Benidickson: There is a great difference in mileage between the two points, as the minister will recognize, and I would rather question the efficiency of combining the two, as I understand is contemplated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
635.	Payment to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, in the amount of the deficit, certified by the auditors of the company, in the operations of the company, in the calendar year 1958-further amount required, $600,000.
William Moore Benidickson: I notice that in the main
estimates the deficit was so much smaller than what is being asked for. Under item 443, which we passed, the deficit was $190,000, and this is a requirement for an additional $600,000. The ships have not been operating for some time, so what accounts for the difference?


George Harris Hees: The lay-up expenses of the ships, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
636.	To provide for the expenses of an inquiry into the coasting trade of Canada authorized under the Inquiries Act, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them in connection with the inquiry, $15,650.
Lionel Chevrier: What is the basis for this item? This seems to be a new principle and I wonder if the minister would explain it?


George Harris Hees: These are wind-up expenses for the royal commission on coasting trade. I can give you all the details.


Lionel Chevrier: I take it it is extra expenses and emoluments going to civil servants who did this work?


George Harris Hees: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
638. Construction services administration-further amount required, $148,540.
Lionel Chevrier: There is one question which I failed to ask earlier. I wonder if I could bring it up now. It is in connection with Rimouski airport. The minister will remember that I asked him a question about it the other day. There was a fire which destroyed the facilities there. Is anything being done to assist Quebecair in these circumstances or to assist in the rebuilding of these facilities?


George Harris Hees: The question of the assistance that we can make available for the terminal building is now under discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Moore Benidickson: I think the total that this item involves refers entirely to increases in the salaries of civil servants. May I say that I have generally had a feeling that some of our departments could well dispense with a construction department and utilize the services of the Department of Public Works. However, in this particular department I must say I think the construction department is sometimes in advance of the Department of Public Works. I realize they have a lot of work to do and I recognize that additional expenditure may be necessary.


George Harris Hees: Thank you.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one question on item 636-I shall have to revert to it. It has to do with the recommendations of the royal commission on coastal trade. Has the government any intention of implementing those recommendations?


George Harris Hees: We expect to be considering those recommendations this autumn.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
645. Civil aviation services-further amount required, $1,084,420.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, this is a very large request after the presentation of the main item and perhaps the minister will be able to table with Hansard, with the consent of the committee, the items which would make up this vote. Or, possibly an explanation by the minister would serve. Has there been a growth in the size of the aviation operations sufficient to require this increase?


George Harris Hees: One of the large amounts is for the taking over of three airports which were operated by the R.C.A.F.: the airport at Whitehorse, $338,500; Tofino, British Columbia, $59,000; and Knob Lake, Quebec, $60,000. The other large item is in respect of increased responsibilities at Frobisher Bay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
647.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required including authority to contribute up to $250,000 in 1958-59 to the province of Nova Scotia towards the construction of a highway providing access to the new Halifax international airport; and for additional development work at Beaver-lodge airport on land- owned by the province of Saskatchewan, $1.
William Moore Benidickson: I think the minister recognizes that those of us who have been in the
Supply-Transport
house as long as he has and as long as I have been are always a little curious and dubious about these $1 items and I wonder if there is any significance attached to a contribution to a highway. It is usual?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that it is by order of the Auditor General that this wording is used to cover this item.


William Moore Benidickson: Is there any precedent for such a highway contribution by the Department of Transport?


George Harris Hees: Normally we build the road from the airport to the nearest provincial road. In this case we are turning the money over to the province and letting them do the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
648.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $123,176.
Hazen Robert Argue: On item 648 I should like the minister to give me some explanation as to the basis on which these moneys are paid out. I have in my constituency in the city of Weyburn a flying club which uses the runways and some of the facilities of the old air force airport at Weyburn. Is it possible under this item for a grant to be obtained, with provincial agreement or upon other condition, for the repair of such runways, their modernization and, their maintenance in a good state of repair so that this very laudable and enterprising community service may be carried on?
The local residents at Weyburn have taken a good deal of pride in this project and they have used the airport facilities for the training of pilots and for use by members of the local club. I am wondering if it is possible under this item for such a club or for such a city at this time to obtain a grant to have them maintain these runways.


George Harris Hees: The principle is that if it is a remote area we usually make a grant. If it is a local flying field we do it on a costsharing basis. A flying club such as the hon. member has mentioned has every right to make an application and it will be considered on its merits.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister for his statement and I am sure that judging from the way I have been able to get along with him in the past he will give the progressive community of Weyburn, every sympathetic consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
649.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $24,550.
Canadian maritime commission-
650.	Administration-further amount required, $14,665.
651.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $703,000.
Mr, Argue:: I missed the main item being out of the chamber when it was discussed. I have a few remarks to make on this item, and the minister need have no worry about the clock.
For some years past there has been a concerted effort by both the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. to close railway stations in the province of Saskatchewan. They have been making one application after another to the board of transport commissioners to have railway stations closed and to have the agents removed. As a matter of fact, in the last five years no less than 44 stations in the province of Saskatchewan have been closed. Every community that has a station with an agent providing service is, naturally, most reluctant to see its station closed and to have its agent removed. So in many instances when an application is made to the board of transport commissioners residents of the district sign a petition and send it to the board and to the minister and subsequently a local hearing is held. My experience in connection with these local hearings is that they usually accomplish very little as far as the residents are concerned. I have attended some of these hearings myself. The representative from the board of transport commissioners as well as representatives from the railway company appear at a public meeting in a given community. In my part of the country these officials have very often come out of the city of Regina. They ride to the meeting in the same car-I suppose it is economical to do it that way-and they seem to be very much in agreement about what should be done. The representative of the board of transport commissioners is, ostensibly, a person who is sitting in something of a judicial capacity. He is supposed to give everyone a fair hearing but it seems to me that after having driven in the same car with the representatives of the railway company he gives very little consideration to the case put forward by the local residents.
I suppose station agents to a degree have become a casualty of technological improvements and that it is impossible to maintain the same number of station agents now as in the past. Nevertheless it does seem to me that in the closing of these stations the railway application is too often given far greater consideration than the case presented by the local residents. I have had a considerable

amount of experience with these applications. I am rather discouraged by the attitude taken by the board of transport commissioners and their officials. In the vast majority of cases when an application is made the station is automatically closed. The railway company has a long story to tell to the effect that when the station is closed they will put in a caretaker and a telephone and thus maintain facilities. The caretaker is often the wife of the section foreman and in some cases of which I have knowledge they receive the magnificent sum of $10 a month for taking over some of the services once provided by the station agent. Certainly as far as Saskatchewan is concerned, if the operations of the railway came within Saskatchewan labour legislation Saskatchewan would not allow the C.P.R.-that is the railway with which I have acquaintance and for all I know the C.N.R. may do the same thing-


William Moore Benidickson: Just the same.


Hazen Robert Argue: -to exploit the services of those people by paying such a trivial sum.
I do not like to see stations closed. In many instances I have worked hard to keep them open. Although there are a few exceptions, in the majority of instances my efforts have met with very little success. I would hope that the board of transport commissioners would give greater consideration in future to the wishes of the people in the communities where they desire to close the station and remove the station agent.
As far as Saskatchewan is concerned, apparently the railways are out to close most of the stations. They want to maintain only a few agents here and there and close the vast majority of stations. I do not believe this trend can be entirely arrested and I do not think I would ask the board or the government to go that far but I would hope that in future there would be much more consideration given to the advice of local residents and not a continuation of something that appears to be a cut and dried decision made in advance. In many instances the meetings that are held to consider the application are just a farce and an insult to the intelligence of all the people who participate in them. It does not seem to matter how good your case is. Nothing happens and the station is closed down in due course.
It may be that if a federal election is being held and you create enough opposition concerning it they will delay closing the station until after the election but immediately following the election they go merrily on their way closing stations at the same rate. I hope the minister will put the brakes on the board of transport commissioners in this respect.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canal services-
661.	To provide for the acquisition of land required
in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation	system-further amount
required, $141,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry to ask a question on the minister's last item but I should like to have him give me the details of items 141 and 513, the $100,000 and the $141,000 items. This may require some time but perhaps he would be good enough to let me have this by letter at a later date.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: On that item I would just like to bring to the attention of the minister, since we are discussing a matter concerning Cornwall, the exchange of correspondence we had arising out of the desirability of establishing port facilities in that area. The minister will remember an application was pending for the establishment of a port authority in Cornwall and the minister replied that the old canal facilities would be turned over to the seaway authority there so that advantage could be taken of them for industrial development at Cornwall. While on the face of it that may appear an answer, I am afraid when it is studied it is not satisfactory. It is not because the old facilities are located on a 14-foot navigation canal that industry will be attracted and the minister knows the moment the seaway is opened all of these 14-foot vessels will become obsolete and the new 27-foot vessels will be in demand for use in the new channel.
The area where the port authority was requested is an area in deep water. The water in that area is anywhere from 25 feet to 40 feet deep so the depth is sufficient. It would be unfortunate if the one were traded off for the other. This is a matter that will eventually have to be decided by the municipal authorities of the city of Cornwall. It is for them to determine what is in their best interests. However, I am merely bringing to the attention of the minister the fact that the alternative is not the answer. There must be there for the future development of the community deep water facilities, namely 27-foot facilities, and the area they have suggested seems the most logical one in which to establish them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
General-
662.	To increase to $3,000,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund mentioned In subsection (2) of section 101 of the Financial Administration Act, chap. 12, statutes of 1951 (2nd session), and extended by vote 630 of the Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1955; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Chairman, I must confess I have not done enough research on
Supply-Transport
this item, not that I especially feel I should have done so. I think this type of thing has probably gone on for some time but it is not fair to hon. members of the committee of supply because it requires them to do some individual investigation of the statutes without the slightest initimation of what the item is all about. I have no doubt this is traditional but I wonder if the minister would give a little explanation.


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. At the present time the department operates a revolving fund of $5 million for the purchase of stores required in the various operating branches of the department. During the past year there has been a considerable expansion of the activities of the air services branch chiefly as a result of the taking over of a number of establishments from the Department of National Defence and also the program for the establishment of surveillance radar equipment at 15 airports across Canada.
There has also been a marked increase in the activities of the marine services branch chiefly in regard to the operations of the dominion steamers and also the establishment of a district marine agency at Fort Smith, Northwest Territories. Consequently, it is considered that there now exists a need to increase the stores revolving fund by a total amount of $1 million to take care of the following increased requirements:	(1) increased stocks of radio spares, chiefly for surveillance radar equipment, $500,000; (2) sub-stores depot for radio spares laboratory at Ottawa, $70,000; (3) estimated additional amount required to take care of increased commodity prices, unforeseen new stock requirements and a working capital equal to one month's stores issue, $180,000; (4) printing and stationery stocks for the meteorological service, Toronto, $250,000, making a total of $1 million.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister for his explanation. I merely want to suggest that we have had a great turnover in members of parliament. I had some association with this department and I probably should have recollected this but I did not and no doubt not more than two members of the committee had any knowledge of what this was all about. There was nothing in the estimates in layman's language to indicate what it is. I suggest to those in the treasury board who draft these estimates that this is not a proper attitude to adopt toward hon. members of parliament and particularly in the last stages of the session when it is difficult for hon. members of the committee to go to the statutes and find what the references are.

Supply-Post Office


George Harris Hees: I agree with the hon. member.
I will bring that up with the other two matters.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: This completes the estimates of the Department of Transport.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
305. Operations-Including salaries and other expenses of staff post offices, district offices, railway mail service staffs, and supplies, equipment and other items for revenue post offices, including administration, and to authorize the re-appointment, effective the 16th day of September, 1955, of G. V. H. Christiaenssens as postal clerk 2 in the Magog post office, at a salary of $2,700 per annum for the period from the 16th day of September, 1955, to the 31st day of March, 1956, and at a salary of $2,940 per annum for the period from the 1st day of April, 1956, to the 30th day of April, 1957, $101,387,706.
Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, we were kind to the Postmaster General last week by passing the first item, therefore I do not think that he will expect too much of us today. After all, we are members of the opposition. He used to be in the opposition and as far as the Post Office Department is concerned he has done his share of-I will not say delaying or postponing-lengthening the discussion on the estimates of this department in former years and caused great difficulty to the postmaster general at that time. As a newcomer he deserves a little criticism. I would not call him a newcomer because in 1953 and in 1954 he was so close to the Post Office Department that he even had access to the-


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. I must inform hon. members that if they wish to carry on conversation it would be preferable for them to do so in the smoking rooms behind the curtains.


Azellus Denis: Mr. Chairman, may I say first that the Postmaster General was listening very carefully to what I was saying even though it was noisy in the house. I was saying that the Postmaster General was not a newcomer because when he was an ordinary member of parliament he had access to the offices of the department to the extent that even the material that was supposed to be confidential between the minister's officials and the minister himself was made available to him.
I want to refer to a statement which was made by the Postmaster General on July 26 when he said, as reported at page 2742 of Hansard.
I find that in my general remarks here I have dealt I think with most of the points raised by the hon. member for St. Denis. Again I want to

emphasize the fact that I do not accept his statement that I claimed the post office was poor or that it offered poor service in previous years. I never said that.
I want to answer that statement. He did not say that word for word. I did not even say that he said that the post office was poor, but he made many statements to that effect. I do not know whether his memory is poor but on July 26 I quoted what he said as follows:
But I criticise in the very strongest terms the Postmaster General for his administration of the department, and1 for many of the ways in which it is administered under his direction.
He was referring to the former postmaster general. He said: "It is administered", not the way it was administered. If I understood him, he wished to tell the committee that he was criticizing the postmaster general alone. I do not know why he says in one sentence that the Post Office Department is second to none and in the next sentence that the postmaster general is no good. He has to choose between the two; he has to choose one or the other. If the Post Office Department is well administered, or if he had nothing to say against the officials and the way in which they did their work, why did he say that the postmaster general was no good? Was it because he was not good-looking, was it because he was not well dressed, or something? I do not understand. He has to choose between the two. He made many statements during the time he sat in opposition. I therefore challenge his statement that he never criticized the department. He talked against the post office saving bank. He criticized the way in which security was carried out in the post office. He even wanted the mounted police to take over so far as thefts were concerned. He even said that the department was slow moving. I do not know whether I have the statement here but on January 20, 1956, the minister said, as reported in Hansard at page 363:
Slow moving as the department is and slow moving as the minister may be, we at least have sufficient time for him to make up his mind and do something about this particular situation.
If that is not criticism I wonder what he meant by criticism. As a matter of fact, every time he criticized the departmental officials or the service the name of the minister was always included. He even went so far as to call the minister of that time a stupid minister. I do not know whether he is trying to imitate the former postmaster general so far as thefts are concerned. I heard him say last week that there were about twice as many burglaries under his administration but the amount of money taken was not as large. So far as stupidity is concerned, I think that

was a stupid sentence. It is not the fault of the postmaster general if the burglary is $12 instead of $1,200.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: It is
the result of this Postmaster General's changes in the system.


Azellus Denis: There was a report known as the Woods-Gordon report. The Postmaster General of today used almost every sentence of that report before the postmaster general of that time announced what was contained in it. I challenge the Postmaster General to say to the country-
(Translation):


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for St. Denis (Mr. Denis), but as it is 6 o'clock, I must leave the chair.
(Text):
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business of the house is for Monday? In view of the fact that we have made such excellent progress today-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lionel Chevrier: -perhaps the minister will project his mind and tell us what will happen on Tuesday?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the interruptions, I think I should say that the normal time for passing the estimates of the Department of Transport is three days. I think we did pretty well in getting them through in about one day.


Howard Charles Green: On Monday, we shall commence with item No. 9 on today's order paper, the resolution concerning the South Saskatchewan river project; then, take item No. 1, house in committee on a bill to amend the Railway Act; then, item No. 5, second reading of a bill for approving certain expenditures authorized for the public service; then, item No. 4, second reading of a bill to amend the Customs Act. We shall continue with legislation on Tuesday. There would remain item No. 2, which is consideration of amendments made by the Senate to an act respecting taxation of estates, and item No. 6, second reading of a bill to amend the Canadian Citizenship Act.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to the order of the house passed on August 4.
Supply-Items rassed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
438.	Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment, $1,100,000.
439.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1958, $165,000.
440.	To provide towards the cost of surveys of Newfoundland railway properties entrusted to the Canadian National Railway Company, $17,500.
441.	Degaussing Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to retransfer to Canadian registry under special intergovernmental arrangement, $300,000.
442.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-for the payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1958, $14,000,000.
443.	Payment to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, limited (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, in the amount of the deficit, certified by the auditors of the company, in the operations of the company in the calendar year 1958, $190,000.
444.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to Canadian National Railway Company a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding $7,450,000, towards the construction of the line of railway referred to in chapter 49 of the Statutes of Canada, 1953-54, as branch line number 1 (described approximately as a line of railway from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beatty-ville in the province of Quebec); such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1958-59, $1,600,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
445.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots; Arthur Baquet; Adelard Delisle; Raoul Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
446.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the Intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1958 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $9,500.
447.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $54,000.
Special-
448.	To provide, notwithstanding anything in the Financial Administration Act or any other act or law, for payment to the widow of the late John H. Tudhope formerly Canadian representative to the commonwealth telecommunications board and civil aviation advisor to the high commissioner for Canada in the United Kingdom in respect of which employment no pension is payable, $5,000.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed Air Services-
Administration division-
449.	Air services administration, $1,116,241.
450.	Construction services administration, $2,022,020.
Telecommunications division-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
451.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $13,933,473.
452.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $11,385,000.
Radio Act and regulations-
453.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including contributions as Canada's share of the costs of various international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations, as detailed in the estimates, $2,359,295.
454.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $515,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
455.	Administration, operation and maintenance,
$277,802.	.
456.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $198,000.
Meteorological division-
457.	Administration, operation and maintenance,
including grants as detailed in the estimates, $10,708,161.	T
458.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,089,600.
Civil aviation division-
459.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $1,866,225.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
460.	Civil aviation services, and to provide notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, that the treasury board may authorize arrangements to be made for the operation of hotel, bakery, restaurant, staff messing, staff accommodation and similar facilities at airports and may authorize the disbursement of revenues derived therefrom and payment of deficits that may occur in the management and operation of these facilities, $14,342,200.
481. Airway and airport traffic control, $5,115,231.
462.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies and amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act, $61,348,000.
463.	Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $589,400.
464.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations, including contributions to appropriate authorities in respect of airports at Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon and at Harrington Harbour, Quebec, $125,916.
465.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $245,000.
463. Contributions, as detailed in the estimates, to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay the amounts specified in the currencies
of the countries indicated, notwithstanding that the payments may exceed or fall short of the equivalent in Canadian dollars, estimated as of January, 1958, which is, $236,227.
B-General-
Air transport board-
467.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $337,179.
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
468.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,013,742.
469.	Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount, if any, to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund and for the purpose of contributing towards the cost of an exceptional number of railway grade separation projects on the trans-Canada highway in British Columbia, $10,000,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
470.	Administration, $153,488.
471.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $4,898,000.
National harbours board-
472.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1958 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	$ 855,000
Saint John	 100,000
Chicoutimi	 400,000
Quebec	 5,000,000
Generally-
Unforeseen and miscellaneous 200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from
replacement funds	 25,756
[Stage Direction]
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
512.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $128,000,000.
Canal services-
513.	To provide for the acquisition of land required in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation system, $100,000.
Air services-
514.	To provide for the acquisition of land for control of properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports to prevent the erection of hazards to flying, and for future development of new and existing main terminal airports including alternative facilities for relieving congestion thereat, $4,000,000.
515.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $2,400,000.
National harbours board-
516.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1958 on any or all of the following accounts:

Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Three Rivers	$ 1,122,000
Montreal	 26,387,200
Vancouver	 4,533,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-Amount to be expended from
replacement and other funds 1,391,523
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
628.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $98,720.
Canal services-
629.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $1,493,000.
Marine services-
Aids to navigation-
630.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $326,523.
631.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $1,300,033.
632.	Nautical services-administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $1,000.
633.	Pilotage service-administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $49,860.
Railway and steamship services-
634.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment-further amount required, $115,000.
635.	Payment to Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Limited (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of Finance, in the amount of the deficit, certified by the auditors of the company, in the operations of the company in the calendar year 1958-further amount required, $600,000.
General-
636.	To provide for the expenses of an inquiry into the coasting trade of Canada authorized under the Inquiries Act, including the payment, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, of honoraria or allowances as may be authorized by the treasury board to officers, clerks or employees permanently employed in the civil service for services rendered by them in connection with the inquiry, $15,650.
Air services-
Administrative division-
637.	Air services administration-further amount required, $76,650.
638.	Construction services administration-further amount required, $148,540.
Telecommunications division-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
639.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $290,100.
Supply-Items Passed
Radio Act and regulations-
640.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $66,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
641.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and	equipment-further amount
required, $35,000.
Meteorological division-
642.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $153,487.
643.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment-further amount required, $186,000.
Civil aviation division-
644.	Control of civil aviation-further amount required, $36,300.
Airways and airports-
Operation and maintenance-
645.	Civil aviation services-further amount required, $1,084,420.
646.	Airways and airport traffic control-further amount required, $86,925.
647.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required including authority to contribute up to $250,000 in 1958-59 to the province of Nova Scotia towards the construction of a highway providing access to the new Halifax international airport; and for additional development work at Beaver-lodge Airport on land owned by the province of Saskatchewan, $1.
648.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $123,176.
B-General
Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-
649.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $24,550.
Canadian Maritime Commission-
650. Administration-further	amount required, $14,665.
651.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $703,000.
Canal services-
661.	To provide for the acquisition of land required
in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation	system-further	amount
required, $141,000.
General-
662.	To increase to $6,000,000 the amount that may be charged at any time to the revolving fund mentioned in subsection (2) of section 101 of The Financial Administration Act, chap. 12, Statutes of 1951 (2nd session), and extended by Vote 630 of the Appropriation Act, No. 2, 1955; additional amount required, $1,000,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday. September 1, 1958

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting further supplementary estimates (1) for the financial year ending March 31, 1959, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. McCleave.