1959-06-10

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on industrial relations-Mr. Small.


Mr. Granger: 1.	Have any measures been taken since March 31, 1958, to implement a national development program of federal assistance for developing the resources of the Atlantic provinces, having regard to their differing needs and varying financial capabilities?
2.	If so, what are those measures?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The answer to the first part of the question is yes. The answer to the second part is that having regard to the differing needs and varying financial capabilities of the Atlantic provinces, a number of important measures have been undertaken to aid them in developing their natural resources. Included in the estimates currently before parliament are the following specific items which are clearly marked as referring to resource development in the Atlantic provinces, and which total more than $40 million.
The answers that follow, Mr. Speaker, cover four pages of single space typing. I am going to ask permission to put this on record as part of my answer. I also point out that this answer is not complete because there are bits of information coming from other departments. Up to five minutes before eleven o'clock this morning this is the answer I had received. It does not include, of course, various plans that we have under way with some of the premiers of the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I understand that the rest of the answer refers to items in the estimates?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Partially, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister proposes that this lengthy answer be incorporated in Hansard at this point. Is it the pleasure of the house to permit the answer to be given in this way?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
66968-9-286
(Editor's Note:	The information above
referred to follows:)
Vote No. 35. Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act $2,357,195.
Vote No. 212. Payments in connection with the movement of coal under conditions prescribed by the governor in council $10,089,350.
(S) Subsidy payments under an act to place Canadian coal used in the manufacture of iron and steel on a basis of equality with imported coal (chap. 34, R.S.) $300,000.
Vote No. 213. Subventions in respect of eastern coal under agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act $1,700,000.
Vote No. 352. Toward an investigation to determine the feasibility of constructing a proposed causeway across Northumberland strait, including the opening of a test quarry $250,000.
Vote No. 356. Contribution to the province of New Brunswick toward construction of dam on Tantramar river, N.B. $84,375.
Vote No. 419. Maritime Freight Rates Act $14,100,000.
Vote No. 447. Advances to national harbours board for capital expenditures, Halifax $933,500.
Vote No. 477. Advances in accordance with agreements entered into pursuant to the Atlantic Provinces Power Development Act $11,627,000.
Apart from these, there are many other specific items, particularly in the estimates of the Departments of Public Works and Transport, which relate to the Atlantic provinces. In addition, these provinces share fully in various nation-wide developmental programs, including the fisheries conservation and development program; the trans-Canada highway; the geological, hydrographic and other technical surveys; the facilities of the industrial development bank; the housing activities of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation; and various argicultural programs.
The geological survey have stepped up their program in the Atlantic provinces. For example, this year they are "fielding" 14 separate field parties out of 77 for the whole of Canada. This represents roughly 18 per cent of their total effort.

Starred Questions
The government has also offered to share in the capital cost of transmission lines related to the proposed development of bay d'Espoir, Newfoundland.
The two most substantial measures, in terms of the magnitude of financial assistance, come under the Department of Finance. These are the Atlantic provinces adjustment grants, which provide $25,000,000 a year for four years, and the loan to New Brunswick in respect of the Beechwood power project, amounting to $29,500,000.
During 1958-59, the Department of Agriculture spent $1,421,282 on more than 35 projects in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick designed to protect agricultural lands from
tidal flooding. Expenditure for the same purpose in 1959-60 are estimated at more than $2,300,000 as indicated above under item 35 covering the vote for the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act. The Department of Agriculture has also extended increased aid to the Atlantic provinces on lime assistance and freight assistance as outlined below:
The lime assistance policy was changed on March 4, 1958, under authority of P.C. 1958-6/336, to cover 60 per cent of provincial lime assistance costs without the per ton maximum of $1.50 which applied previously. This has resulted in the following increased tonnage and assistance over the previous year.
	1957-58		1958-59	
Tons	Federal Assistance	Tons	Federal AssistanceNewfoundland 	
Nova Scotia 	
Prince Edward Isld. ... New Brunswick	. . 2,607.71 . . 46,831.45 . . 24,260.56 .. 32,129.62	$ 3,911.35 70,217.84 36,390.68 48,194.42	4,476.30 73,649.75 29,609.81 41,070.92	$ 32,944.33 101,291.85 53,387.02 85,694.09105,829.34	$158,714.29	148,806.78	$273,317.29
The freight assistance policy was also
changed on November 27, 1958, under au- per 100 lbs. of the increase in freight rates thority of P.C. 1958-1628 effective December applicable on feed grains and millfeeds to the 1958, to provide subsidy on all but 5 cents Atlantic provinces.



FREIGHT ASSISTANCE PAID

[Stage Direction]
1957-58	1958-59
Tons
Newfoundland	 16,631
Nova Scotia	 130,359
Prince Edward Isld		21,012
New Brunswick	 72,469
240,471
Under the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources there have been several important measures of assistance to the Atlantic provinces. For example, since March 31, 1958, financial aid was provided for the development of camp ground and picnic sites during the months of April and May, 1958 and again during the winter of 1958-59, commencing November 1. In addition, assistance was offered in the development of camp grounds and picnic sites along the trans-Canada highway.

Federal		Federal
Assistance	Tons	Assistance$ 396,554.54	16,285	$ 399,633.891,903,239.40	133,103	2,063,146.30306,775.20	25,697	394,946.20970,984.60	88,633	1,254,356.90$3,577,553.74	263,718	$4,112,083.29
Of particular benefit to the Atlantic provinces is the $150,000,000 roads to resources program initiated by this government. The terms of this program have been broadened to include the tourist industry as a resource so that the Atlantic provinces may benefit fully from the federal financial assistance available. The cost sharing formula has also been made more flexible to meet the differing needs and varying financial capabilities of these provinces. In the four Atlantic provinces, the program is expected

to produce approximately 1,500 miles of roads and federal assistance will total some $30,000,000.
The Saint John river hoard was set up on 24 March 1959 by agreement between the governments of Canada and New Brunswick for the purpose of making basic studies regarding the best use of the water resources of the Saint John river basin in Canada. The primary purpose of the study is to determine the effect on the existing and potential developments and on other water uses in New Brunswick of storage possibilities in the Saint John river basin, particularly those storages on the upper Saint John in the state of Maine which are being studied by the international Passamaquoddy engineering board in relation to the proposed Passamaquoddy tidal project. While the primary purpose of the study is directed towards the effect of storage development on the power picture in the province, the effect on other water uses, such as flood control, navigation, pollution abatement, fish and wildlife preservation and the possibility of the reduction of the silting problem in Saint John harbour is to receive careful consideration as well. The board's report is due on 30 June 1960 and the estimated cost of this investigation is $150,000 which will be shared equally between Canada and New Brunswick.
Finally, on October 30, 1958 the federal government offered to the provinces financial assistance for the construction of forest access roads and trails for the period November 1, 1958 to June 30, 1959. In the Atlantic provinces, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have signed agreements with the federal government which provide for a federal contribution of 50 per cent of expenditures made or wages paid whichever is the lesser. The amount of the federal payment is not limited in any manner other than the above-mentioned condition.
The following table shows the estimated total provincial expenditure and the estimated federal share for the above mentioned period.
Provincial Federal Expenditure Share $125,000	$ 62,500
86,344	43,172
20,000	10,000
$231,344	$115,672


Mr. Pickersgill: 1. Have any crown corporations been established since March 31, 1958, to promote industrial decentralization in the direction of the Atlantic provinces? 66968-9-286i
Motions for Papers
2. If so, how many and for what purposes?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the government has been able to deal effectively with the responsibilities in regard to the Atlantic provinces without establishing new crown companies for the purpose mentioned, although it should be noted that one crown company, the industrial development bank, has opened a new branch in New Brunswick for this purpose during the period.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Then the answer to the question is no?



NEW BRUNSWICK'


Mr. McWilliam: 1.	What payments of (a) principal; (b) interest accrue due during 1959, on account of the $29.5 million Beechwood loan to the province of New Brunswick?
2.	On what date, or dates, are these payments due?
3.	Have any such payments on this loan been made to date?
4.	If so, on what date, or dates, and in what amounts were payments made as to (a) principal; (b) interest?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1(a) is $3,215,858.49. The answer to part l(b>
is $1,143,125.
The answer to part 2 is April 8, 1959.
The answer to part 3 is yes.
The answer to part 4 is April 8, 1959 in the amounts set out in the answer to part 1.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 447
Mr. Argue:: 1.	Is a Mr. Jean C. Lessard presently employed with the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
2.	If so, what position does he hold?
3.	What positions has he held since first entering government service, what was the nature of each, date of appointment, length of service, salary, and expenses submitted yearly?
4.	Was Mr. Lessard appointed to any of these positions through a civil service competition?
5.	If so, to which ones, what was the number and date of the competition, how many persons competed, what names were on the eligible list and in what order?
6.	If not, under what authority was Mr. Lessard appointed to each, and by whom was he recommended?
7.	What qualifications did Mr. Lessard possess for each of the positions he has held?



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 119-Mr. Argue:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports and other documents, exchanged between
Province
Newfoundland	
Nova Scotia	
New Brunswick .. ..
[Stage Direction]
Motion to Adjourn House any federal government department, any cabinet minister, and radio station CJON St. John's, Newfoundland, since January 1, 1953, regarding the use of the station facilities and/or any financial transaction.
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: The government is prepared to accept this resolution subject to the usual reservations, and also subject to the availability of the documents referred to going back to 1953.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion, subject to the reservation expressed by the minister?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 121-Mi. Regier:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the federal government and municipal governments and/or individuals, since January 1, 1956, regarding the airport at Dawson Creek, British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 122-Mr. Mcllraiih:
For a copy of the correspondence exchanged between the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Association of Physicists since January 1, 1958, in connection with a proposal to construct in Canada an atom smasher.
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, this is satisfactory. The more precise language of the Canadian Association of Physicists was "high energy laboratory" rather than the phrase "atom smasher".


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the failure of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration as disclosed in the agreement with Dimensional Investments Limited to protect the interests of the Sarnia band of Indians by entering into an agreement for the sale of Indian lands at approximately $2,000 an acre which were resold immediately to Ontario hydro at approximately three and a half times the price received by the Indians, resulting in an immediate profit to Dimensional Investments Limited of between $800,000 and $900,000.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the hon. member if he can inform me whether the agreement referred to has been tabled in the house?


Mrs. Fairclough:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to have some assistance in this matter. Certain points occur to me to which I would ask members to direct their remarks. First, the matter of urgent public importance appears to involve the sale of the property of a band of Indians and therefore is somewhat local in character, affecting the property rights of certain individuals and not the public generally. Second, the question occurs to me whether this is an administrative responsibility. The Indian Act provides, of course, for jurisdiction over such matters by a minister of the government, but I am not familiar enough with the details to know whether the sale is one which is made by the Indians themselves or by the government. Then, of course, there is the further question of urgency of debate. My recollection is that this matter was extensively discussed in the press last week and earlier, and that may have a bearing on whether there is urgency of debate which would warrant the interruption of our proceedings.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could say a word on these points since I am asking leave-


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should hear the hon. member who is presenting the motion. Will he direct his remarks to the points I have raised, or any other arguments which he thinks support the motion?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is precisely what I was proposing to do. On the first point, whether this is a matter of national importance, of course the superintendent general of Indian affairs is a trustee for the Indians, and the sale was made by the minister, or by the crown, and the minister was agent for the crown. There can be, therefore, no question about this being an administrative responsibility of the government. It is true that the prior consent of the Indians has to be obtained, but the action is taken by the government, by the minister, and on the responsibility of the government. So I think there is no question about that.
I believe the disposal of any Indian lands in any part of the country is surely a trust the performance of which, as a national responsibility, is most urgent and most important. I could quote many eloquent statements on that point by the Prime Minister when he sat over here.


John George Diefenbaker: I had a lot of good examples when the hon. gentleman was the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister can speak, perhaps, when I am finished. But on the question of urgency-


Mr. Fulton:: You seldom stop long enough for anyone else to speak.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the question of urgency, I may say there were articles in the press but I did not feel I could properly found my case on articles in the press. The hon. member for Trinity has sought for some considerable time to get the relevant document. The document was not tabled until Monday evening at approximately 10 o'clock. Had it been available on Friday I think we would have had no case, because the matter could have been brought up on the motion to go into supply. This opportunity having been denied us, and of course the minister's estimates having been completed, there is no opportunity to discuss the subject on her estimates. It did not appear to me there was any other opportunity to bring this matter up.
It is urgent in another way. I think it is urgent to know whether this high price which was paid by Ontario hydro was something the Indians lost or whether it was something that was done extravagantly by another government. This is important, in view of the fact that we live in a democratic country and certain decisions have to be made tomorrow. It seems to me that-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Prime Minister laughs as though elections were laughing matters, and as though the people were not entitled to be informed about public affairs before they vote.


John George Diefenbaker: I am not entering the argument, but the fact that an election is being held tomorrow in one of the provinces is not a matter of urgency in the House of Commons.


John Whitney Pickersgill: On the Prime Minister's point, since the Prime Minister was permitted-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member who has the floor not to bring in provincial elections.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is a matter of urgent importance to this house to know whether this land that was sold to Ontario hydro for $7,000 an acre was worth that, in which case the Indians should have got the $7,000, or whether it was not worth it. It is for that reason that it seems to me it is
Motion to Adjourn House urgent that this parliament, in this session, should have an opportunity to discuss this matter, and there is no other opportunity that I am able to see available under the rules.


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works):: The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate really let the cat out of the bag when he referred to the Ontario election tomorrow, and went on to say that this house should be able to deal with the question of whether or not another government has been extravagant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: A breach of trust by this government.


Howard Charles Green: If he can succeed in moving the adjournment of the house on this occasion, then a day or two before the election in Alberta, which I think is on June 18, we may have another motion of the same kind. Surely this is reducing the rule for making motions of this kind to an absurdity. All the authorities clearly state that the debate itself must be urgent, and the only element of urgency in this matter is the Ontario election tomorrow.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Bl each of trust.


Howard Charles Green: The hon. member also says there will be no other occasion on which to discuss this question. May I point out that we have one other supply motion. It will probably be called a week from Monday. I am sure the members of the government, including the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, will be delighted to discuss this subject should hon. members across the way have the courage to raise it then.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is in effect nothing more nor less than a propaganda motion and that the request made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is really not made in a very serious way.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I think the question of the Ontario election tomorrow is an extraneous matter and should be so considered by Your Honour. I believe the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) made an error of judgment when he advanced that as a reason for urgency of debate. I would suggest that there is urgency for debate on other and more substantial grounds. The urgency for debate is brought about not because there may be a motion to go into supply a week from Monday when, if it is the opinion of the official opposition at that time this is the most important matter on which to move, they may move in this field. Rather, it is an urgent matter because it brings the action of the government under a cloud.

Motion to Adjourn House It is an extremely serious charge that is alluded to in this motion that is being advanced. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration who is responsible, as has been pointed out, for giving permission for this land to be sold, tabled the agreement only Monday night. This is a motion that is being presented quickly thereafter in order to deal with the question, in order to get at the facts and see whether or not the Indians were denied money that should be theirs or whether for some other reason the Ontario hydroelectric commission paid a scandalous amount. These matters are urgent in that they should be dealt with and cleared up- if the government can clear them up-at this time.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I am prompted to enter this debate particularly because of some of the expressions of opinion by the leader of the house.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member proceeds I would remind him that it is not a debate. We are discussing the interpretation of the application of rule 26 to the specific points that were raised. I trust that he will not stray into the field of the provincial election.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of straying. I wish to deal with the three points Your Honour asked my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate to deal with, but before dealing with them I thought it in order to tell the leader of the house that he was more persuasive in his arguments when he spoke as the Minister of Public Works than he is when he speaks as the new Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Donald Methuen Fleming: He was speaking as leader of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: A moment ago he indicated that we lacked courage in not raising this matter on the motion for supply. It strikes me that if the government were courageous it would accept this invitation to adjourn the house and deal with the matter.
The points which Your Honour asked should be dealt with are the following. First, Your Honour asked for assistance in connection with the matter of the regional or national aspect of the debate. I think it is quite clear that because of the fact that the superintendent general of Indian affairs acts on behalf of all the Indians in this country, and not only on behalf of one of the bands, the matter becomes one of national interest rather than local interest.
Then it is quite clear on another point. The responsibility of the administration is such that when matters of this kind, such as sales

of land, are approved they must be approved by the governor in council, and the superintendent general in his responsibility as trustee must recommend to the minister approval of sales of this nature. In that respect I do not think there can be any doubt but that there is a responsibility as far as the administration is concerned.
I cannot agree with the argument by the leader of the house that this matter can be held over until a motion for supply is made, because there has been no indication as to when that is likely to come up, and the urgency of the debate lies in this fact, that the estimates of the hon. minister have been disposed of-


An hon. Member:: What about the supplementary estimates?


Lionel Chevrier: I am asked from the rear, what about the supplementary estimates. Well,
I presume they will not come up until the end of the session, which may not be for two or three weeks. I presume that the ordinary estimates of the other departments would have priority, since the minister has already disposed of her estimates. So that is not an argument. The point of urgency is that there is no immediate opportunity to deal with a matter of this nature, which to me is allimportant because of the reason given by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate the exorbitant profits which have been made with regard to Indian lands, and for these reasons I suggest that the debate should be adjourned and this subject discussed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There are just one or two additional points I should like to make. I wish to refer, first, to the specific citation in Beauchesne regarding the question of whether a matter must be of national importance before it can be made the subject of such a motion as this. Your Honour has no doubt read paragraph 5 of citation 100 at page 90 of Beauchesne's fourth edition which says:
The adjournment of the house cannot he moved with reference to critical conditions generally prevailing in certain parts of the country.
It is clear from the motion that it relates to a specific and isolated sale. If there were allegations made with regard to the sale of Indian lands generally I should be prepared to admit that that was a matter of general application, but this motion is confined to a specific sale. I am not suggesting that this makes the content of the motion less important, but it certainly puts it outside the scope of the rule which must be observed before the adjournment of the house can take place at this time.
On the question of the urgency of debate, I would remind Your Honour that you have

to consider, it seems to me, two questions. The first is, is there any other way in which this matter could be discussed in the reasonably foreseeable future without the necessity of adjourning the house, and second, whether the necessity for dealing with the matter is so urgent that the house should immediately be adjourned.
May I remind Your Honour that a committee has recently been set up to review the Indian Act. I understand that that committee is holding a meeting today, and this would certainly provide another forum in which this question and others relating to the administration of the superintendent general of Indian affairs could be discussed.
It seems to me that this does dispose entirely of any suggestion that the house should be adjourned at this stage. Further, on the question of whether this matter requires to be dealt with now as one of urgency, may I remind Your Honour that this sale is' an accomplished fact. It is not as though the sale were about to be made and it was necessary, therefore, to discuss at this time whether or not it would be advisable to make it; or, from the point of view of hon. gentlemen opposite, to argue to prevent the sale. This sale, as I say, is an accomplished fact. There are other times at which it can be discussed, either in the committee or in this house on a supply motion or on the supplementary estimates. Since it is an accomplished fact, and with these other opportunities for debate being available, I submit that it clearly is not necessary to adjourn the house now in order to discuss it.
Thus on these three grounds-first, that it is a matter local in its import; second, that there are other occasions on which it can be discussed; and third, that the motion deals with an accomplished fact and is, therefore, not one which requires immediate discussion today-I submit that the motion is one which cannot be accepted.


John George Diefenbaker: I just want to add one word. At page 89 of Beauchesne a definition is given of a definite matter of urgent public importance. Paragraph 2 says it must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention; and I think the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate indicated the type of interest he had as he revealed the reason for the motion at this time.
In any event, I want to give hon. gentlemen opposite every opportunity to discuss this matter at the earliest possible date. The hon. member for Laurier said he and his friends did not know when it could be discussed. The estimates of the minister had
Motion to Adjourn House already been completed, he said, and he did not know when the supplementary estimates would come up for consideration.
We had intended to move to go into supply a week from Monday, but in view of the arguments put forward here today I now offer to have the motion made next Monday, so the final motion for this session will be brought before the house and every opportunity will be given to discuss this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose I should be allowed to say a word in answer to the Prime Minister. The practice in connection with motions to go into supply, particularly toward the end of the session, has been that they have been staggered from time to time. If the Prime Minister wants to change it, that is quite in order with us, but the point is this. If the government is so courageous as the Prime Minister indicates, here and now is the time and place; now is the time to adjourn the debate and accept the opportunity to discuss this matter. Apparently the Prime Minister does not want to discuss it now. He wants to put it off until another time. I submit to him that here is the opportunity, and not at a later time.


John George Diefenbaker: In that regard, may I say this. I do not want to press the opposition; I want to assist them. But I note that as soon as I made the offer I did, the staggering was done on the other side.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be allowed to say a word about one of the points raised by the Minister of Justice. With regard to what he said about the committee, it seems to me that the terms of reference of that committee are quite clear, namely to examine the Indian Act, not to examine the administration of the department. The minister's argument on that score clearly falls to the ground.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank hon. members for a very complete and useful discussion of the application of rule 26 to this particular motion. If I might deal with the last point referred to-the suggestion of the Minister of Justice that as a joint committee is now dealing with the Indian Act it might be an answer to the motion-may I say that to my mind it seems that if the matter is one which comes under the rule it should be possible to bring it before the house itself.
It seems to me that the complaint is that certain property of a band of Indians has been sold for too little money, that the best price has not been obtained. I accept the proposition that it is the administrative responsibility of the department to do the best it can with these sales, just as it is its responsibility in connection with any sale or purchase of public property to get the

Motion to Adjourn House best price or pay the least price it can. That is a continuing responsibility. But this particular motion relates to a sale that has been completed, as was pointed out by the Minister of Justice. It is an accomplished fact. What the motion seeks to do is to criticize, condemn or question the government for having made the sale on the terms it did. It is more specifically a motion of censure of the government for something it has done.
Property rights are always important to the people involved, but I think the fact that this is a property matter involving property rights puts it in a different category from other motions we have had. It strikes me that if we were to allow the procedure of the house to be interrupted every time the administration of the government with respect to the sale or purchase of property was challenged it would open a very wide door and would tend to disrupt the proceedings of the house.
With respect to the rule that the matter must be of public importance and so pressing that the public interest will suffer if not given attention, subsections 2 and 5 of citation 100 of Beauchesne's fourth edition have been referred to, and perhaps this aspect is not so clear because the administrative action of the government is always a matter of general importance and in this case it relates to a fairly local occurrence.
In coming to the question of urgency of debate let me say this. As I have already said, this appears to be basically a motion of censure on the administration and would more properly be dealt with in that way. We could accomplish very little by debating whether the price is or is not adequate, and by a motion to adjourn the house we could not correct the situation. However, the matter is one which any hon. member of the house is entitled to bring up at an appropriate time.
Having regard to the fact that this sale has been a public issue for ten days-I am not sure when the sale price first became known-we were in debate on Monday night when we had a supply motion and airing of grievances; but I do not rest my decision on the timing of the filing of this document, I want to make that clear. The clerk reminds me that the sale was made some time ago. The urgency of debate seems to work against the mover of this motion.
There will be an opportunity shortly to discuss this matter. As it is not of such national scope and as the motion would not be corrective of anything which is pending except as a means of criticizing the government, it seems to me the opportunity should be taken when it can be taken on a later

occasion. I am not, therefore, prepared to accept the application for leave to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he is now in a position to comment on the strongly reported suggestions that the government of France is not prepared to make any commitments to NATO until the United States and Britain have shared their atomic secrets with France. This question was asked by the Leader of the Opposition on Monday and my hon. friend said he would give consideration to the question later.


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker. On that occasion I said I could not make any helpful comment at that time, and I still believe that to be the situation.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY STATEMENT ON PASSAGE OF UNITED STATES NAVAL SHIPS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of what I believe would be a very undesirable display of naval power by the United States in the St. Lawrence seaway if projected plans are completed. My question is this. Has the minister anything to report on his representations to the United States that the passage of United States naval vessels through the St. Lawrence seaway should be reduced to two a day? Would he care to comment on the story in this morning's press that the United States navy has announced that it will go ahead with plans as previously scheduled?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This morning I
asked the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority to give me a report on this matter, and it is as follows.
Before the opening of navigation and in connection with arrangements for the royal visit our officials gained knowledge of the intended passage of United States naval vessels. At that time the size of the flotilla was not known and our immediate interest and concern, in discussion with the royal tour organization, was that the vessels would be so spaced as not to cause congestion at

the time of the official opening. It was our understanding that in so far as protocol was concerned, arrangements had been made between the United States state department and our Department of External Affairs. No one at that time could have foreseen the accumulation of shipping arising from the delayed opening of navigation due to ice conditions. Also, the influx of large ocean vessels was much greater than anticipated. Up to June 7, 248 ocean vessels passed through the Welland canal upbound as compared with 122 small ocean vessels up to the same date in 1958.
With the co-operation of the United States seaway corporation a meeting was held with United States naval officials at Ottawa on May 26 at which I outlined the situation at the Welland canal and requested that they report the same to their superior officers, with a view to considering preferably a reduction in the total number of vessels or, alternatively, the spacing of their movement over a longer period. At that time they replied that their plans had been practically completed and ships assigned, and that they could do no more than report the situation to their superior officers.
That is the end of the report of the president of the St. Lawrence seaway to me. When I was advised of the result of this meeting I discussed the situation with the United States ambassador on Friday, May 29, urging a reduction in the size of the flotilla and spacing of the ships at not more than two a day in order to minimize congestion. To this moment I have heard of no adjustment in the plans of the United States navy, though I was speaking to the United States ambassador about this matter as recently as one hour ago.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is the minister prepared to discuss this matter with the government at Washington in an endeavour to avoid further unnecessary congestion of the St. Lawrence seaway when, in the words of the Minister of Transport, it is already congested far beyond anything that had been anticipated?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, it would be unfortunate indeed if the impression should go abroad either in Canada or in the United States that this matter is not being dealt with in a very friendly and considerate way by both governments. I might add one or two facts to the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Transport.
Under an agreement known as the Rush-Bagot agreement which dates back to 1817 66968-9-287
Inquiries of the Ministry it is necessary when one of the two countries wishes to bring a naval vessel into the great lakes to obtain the consent of the other country. There was an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States early this year with regard to the proposal of the United States navy to bring 28 naval vessels into the seaway. Canada agreed that this course could be followed. At that time, of course, no one realized the difficulties that would arise in getting the vessels through the Welland canal. I do not think either nation expected that there would be this tie-up and, of course, it affects the United States as well as Canada, so that everything has been done in good faith in connection with this proposal.
My department has made representations through the Canadian embassy in Washington, and I am very hopeful that some satisfactory method of solving the problem can be reached at a very early date.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add just one word, arising out of the preamble to the question asked by the hon. member for Assiniboia. Whatever may be the difficulties which might follow from the numbers of the United States flotilla-that has been discussed by my colleagues-I would not want the idea to go forth that the hon. gentleman represented the views of the members of this house and of the people of Canada when he said "in view of the undesirable display of United States naval strength in the great lakes". That was a preamble unnecessary for the discussion of the objective nature of the question, and I want to make it perfectly clear that it does not represent, as I understand it and know it, the views of the Canadian people.


Lionel Chevrier: Since this matter has been so informally discussed perhaps I could say just one word to express to the Secretary of State for External Affairs the approval of those who sit on this side of the house of his attempt to point out to the United States the difficulties that would exist under the circumstances. There is no doubt in our mind that when the agreement was made the circumstances were not at all the same as they are now. No one had any idea that the conditions would be such as they are, and in view of the fact that there is an undertaking in the Rush-Bagot agreement, I think all the minister can do is to make the necessary representations to the United States. I am sure that if they are done in the proper way, as the minister will unquestionably bring them forward, the United States will understand that there should be, if not a stoppage of the movement,

Inquiries of the Ministry at least a substantial staggering which will not add to the confusion which already exists.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since other comments have been made on this, I should like to ask the indulgence of the house to make a further comment myself.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member was responsible for the course taken by giving an apparent expression of opinion when he asked his question. If the house does not object to his speaking again, I have no objection.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, following the comments of the Prime Minister the hon. member for Laurier made comments. I feel that I-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I think leave of the house should be obtained to extend this discussion, and it is apparent that the house does not wish to give that leave; therefore I think the hon. member will have to conform to the procedure and ask a question if he has one to ask. Otherwise he should terminate his remarks. Just to make sure, might I ask the hon. member for Assiniboia whether he had a personal explanation to make because he felt that anything he had said had been misinterpreted to his discredit? If that were so I would give him the floor; otherwise what I said would apply.


Hazen Robert Argue: The Prime Minister made some extended comments on what he called the preamble to my statement. Following the comments of the Prime Minister the hon. member for Laurier himself made some comments. I was merely asking that the house extend to me the same privilege and the same courtesy which was extended to the hon. member for Laurier. If the house does not wish to do so I have no complaint.


Mr. Speaker:: I wanted to know whether the hon. member felt that anything that had been said in the course of what turned out to be a debate was a reflection on him?


Hazen Robert Argue: I will deal with that later.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister received from a miners' local union


in Nova Scotia a telegram urgently requesting that the waiting period regarding unemployment insurance be waived? If so, has he any comment to make on this most important matter?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive such a request. This was brought to the attention of the commission and Mr. Marsh was notified of the position of this request as it relates to the Unemployment Insurance Act. I have not the reply with me, but I wish to assure the hon. member that a reply has been sent and the matter was set out very clearly in that reply.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Egan Chambers (Si. Lawrence-Si. George):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister clarify the suggested expenditure of $100 million to be made on Montreal harbour, as reported in the Montreal Star of June 9?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank the hon. member for his courtesy in advising me of his intention to ask this question. The total to be expended on Montreal harbour beyond the $57 million now approved will be determined after a study has been made of the findings and recommendations of the Montreal harbour planning committee. This committee has now started to work under specific terms of reference related to the future needs of the port of Montreal.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: May I direct a question to the leader of the house. Can the minister tell us when he intends to proceed with the unemployment insurance bill No. C-43?


Howard Charles Green: No, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry, but I cannot give the hon. member that information at the moment-perhaps next week.


Alexis Pierre Caron: A supplementary question. Did I hear the minister correctly when I thought he said "perhaps next week"?


Howard Charles Green: Yes.



TRADE AND COMMERCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Boivin) asked a question about the trade and commerce stand at the international trade fair in Montreal. His question reads in part as follows:
On Saturday, June 6, La Presse published a picture showing that literature handed out at the trade and commerce department stand, at the international trade fair being held in the show mart in Montreal, is exclusively in English.
I do not understand how a picture can show what is being done exclusively, but the answer is that with very few exceptions the literature being distributed is available in both French and English. There was some delay in receiving the printed French language signs for the department's stands, but that was remedied and appropriate French language signs were put in place early last Sunday evening.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance now the question I asked him yesterday, and which he did not answer, on third reading of the bill having to do with the tax-sharing agreements. Has the minister been advised that the premier of Quebec proposes to attend the conference of officials in Ottawa in July, and can he say definitely now whether, after that conference of officials, the government will call a conference of governments before the end of this calendar year?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. gentleman is somewhat confused. I have had no communication from Premier Duples-sis indicating that he proposes to attend the conference. I did read in the newspaper the day before yesterday that the premier had stated that he and the minister of finance of the province of Quebec, Mr. Bourque, would attend the conference of ministers.
The hon. gentleman asked me whether the premier was going to attend the conference of officials. Of course the answer is certainly no. The intimation in the press statement was that he was going to attend the conference of ministers. I must ask the hon.
66968-9-287J
Inquiries of the Ministry gentleman to put his facts straight and distinguish between the conference of ministers, which happens in the first of the week, and the conference of officials which will follow the meeting of the ministers.
So far as the second part of this question is concerned, I was asked a similar question at the committee stage of the bill in question, and I gave an answer at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: No, you did not.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The hon. gentleman evidently was not present at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I was.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Then I am all the
more surprised-


Paul Joseph James Martin: You did not
answer.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -that he did not
ask his question at the proper time. The question was asked and was dealt with at that time.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I sugegst to the Minister of Finance that this is a question which ought to be answered. Is the government going to call a conference of the two senior levels of government, the federal and provincial governments, in the matter of fiscal relations before the end of this calendar year, pursuant to the promise made by the Prime Minister? That is a simple question which even the Minister of Finance ought to be able to understand.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has, of course, as he has been doing quite frequently of late in a good many places, smuggled in one of his propaganda speeches without any foundation under the guise of asking a question in the house. This is not an unfamiliar tactic on his part. He is trying to put words into the mouth of the Prime Minister-


Paul Joseph James Martin: I could not do that.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -without justification. We have been all over this question. The subject of dominion-provincial relations has had nine days debate in the house now from the time the hon. member introduced it first on February 9, and I suppose as long as the session lasts he will go on talking about this subject, asking the same questions and making the same erroneous and misleading statements.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, in view of my failure to elicit any information in the public interest from the Minister of Finance, may I ask the Prime Minister if it is his intention as head of the government

Inquiries of the Ministry to see that before the end of this calendar year a conference is held between the heads of the provincial governments and the head of the government of Canada, together with the finance and treasury ministers? Does the Prime Minister not think that this information ought to be given-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked one complete question, and although it seems to me to be based on a broad policy issue with respect to which he can hardly expect an answer on orders of the day I am not going to reject it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, with great respect 1 must say to you that this is a perfectly proper question. We have been denied any information on this subject from the government, and I am entitled as a member of the house to ask what the government's intentions are in this particular. I do not think it is open to anyone in the house to suggest that we in this small group have not the right to put questions to the Prime Minister of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Prime Minister the opportunity to answer, but may I say that the right is a right to ask questions and not to insist upon answers.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the point.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a distinction between questions as to the intention of the government and as to policy, and it seems to me that this question involves policy.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. gentleman knows, of course, that the question is not proper on the orders of the day.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Why isn't it?


John George Diefenbaker: Questions on the orders of the day deal with matters of immediate importance and urgency. In so far as the general answer is concerned, it has been given over and over again. All my hon. friend is trying to do with all these observations is to create a smokescreen that the opposition is being denied information.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are.


John George Diefenbaker: They have been given the fullest possible information, irrespective of what he says.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the Prime Minister again, and I have a right to ask this question. We have been asking this question since the beginning of this session, and the government should answer now. Is it the intention to call this conference before the end of the calendar year or is it not?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has asked that question already and has received an answer both from the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. There is no point in his repeating the question. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept that question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member on a point of order.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have asked the Prime Minister a perfectly proper guestion. He has the right to say that he does not intend to give an answer, but unless he takes that position we are certainly entitled to receive from the head of the government of this country an indication on a matter of this great importance. I do not think, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have heard the hon. member's point of order that he is entitled to an answer of a specific kind, and I cannot accept that as a proper point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. What is the position of a premier of a province who attends a meeting of ministers? Does this mean that other premiers of provinces as well can come along to this meeting?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think it would not be proper at all on my part to comment on that question. I have had no communication from the premier in question as to his intention. I pointed out when this matter was under discussion-and it is obvious we are entering into a prolongation of the debate that was concluded several days ago-that there are three provincial premiers in this country who are themselves provincial treasurers. It is expected that those three provincial premiers will be attending the conference in their capacity as provincial treasurers.


Lionel Chevrier: May I follow that up? That may be true to some extent but the premier of the province of Quebec is not provincial treasurer, as the minister knows, and the point that interests me is that an announcement has been made and reported in the press that the premier does intend to come. That is what prompted my question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The government does not want to tell us anything.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government sits here-


Paul Joseph James Martin: And tells us nothing.


Donald Methuen Fleming: -and watches the transparent showmanship of the hon. member for Essex East and thinks it is completely synthetic.


Lionel Chevrier: You are losing your temper again.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Would the minister care to comment on a Canadian Press dispatch respecting the gift of Duck island to the people of Canada by the late Mr. Dulles, and the suggestion that the island be made a game sanctuary and perhaps renamed in honour of the donor?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I have
heard of this matter, but I will have to take the question as notice and see what is going on.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should
like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Would the minister care to comment on a Canadian Press report based on information attributed to officials of his department, in which it is stated that there are 70 million pounds of frozen pork in the possession of the government, and that in addition the government will have about 25 million pounds of canned pork on its hands by the end of June? Has the government any plans to dispose of these huge quantities of surplus pork?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, to begin with I do not know where the newspaperman who wrote the article got his information, but his figures are not entirely accurate.
With respect to the allegation in the article that there is no storage space left to store pork and other products, I should like to point out that on May 1 public cold storage occupancy was approximately 83 per cent of capacity compared with 84 per cent in November of
Inquiries of the Ministry 1958. In other words, there was very little difference; in fact there was a little less than last November. The figure was higher than on May 1, 1958 when it was about 65 per cent. Cooler space occupancy was about the same on May 1 in both years.
As far as the disposal of pork is concerned, we have been selling some of the pork both in the local market and in the United States. We also have several deals pending for the sale of some of this pork abroad. In addition, during the months of July and August, as many hon. members are aware, the runs of hogs are very much reduced and we expect to move a considerable amount of this pork into consumption during the summer period.


Hazen Robert Argue: When the minister says he intends to move this surplus pork into consumption, does he intend to move it into consumption in the Canadian market, and is this not likely to bring about a further depression of pork prices? I should also like him to comment on the further statement attributed to these officials that the 25 million pounds of canned pork will likely be given away.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I do not think there is any statement like the last one referred to by the hon. member in the press article which I read. In any event, officials of the department have no authority whatever to make any statement with respect to whether pork will or will not be given away, and I am sure that no such statements were ever made. The pork we hold in storage at the present time will be moved into the Canadian market during the summer months when, in nearly every year, the runs of hogs are not sufficient to meet the current demand.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask a further question. Will this pork be placed on the Canadian market only if the price remains above the floor or at the floor?


Douglas Scott Harkness: Mr. Speaker, we are selling this pork, and we have sold a certain amount already, at no cost to the stabilization board. In other words we are selling it at the price we paid for it plus the storage charges. We are going to continue to sell all the pork we can on that basis.
The hon. member stated that this procedure would cause a further depression in pork prices. There cannot be any further depression because the price is at the floor and has been at the floor for some considerable time. Naturally, any action we take to dispose of this pork is not going to put the price below the floor because we guarantee that.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) :



POSTAL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Postmaster General a question? La Patrie of June 7 reported that, in Germany, transmission of mail by rockets had been tried out. In view of the fact that a similar test has been successful in the United States, as reported in yesterday's La Presse, is the Postmaster General in a position to comment on those reports which are of special interest to his department?


Hon. W. M. Hamilton (Posimasier General):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The two experiments in the transmission of mail by rockets show that, for the past 20 years, postal services throughout the world have tried everything to improve mail transportation.
(Text):
However, I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that here in Canada, while we have not been sending mail by rocket, we are among the very few countries in the world which send all first class mail up to eight ounces in weight by air where it may thus be advanced in delivery. The result is that a letter posted in Vancouver one day will be delivered in most parts of eastern Canada the following day, and vice versa if it is going in the other direction. At the moment I believe that is quite satisfactory, though I do believe that for those who travel by submarine the new development in the United States will be quite helpful.
(Translation):


Azellus Denis: As a supplementary question, if the American Bomarc, which has been purchased by the Department of National Defence should prove inefficient for defence might the Postmaster General consider making use of that missile for mail transportation?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: The great solicitude of the hon. member for St. Denis for details of the administration of the post office department sometimes leads him into error so far as the rules are concerned.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister of northern affairs whether an agreement has recently been entered into with the government of Manitoba for federal assistance to a large highway project direct to the north?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The discussions with Manitoba were completed some time ago and an agreement has been drawn up. Manitoba has signed the agreement, and it is a question of getting approval here finally completed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The agreement has not been concluded, as I understand it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, all the facts of the agreement have been completed for some time, and it is a question of going through the formalities of the signing.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
392. Departmental administration, $2,587,500.
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, at the outset of this discussion on the main estimates of my department and the subagencies reporting to me I will, with your permission, spend a few minutes in summarizing, for the benefit of this committee, the more noteworthy items contained in our programs for 1959-1960.
The grand total of the several dozen appropriations, including statutory items, is $262,587,000, and that represents a slight increase of $1.1 million over the amount approved for the fiscal year 1958-59. From this it will be evident we will be maintaining the substantially accelerated tempo of last year's capital program, when we provided an additional $41 million. Maintenance of the proposed level of expenditure will enable us to perform many activities in such a way as to materially assist the country's economy and, at the same time, cope with the increasing demands from industry and the public generally in the field of transportation.
For the convenience of the members I intend to deal with the three main divisions of my department in the order of their appearance in the blue book. Before doing so, however, I wish to mention one general matter which is of special interest to all of us, namely the matter of our personnel establishment. Examination of the printed details in the estimates will show that the department is contemplating a total of 14,700 positions, either full-time or part-time, for this year. Although this represents a drop of 400 from last year, it does allow for transfer of 1,040 positions to the St. Lawrence seaway authority due to transfer of the main line canals. Thus it will be seen that in fact we are providing 640 additional positions in other sections of the department.

The main additions included in this figure are 114 for manning of new vessels; 240 in telecommunications because of the transfer to the department of the Northwest Territories and Yukon radio system and installation of new radio aids for aviation and marine at numerous additional sites; 167 to cope with the additional work load associated with general control of civil aviation, particularly air traffic control.
Budget planning for our canals section in the coming year will, of course, bear little resemblance to that of previous years. The combined requirements for operation and construction will total $3| million in comparison to last year's $11.5 million. The only sizeable projects pertain to the Canso canal, where some $0.5 million will be spent on a mooring wall and fenders. Apart from the general votes a special appropriation of $3 million is included this year to cover the estimated operating deficit on non-toll canals transferred to the seaway authority, that is to say the Lachine, the Sault Ste. Marie canals and the remaining portion of the Cornwall canal, as well as capital expenditures on these canals and the second Welland canal.
One of our departmental responsibilities which continues to expand is that of marine steamer operation. Especially is this so in our work of co-ordinating the movement of cargo required for normal government resupply and for Canadian and United States military installations in the far north. During 1958 that tonnage totalled 78,000 tons, or double the 1957 volume. All planning associated with operations and building in the Arctic must be hedged with some uncertainty because of the extraordinary factors to be considered. For this reason it is difficult to anticipate transportation needs. However, we do believe there will be no lessening of the volume transported by water last year.
I am indeed happy to refer to the takeover in 1959 by my department of the last segment of the sea supply for the D.E.W. line. In 1958 the government, through the agency of Northern Transportation Company, took on the resupply of those stations in the central region, and my department became co-ordinator for the Foxe basin area. The United States government agencies with which we worked expressed unqualified approval of the capability displayed by Canadian resources and equipment, both governmental and commercial. As a result we have reached agreement that the department will extend its responsibility to the last segment, that is those radar stations on the east coast of Baffin island. Before leaving this item I do wish to
Sup p ly-Transport
pay tribute to the splended co-operation we have received from the various United States government agencies involved.
On the capital side, our marine steamers' fiscal requirements will fall off somewhat, not because of a decrease in physical volume but rather because several of the large items will be in either the planning stage or the completion stage. Before the 1959-60 fiscal year expires we expect work should be virtually completed on several new or replacement units, such as three supply and buoy vessels, which will operate from ports in the Atlantic provinces; a diesel electric icebreaker for service on the eastern seaboard and in the eastern Arctic; an icebreaker-supply ship type for the west coast and Arctic; a number of service vessels which will enable us to release obsolete units operated for many years on the St. Lawrence river; and autoferry vessels which will service Bell island, Newfoundland, and Pelee island, Ontario.
During the past year departmental officials, in collaboration with Canadian National Railways, have made a thorough study of ways and means of improving the Newfoundland coastal steamship services, which have been hampered by the shortage and inadequacy of vessels employed, the insufficiency of berthing space, storage areas, etc. In view of the findings thus made the government has decided to construct additional passenger-cargo vessels. The estimates now before this committee include the sum of $2,300,000 toward the cost of two of these vessels, and I expect a third to be added in next year's estimates. In addition, the Department of Public Works will commence the construction of freight sheds and wharf improvements at Corner Brook and Lewisporte, and vote 416 contains approximately $800,000 for this purpose.
Continuation of the program, under way for the past few years for modernization of our marine agency depots will be pushed along this year. The expenditures related thereto will form the largest single type of commitment in vote 402, which will differ very slightly in size. We are planning on a reduced financial outlay for the St. Lawrence ship channel service. Capital commitments pertaining to general improvement of the channels in the St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers will be unchanged, but our maintenance dredging proceeded at an extraordinary rate in 1958 and a reduction is therefore expected. This, however, will be temporary only, since this work has been held back during construction of the seaway, and needs to be expanded again if the channel from Montreal is to be improved as required.

Supply-Transport
At this point I come to the air services of the department, for which we are budgeting more than 60 per cent of our proposed departmental fiscal outlay. Administration and operation of the telecommunications branch which, among other responsibilities, maintains the hundreds of air and marine navigational aids throughout Canada, will require a sum very close to the $17 million mark. In dealing with the staffing problem I have already alluded to certain heavy assignments we must add to this work load.
There is one other major item. I refer to the proposed purchase of four Decca navigator chains to assist marine navigation on the eastern seaboard. Evaluation studies carried out during the past two years have demonstrated the value of this navigation system, especially in periods of poor visibility.
Our responsibilities in the circle of international communications will require our technical officers to devote a good deal of their time and effort to work associated with a number of important meetings. During 1959 the international telecommunications union, an agency of the United Nations, will have a conference in Geneva to revise the convention of 1952. In addition there will be a radio conference in Geneva to revise the international radio regulations which cover many vitally important matters, such as frequency allocations.
In the area of radio aids construction and acquisition of equipment, we are contemplating the expenditure of $14 million. Five years ago the department inaugurated a program for combining marine and aeronautical stations in order to avoid duplication of manpower and equipment. One of the new stations will be at the new Prince Rupert, B.C. airport on Digby island. The other station to be replaced is the historic station on Signal hill, St. John's, Newfoundland, at which point Marconi received his first transAtlantic radio message.
Another noteworthy part of the year's program is the emphasis we will be giving to the development of radio and electronic systems to assist air traffic control communications by extending the distance over which a controller in an air traffic centre may talk directly to a pilot.
So much for the telecommunications branch. I shall now deal briefly with the meteorological branch. Too often we find that the public mistakenly think of the meteorological service in terms of public weather forecasting only. That, of course, is one of the important functions, but it is only one of many. Special weather forecasting is performed for shipping in the Atlantic and Pacific coastal waters, great

lakes, St. Lawrence river, etc. Air navigation, both civil and military, in all sections of the country, as well as over the Atlantic, Pacific and polar regions, depends heavily on the advice of the weather expert. The agricultural, forestry and transportation industries rely extensively on the findings of research endeavours performed on their behalf.
One of the very interesting activities to which special attention will be given this year is related to preparation of forecast charts at various levels of the atmosphere. The objective there will be the development of methods of preparing these charts by numerical means using highspeed electronic computers. The appropriation for operation of the branch will also this year contain an item of $370,000 to cover aerial ice survey. In previous years the Royal Canadian Air Force performed a considerable amount of the Arctic flying for this purpose, but the over-all requirement has grown to the point where it is deemed advisable to turn over the work to commercial operators. The reconnaissance will range from the lower St. Lawrence and gulf area as far north as the Arctic archipelago.
Finally I shall touch on the civil aviation requirements. Our national investment in facilities and equipment provided for the use of those who travel by air is indeed most substantial. The adoption of faster aircraft, the steady upward climb in traffic, the development of the more remote areas of our country, and the constant demands from the public generally, commercial interests and public officials, for more and better airways, airports, etc., all make inevitable some increase in expenditures for maintenance and operation. We are therefore expecting that the numerous items of costs for these purposes will be approximately 17 per cent higher than those of last year. Some $365,000 additional will be needed to defray maintenance costs for new or enlarged air terminals. Several millions of the increase arise from new or broadened tasks allocated to the department at a considerable number of isolated or semi-isolated locations such as Fort Nelson, Whitehorse, Goose Bay and Frobisher, where costs of materials, transportation, salaries, messing, repairs and upkeep and the like are so much higher.
It has been decided that the Department of Transport will take over operation and maintenance of the United States air force airstrip at the Cambridge bay station in 1959. I might add that we are continuing to give consideration to the possibility of a similar

take-over at other sites in subsequent years such as Cape Dyer, Hall lake, Cape Parry, Tuktoyaktuk.
The function we perform with regard to air traffic control along our airways, and especially in the vicinity of airports, is another case in point. Last year I reported an increase of 25 per cent here. For 1959-60 we have succeeded in levelling off to an appreciable degree; none the less some $350,000 extra must be provided. On this segment of our supervisory responsibility the advent of the jet age has a particularly telling effect, for it means the testing, purchase and operation of a dozen and one types of expensive electronic devices. Here in Canada we are as yet still on the threshold, and we will not begin to feel the real impact until 1960 when our first commercial jet transports enter the picture.
In establishing the level of our 1958-59 construction program to meet civil aviation requirements it was necessary for parliament to apportion to the related vote a sum of money which represented an increase of 80 per cent. On February 5 of this year when the Minister of Finance tabled the main estimates, he explained that this program would remain at the same high level. Nevertheless we are providing some $600,000 more for administration of this service. Those two statements-the same level of activity but sharply increased administrative costs-do appear rather contradictory. The explanation lies in a decision of treasury board that partial costs of air traffic control and related services previously recovered from national defence should in future be absorbed by the transport appropriation.
In the time at my disposal I could not hope to single out what might be considered the large expenditures. This vote totals $63 million and of the hundreds of items-and I use the term "hundreds" intentionally, because the list runs to more than 50 pages -many certainly come under the category of "large". I will therefore confine my remarks to some general observations about our program.
Present expectations are that within the next year we should be able to complete, or almost complete, major terminal construction at such places as Halifax, Montreal, Gander and Ottawa. In addition, very substantial progress will be made on new terminals at a number of other points, Regina, Winnipeg and Toronto, to mention a few. Upwards of $15 million is earmarked for miscellaneous work; for example, new airports at Three Rivers and Sherbrooke; new runways; improvements to existing runways; taxiways; buildings for ancillary services, etc. at dozens of airports from coast to coast.
Supply-Transport
Mr. Chairman, in concluding my remarks I should like to say I fully appreciate the somewhat sketchy nature of my statement. I would hope, however, that hon members will likewise appreciate that the very diversity of my department's responsibilities and operations makes it difficult to report in more detail. I trust, too, that my statement will be of assistance to them in their consideration of our estimates.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will, on the whole, be appreciative of the comprehensive report which the minister has given on the activities of the various branches of his department. After all, the Department of Transport is one of the most important, if not the most important in the government service, and it would have been unfortunate if the minister had not seen fit, as he has done on at least two occasions in the past, to bring forward a detailed statement concerning some of the things which have happened during the course of the year and some of the projects which he has in mind for the future.
However, I may tell the minister without any hesitation that I am keenly disappointed in the fact that there are two matters at least which were not dealt with in his statement. I had some occasion to refer to the first of these matters the other evening. It seems to me that there should be made today an over-all statement by the minister in connection with the operation of the St. Lawrence seaway, and I am sorry that the hon. gentleman has not yet seen fit to make such a statement.
As the committee knows, there have been some obstacles and difficulties; there has been a great deal of misunderstanding, and unfortunate publicity has been given to the seaway, first, at the end of last season when all those ships were cluttered up in the ice in the Lachine canal and in Montreal harbour; next, at the opening of navigation, when because of difficulties arising from ice conditions navigation had to be postponed, and finally because perhaps-and I hope this is a fact-an inordinate number of new ships entered the canal. All this goes to show that the success of the operation is, as 1 believe, assured, but I hope the minister will take the committee into his confidence and tell us the whole story about the present position from the entrance to the seaway at Montreal right up to the head of the lakes.
There are two serious bottlenecks. There is the one at Welland which was mentioned here the other evening. I know I need not tell the minister this, but when I was near Lancaster for a public ceremony less than a week ago there were no fewer than 25

Supply-Transport
ships waiting at anchor to enter the Eisenhower lock. I should not have said "Lancaster"; it was in the vicinity of Glen-walter in the county of Glengarry. These ships were tied up because of conditions that existed further down the river.
Now, the point which occurred to me is this. Are the facilities, as they were anticipated, sufficient to meet the position as we find it today? I have some personal ideas on that. The minister knows what they are but I have not the facts at my disposal and the hon. gentleman has, and I think he should tell the committee and the country what the over-all position is. I am sure he would agree that it takes at least one navigation season, if not more than one, to ascertain whether the facilities are adequate to meet the traffic, and I invite him now, as I did the other evening, to make such a statement at the first opportunity.
There is another matter which is of interest to us on this side of the house and I am sorry, once again, to note that the minister saw fit to make no reference to it. I refer, of course, to the Drew case which was disposed of by a judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson. In the question and answer period the minister on one occasion, if not on more than one occasion, used words to this effect; that the hon. member for Laurier had had eight years experience, it is actually nine, and would surely not want the Minister of Transport to comment on a matter of this nature. But I can tell the minister this, in all humility; that it would seem to me that in the circumstances surrounding this case I would have felt impelled to add to the statement which he made today and clear up some of the contradictions which appeared on the face of this matter.
I do not intend to go any further now than to ask the minister to rise in his place at this time and make a statement on this subject, because there are a number of inconsistencies, a number of contradictions and a number of questions arising out of the judgment of the president of the exchequer court. If the circumstances are as the minister would have us believe they are, as indicated in the question and answer period on the orders of the day, then let him tell us. I know the minister well enough to be aware that he is a frank person. He is the last one who would want to hide anything from the committee. There are some contradictions and inconsistencies here, and I think the committee is entitled to know how they came about.
Now then, what are some of them? There is the appointment of an appraiser by the minister. The minister, I believe in answer to me, said that he appointed an appraiser. Was he an independent appraiser? The court

found that he was not. The court found that the appraiser was under the direction of some other person, and that he could not therefore be independent. The minister knew, of course, that the appraiser was one of the political organizers of the hon. member in question, and if the minister told us frankly what were the circumstances surrounding that particular aspect of the transaction I believe the committee would feel better-


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Léon Balcer: Is he laying a charge against
the hon. member in question at the present time?


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, well, Mr. Chairman,
this matter can be discussed on the estimates of the Minister of Transport in this committee. It is quite clear that there is more than one way of disposing of a matter of this kind. It can be brought up and discussed under several headings. Surely I am not going to be interrupted in asking the Minister of Transport certain questions on a matter of this importance. If I am, then I want to know, and if I am not then I intend to proceed.
I have said that an appointment was made by the minister, and I believe we should be given the facts concerning the appointment. There is another very obvious contradiction in what the minister replied to me concerning an alleged agreement that the valuator's report would be accepted by all parties. Will the minister tell the committee whether or not that is so? Will the minister tell the committee whether or not he made a submission to treasury board concerning these valuations? Will he tell the committee whether, if he did not make a submission to treasury board, he did invite one of the officers of his department, the assistant deputy minister, to discuss with treasury board the valuations that were placed on these properties?
I remember that quite some time ago there was difficulty in the Malton expropriations *-I think as far back as the time I was there-because of the zoning regulations and it was not an easy matter to dispose of the expropriation of these properties. It might well be that because of the fact that there was delay in the expropriation of these properties, it was felt that haste should be the password and that matters should be proceeded with much more expeditiously than they had been in the past, but that does not derogate from the fact that if that is the case then everything that was done should have been done in accordance with the best traditions of the Department of Transport.

I have some knowledge and a great deal of admiration for the officers of the Department of Transport, as the minister knows. I do not think that there are any more zealous employees in the public weal anxious to see that where funds are expended they are properly expended and that where funds are spent for a particular purpose they go in payment of what is a just, reasonable, equitable and fair valuation having regard to the circumstances. Well, now, was this the case here?
Before I proceed with the rest of my remarks-I have interrupted them to some extent in order to deal with this matter which in my humble opinion is of importance-I ask the minister now whether in all fairness to himself, his officers, the committee and the country he should not rise in his place and tell us the circumstances surrounding this matter, and I invite him so to do.


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


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, before the minister replies to the hon. member for Laurier I should like to have the opportunity to present a few remarks on item 1. Although other hon. members of this group will be making some comment as time goes on, I do not intend to deal with the matter raised by the hon. member for Laurier.


George Harris Hees: If I may interrupt the hon. member for Assiniboia, Mr. Chairman, may I say I should be very happy to listen to the hon. member but I thought the hon. member for Laurier was interrupting his remarks to ask me if I would reply to questions as we go along, and I am very happy to do so. It is perfectly satisfactory to me to do it in any way at all, and I should be very glad to reply to the hon. member for Laurier right now.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the position of the minister. I know he is desirous of replying to the hon. member for Laurier. The procedure in discussing the first item has been that a spokesman comes forward from each party. In addition to that I have another engagement immediately after 2.30 in a standing committee of this house. I know what is in the minister's mind; he wants to show that he is prepared to deal with this question now. I realize that, but I should like to have the opportunity of making some remarks at this time.
I was about to say I did not wish to deal specifically with the matter raised by the hon. member for Laurier. The questions he raised are pertinent and I hope the minister will give a comprehensive and full explanation of the circumstances surrounding this case.
Supply-Transport
This morning on orders of the day I once again raised the question of United States naval vessels, 27 in number, entering the St. Lawrence seaway toward the end of June. In the introductory preamble to my question I said I considered this an undesirable display of United States naval power. Although two members of the government replied to the question, the Prime Minister seized the opportunity of grabbing these words and making his own comments. After the Prime Minister sat down the hon. member for Laurier very appropriately said that since more comprehensive remarks had been made on this question he would like to make some comments of his own. When the hon. member for Laurier sat down I claimed the floor. The Speaker decided to ask the house whether I would have unanimous consent in order to make some comments and hon. members on the government side refused that consent when the question was put.
I regret that action on their part. I believe it was most unfair and discourteous. I doubt if there is anything very much for them to gain by acting in that way. I repeat, however, what I said before, namely that it would be a great error to have this United States naval flotilla coming into the seaway toward the end of June, although arrangements had been made previously by agreement with the Canadian government, and although it is understandable that many people in the United States and some people in Canada would like to see this tremendous display when the President of the United States and the Queen are here. Under the economic circumstances surrounding the St. Lawrence seaway at this time it would be a great error for 27 ships to present themselves at the seaway and delay the commercial use of the seaway for a number of days and, as has been said by people who understand the operations of the seaway, probably cause the type of congestion and tie-up which would take some weeks to unravel.
In his comments on the orders of the day the Prime Minister referred to the United States as a friendly nation. Well, of course, that is correct. The United States is a friendly nation, and we have friendly agreements with the United States. We have friendly discussions with them and I would suggest that, as two friendly nations discussing this question, the United States should give sympathetic consideration to the request now made by the Canadian government that the size of the flotilla should be reduced at any rate when it goes through the seaway.
The United States authorities, probably standing on rather firm legal grounds or technical grounds in the sense that a prior

Supply-Transport
agreement had been arrived at between Canada and the United States, takes the position that these 27 ships should proceed. But notwithstanding that prior agreement, notwithstanding that the Canadian government made a very serious error in judgment as far as the condition of the St. Lawrence seaway is concerned at the present time, as the minister said earlier today, I think there should be a reduction in the number of ships passing through. Undoubtedly if the Canadian government had known about the congestion that was to take place in the seaway this agreement never would have been entered into.
Canadian shippers of iron ore, Canadian shippers of grain, Canadians generally whose livelihood depends on the efficient use of the seaway will resent very greatly any interference with its operation which results in economic disadvantage to themselves and economic dislocation to the country through a display that is not necessary. Although the hon. member for Laurier may amend his remarks of the other evening, I think he was correct when he said the flotilla should stop at Montreal and should not proceed through the seaway.
There have been great disappointments in the operation of the seaway. People who depend on the seaway for the shipment of iron ore and other Canadian products are coming to the conclusion that unless suitable action is taken the St. Lawrence seaway will net result in a saving in costs as had been anticipated. I hold in my hand a great many statements, statements for example by men like T. R. McLagan, president of Canada Steamships, saying that our Canadian products should have priority in going through the seaway, and that unless steps were taken to provide such priority increased costs would result.
There has been a very serious bottleneck at the Welland canal, and consideration has been given to providing twin locks and taking other measures to provide a more efficient seaway. The seaway has been built at great cost to this country. The seaway authority can now spend some $335 million, as authorized by parliament and although this is a much larger sum of money than it was originally expected it would be necessary to spend there is no assurance whatever, as far as I can see, that this amount will do the job and result in the completion of the seaway.
There have been many reports of congestion; there have been many reports of difficulty in navigating the locks; there have been many reports of inefficiency, of serious errors having been made in the construction of the seaway. A few weeks ago it was my privilege to be taken by a longtime friend of mine, who

is himself an engineer and worked on the seaway for a considerable length of time, to view the various locks and facilities around Montreal. On examination although, of course, I do not claim to have any particular knowledge of the seaway-


Mr. Henderson:: Since I came to parliament this is the first thing I have heard the hon. member say he did not know.


Hazen Robert Argue: I appreciate that compliment from my hon. friend.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, at one o'clock I had been saying that I had the opportunity a few weeks ago to visit the St. Lawrence seaway in the vicinity of Montreal and to inspect the various locks in that area. I also said that I was in the company of an engineer who had been an inspector on the seaway itself. One needs only to glance over the sides of the St. Lambert locks, the Cote St. Catherine locks and the Beauharnois locks to see the huge bulges in the walls. These bulges appear to extend out about eight inches, and this is an almost unbelievable error in engineering and construction. This situation does not apply merely to one of the locks but is a consistent fault in almost all of the locks to which I have referred.
There has been a great deal of reference to boats striking the sides of the locks. If the eight inch bulges were not there boats could and undoubtedly would still scrape the sides but I am certain that because of these eight inch bulges on either side the likelihood of boats striking the walls as they go through the locks is increased. There are steel guards along the locks in sections about three feet long which are supposed to be bolted together. There is provision for a bolt to bind one guard to another. In a great many instances the bolts are not there at all and instead of the guards coming closely together they are a quarter of an inch or perhaps as much as half an inch apart. It was pointed out to me that as cables are used to draw vessels along it is quite possible from time to time for the cables to get caught in the spaces between the guards. The spaces are there at least in part because the bolts are missing that were to be used to connect the guards.
As one might expect, the gates are huge. They are called mitre gates. Again, it was pointed out to me that unlike other gates there is only one mitre on these gates. The

mitre is at the top and when the gates come together the mitre at the top assures that their closing will be synchronized and that they will come together correctly and in line. But with only one mitre at the top it has been stated that logs that have gone to the bottom could become jammed in the gates at the bottom and thus spring the gates, and the springing of the gates could cause very serious difficulty for the seaway.
I was also informed that the spare gates which are in the walls and supposed to be available for use cannot be used because the facilities to move them are not available and therefore for the time being at least the spare gates cannot be used. When the gates are shut they are to be relatively watertight. I believe that to mean that there may be some sweating and some very minor leakage of water when the gates are closed, but what it does not mean is that water will spurt through the gates. Some of the gates do not admit as much water as others but in some cases water is spurting through the gates. Water is coming up from the bottom a distance of three or four feet, I would judge from looking down, which means that the spurts of water come out under a great deal of pressure.
It was pointed out to me that as the end of navigation approaches and freezing weather sets in the leaks in the gates will bring about a substantial accumulation of ice which in turn will have to be knocked off and will make the seaway facilities more difficult to use. I was also informed that the bolts in the gates are in many instances one-sixteenth of an inch smaller than the holes in which they are placed. The difference between the size of the bolt and the hole in which it is placed allows water to leak around the bolts and this could also be a source of substantial trouble in the future.
In addition to the substantial quantities of water coming through the gates when they are closed, when the gates have been opened and the water has left the lock and the gates are being shut again one can see water coming up between the cement reinforcement blocks against which the gates are shut. Generally these substantial blocks of cement are in two sections and water can be seen coming through at the place where the two blocks fit together. Moreover, in the upper Beau-harnois lock one can see water shooting up through the cement itself in the reinforcement blocks to which I have referred. In fact, the cement appears to be quite porous in that particular lock. If these reinforcement blocks are so porous as to allow water to come up through the cement I am certain that their life will indeed be limited.
Supply-Transport
Perhaps on a project of this magnitude it is inevitable that some faulty construction will appear but I understand that the faults to which I have referred were pointed out by the inspection authorities and that steps were not taken to correct them. If this is the situation, I think it is a very serious one and I believe there should be a very full inquiry into the matter.
I am suggesting that, although the government has refused it in the past, there should be a full inquiry by a House of Commons committee into the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, into those very substantial faults that appear, and that there should be brought before that committee competent engineers who are acquainted with the seaway to testify as to why this faulty construction exists and to what extent it, in fact, endangers the life of the seaway.
The hon. member for Vancouver East placed a question on the order paper some time ago dealing with the construction of the Cornwall island high level bridge. The answer to question No. 5 is rather important. Question No. 5 reads:
Are the river piers of the Cornwall bridge down to bedrock? If not, what is the distance from the bottom of the piers to bedrock on (a) the Canadian side; (b) the American side?
The answer is found on page 935 of Hansard for February 11, 1959, and is as follows:
No, the piers were designed for and are founded on extremely dense glacial till.
Main pier, No. 12-(a) west shaft, 20.1 feet; east shaft, 19.7 feet.
Main pier. No. 11-(b) west shaft, 23.8 feet; east shaft, 23.9 feet.
This huge bridge, built at a cost of many millions of dollars, has piers which are not down to bedrock but merely placed on dense glacial till. I wonder why the extra expense was not incurred to put the piers down to bedrock? I am informed again that the cost of putting the piers down to bedrock would have been a relatively few thousand dollars compared with the many millions of dollars that were spent in the construction of this bridge. In reply to the hon. member for Vancouver East, there was further information given to show that there was a movement in one of the piers. I quote:
Cable-bent pier No. 13-top of west shaft-easterly i inch and southerly \ inch; Top of east shaft-westerly l inch and southerly 1 inch.
This shows the movement of the piers, and again I am informed that movement arises out of the fact that the piers were not put down to bedrock. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that there should be a full inquiry into the construction of the Cornwall bridge, that there should be a full inquiry by a committee of this house as to whether or not the bridge

S up p ly-Transport
is, in fact, properly constructed and whether or not it is a bridge that will last the normal length of time it would have been expected to last if it had been built down to bedrock.
I am told, once again by an engineer, that this bridge is doomed because the piers are not on bedrock but are on glacial till and cannot last the length of time that would be expected to be the normal life of that bridge. Mr. Chairman, that is a very strong statement, that statement I think coming from a man who was connected with the seaway, not the Cornwall bridge in particular but with the seaway, is one that warrants the most thorough investigation. If this bridge has been constructed in a faulty manner, this committee should inquire as to whether or not the bridge is, in fact, safe.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Hazen Robert Argue: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member tell the committee who is the engineer who gives this information?


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not know whether I should divulge the name-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just gossip.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not intend to be backed down on this.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Just gossip.


Hazen Robert Argue: It is not gossip.


An hon. Member:: Give the name, then.


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not ask this gentleman whether I could use his name on the floor of the House of Commons. I asked him whether or not, as an engineer connected with the seaway, he would be prepared to appear before a committee of the House of Commons to substantiate the things he said to me, the things I am relating this afternoon-


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the fact the hon. member is using this information and making it in part his own, does he not think that in fairness to the committee he should tell the committee who the engineer is?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think I have gone sufficiently far-


An hon. Member:: Too far.


Hazen Robert Argue: Somebody says, "Too far"; I want to make this quite clear, that the engineer in question did not ask that I withhold his name. However, since I did not have his specific consent to use his name at this time I would prefer not to use his name.


Mr. Drysdale:: You would have to do so if it went to a committee.


Hazen Robert Argue: The gentleman is prepared to go before a committee. He is prepared to substantiate the things I have said or corroborate them. Of course, the reference to how the piers are situated in the Cornwall bridge needs no substantiation. The facts are contained in the answer given.


Lionel Chevrier: There is absolutely nothing the matter with the Cornwall bridge.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? Is this gentleman to whom he is referring as an engineer a certain Mr. Grant who was employed on the seaway?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer is no.


George Harris Hees: Is he a certain Mr. Stirling?


Hazen Robert Argue: The answer to that is no. I suppose the minister can keep on fishing. I said that this was a young man with whom I had gone to university and who has been a friend of mine for many years. I do not believe that makes him any less valuable as an engineer. I have not seen him for some time.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: What kind of engineer is he?


Hazen Robert Argue: I think a very good engineer.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Is he a civil engineer or a mechanical engineer?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would say a civil engineer. I have seen myself the bolts missing from the guards; I have seen the bulges in the walls of the locks; I have seen the leaks through the gates; I have seen the water spouting up through the concrete as though the concrete were porous. I have seen plenty of evidence that would suggest to me that there should be a full inquiry and that the engineering staff that had to do with the seaway should be called before a committee, as well as other competent engineers and witnesses that any member of the committee might wish to have appear.
I believe this is a serious matter and should be dealt with soon. Accusations concerning the seaway have come, not only from this side of the house but from the hon. member for Carleton earlier in this session. At some later stage, he decided to say nothing about his original charges. On the basis of what I have seen, on the basis of information given to me by a man whom I believe to be a competent engineer-I am not myself saying that the things I have not seen are incorrect-I have stated the things I have seen myself and I am asking that a full inquiry be made.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member permit another question? Has the hon. member

seen-he has seen a lot of things-the contract which was entered into between the seaway authority and all the contractors which provides for the construction to be completed in accordance with the plans and specifications?


Hazen Robert Argue: I have not seen the contract. I have a motion on the order paper for the production of a number of contracts. However, I am certain the contract would show that the bolts connecting the guards should be there and the holes should not be empty.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: That is without seeing the contract.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister whether he is going to reply to the questions which I put to him before the luncheon recess?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I should be glad to do so. First of all, the hon. member for Laurier asked for a report on the operation of the seaway to date. I expect to be making in the not too distant future a report on the seaway authority and I feel that a little bit more time is required in order properly to assess the operation of the seaway, it being a little bit too early to make a proper assessment at the present time. With regard to the operation of the locks and so on, they are being studied very carefully and their operation compared to the operation of the United States locks or at least with the Eisenhower and Snell locks, which of course are United States locks, in order to see whether our locks are operating as well as theirs. As the hon. member knows, they have been in operation for a longer period of time than ours.
As to the Welland canal, as I have mentioned in this house already, we are examining all possible means of speeding up the operation of the canal. Specific matters that we are examining are possible construction of mooring walls between certain of the locks, and also a comparison is being made of the time taken in opening and closing lock gates at Welland as compared with the time taken to operate other lock gates in the new section of the seaway, down in the St. Lawrence section.
With regard to the other matter which the hon. member raised, namely the question of the land expropriations at Malton, I have jotted down a few points which I think would be of interest to him and to the committee. They are as follows. When I assumed office I found that while the great majority of the land expropriation cases at Malton had been settled, there were a number which had been outstanding for a long time. The department had had several different valuations made by individual appraisers, as well as by the departmental real estate staff. However, the
Supply-Transport
member from that area quite sincerely believed that the valuations made and received by the department were too low and urged a further valuation. In view of the sincere belief of the member of parliament concerned that these valuations were too low and were unfair to his constituents, I felt that it was desirable that there should be a further appraisal made, and I agreed that this should be done. I also assured the hon. member that the results of this further valuation would be studied with the greatest care not only by my own officials but by officials of treasury board as well, in order to ensure that it got the fullest possible consideration. I did not go beyond that.
I was satisfied with the real estate qualifications of the individual who was suggested to me by the member from the area for the purpose of this appraisal and his services were retained. When his report was received it was studied in great detail by officials of my department and by officials on the staff of treasury board, as I had undertaken. Both were of the opinion that the valuations submitted were too high, and should not be accepted by the federal government. I made no formal submission or recommendation of these valuations to treasury board but, as the hon. member for Laurier knows, it is quite customary for matters to be discussed informally, both with treasury staff and at the board itself, without formal recommendations having been submitted; and this is just what happened in this case. Since both my department and treasury board felt that these valuations could not be accepted, the matter was allowed to proceed in the exchequer court in the manner provided by law.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask just a question or two. Did the minister not know that the valuator was the political organizer for the hon. member for Peel? Did the hon. member for Peel not tell him that?


George Harris Hees: No; I did not know that.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not deal with another question. Was there an agreement between the minister and the suppliant, Mrs. Drew, as alleged by her, that both parties would be bound by the Clare appraisal.


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask who discussed the agreement with the minister?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have taken considerable time and trouble to prepare a full statement on this matter. I have read it and I think everything I can possibly say

Supply-Transport
is there. It describes everything that I had anything to do with in connection with this whole matter. If it is not clear to the hon. member now, I am very much surprised.
I have done my best to tell him of everything that went on, holding back nothing. I feel that I have made a good, full and clear statement outlining the whole proceeding.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the minister has done his best. I commend him for having gone to the trouble of making the statement which he has now made and which he had not made this morning. But although he has gone that far, I do not think he has gone far enough. I think it is our privilege here, on the estimates, to obtain further information if we feel it is desirable to do so. I asked a question and the minister avoided it by saying that he had made a full statement. The statement is good as far as it goes, but I should like some further clarification of it. Since the minister has said that there is no agreement such as the one I have suggested in my question, then I ask the minister who discussed the agreement with him because the judgment clearly states that there was a discussion of an agreement between the hon. member for Peel and the minister that both parties would be bound by the appraisal. I therefore ask the minister if he discussed the agreement with him.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite clear as to what agreement the hon. member is referring. I have told him that there was no agreement except that the valuation made by Mr. Clare would be examined by my officials and by the officials of treasury board. I cannot make the situation any clearer than that.


Lionel Chevrier: The agreement to which I am referring is the one mentioned in the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson wherein he stated that there was an agreement between the member acting on behalf of the minister and the parties that they would be bound by the appraisal of Mr. Clare and further that he got these people to sign an agreement to that effect. The minister has seen the judgment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, it is not my place, as the hon. member knows, to discuss this judgment which has been given by the presiding judge and I do not intend to do so. I have told the hon. member for Laurier all I know of this case and the exact manner in which I became connected with it. I can fell him no more and I cannot say it any more clearly than that.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say whether there was an agreement.


George Harris Hees: I have no idea what went on, if anything, between the hon. member for Peel and this Mrs. Drew.


Lionel Chevrier: Then am I to take it that as far as the minister knows there is no agreement such as the one I have suggested.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I have said that I have no knowledge of any agreement.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask just one further question. Was there any correspondence between the minister and the hon. member in this case?


George Harris Hees: Yes. I think there were a couple of letters that I wrote to him discussing this thing in the early stages.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister table that correspondence?


George Harris Hees: I think that correspondence was introduced in the court case. I have no hesitation in tabling it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There are a couple of questions that I should like to ask the minister about the statement he made. He said he was satisfied with the real estate qualifications of Mr. Clare. Can he just give the committee what those qualifications were.


George Harris Hees: I said that my departmental officials were satisfied with his qualifications. I am not a real estate expert.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; that is not my point.


George Harris Hees: The real estate branch of my department was satisfied that Mr. Clare is a competent valuator and one capable of carrying out fairly such an evaluation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not expect, of course, that the minister would have this information in his personal possession. But the officials of his department would not satisfy themselves of this fact without having some kind of documentary evidence of the previous experience of the gentleman. I wonder if we could be told how many years he had been an evaluator and what kind of evaluations he had done, and what previous experience he had had. Surely, in view of the very unusual functions which had been given to him by the department, and the taxpayers' money which has been spent, it is only reasonable that we should be given such information as this.


George Harris Hees: There is no problem about this. I will be very glad to produce that information. Hon. gentlemen opposite are trying to get an atmosphere of mystery into this, a cloak and dagger atmosphere. There is nothing to hide. This man is a competent

real estate evaluator and I would be very glad to tell the committee on what basis the department decided he should be given this job. The hon. member said this was an extraordinary assignment which he was given. It is nothing of the kind. This kind of evaluation is being done all the time by outside evaluators. What is so extraordinary about this assignment? Would the hon. member mind saying?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Not at all, but I think we are supposed to be questioning the minister, not the other way around. One of the extraordinary features is that this appears to have become a cause celebre in the courts. That is not usual in these matters, though it does happen from time to time. I am not seeking to cast any reflection of any kind. I am merely trying as a representative of some of the taxpayers to find out what this man's qualifications are, and I understand that the minister is quite prepared to give us this information as soon as he can get it from the department.
Mr. Chairman, I spent a good many hours of my time between 1953 and 1957, not as a member but as one of the substitutes on the treasury board. I sat there for a good many hours and took a great deal of interest in the work. I think I can claim to have a reasonable familiarity with the procedures, and I was interested in what the minister has told us about the relationship of this whole matter to the treasury board. The hon. gentleman said he gave the hon. member for Peel an undertaking-and I will stop at once if I make a mis-statement-that he would bring this valuation to the attention of his senior officials and of treasury board officials. I have not looked this up, and if I am wrong I stand to be corrected, but I think on an earlier occasion-the first time the minister mentioned it-he said he had undertaken to bring it before the treasury board.


George Harris Hees: If I said that, what I had in mind was the treasury board staff.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister did not mean the treasury board at any time. I want to be completely fair about this. In other words, there was never any undertaking given to the member for Peel that this valuation would be submitted to the treasury board?


George Harris Hees: No. As the hon. member very well knows, if a matter is submitted to the treasury board it goes with the recomenda-tion of the minister.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Exactly.


George Harris Hees: That was not so in this case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was no undertaking given to submit it to the treasury board.
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: I have tried to make that clear a number of times, that there was no undertaking by me to submit it to treasury board.
I asked that these valuations be examined by the treasury board staff who are experts in this whole matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Quite. I am merely seeking to establish the facts. The minister could, perhaps, just reply to my questions in the same spirit as they are being asked. The minister did say in his statement, however, that there was an informal discussion with the treasury board. Now the treasury board is a committee of the cabinet, and I am not seeking to pry into cabinet secrets or anything of that sort. I have no intention of doing so, and I am not going to ask about the nature of that discussion. But I do say that in the years when I was a member of the treasury board-and I can be wrong-I do not recall a single instance where a matter of this kind was brought before the board, as distinct from the officials, without a formal submission from the minister concerned. When we were in office the board was very busy with submissions from ministers, and the minister, if I apprehend his statement correctly, said that it was not an unusual thing for a matter of this kind to be discussed by the board. What I am trying to get at is this: did the board have this valuation before them and discuss it?


George Harris Hees: I should like to correct the hon. member. I said, when I made my statement, that it was quite customary for matters to be discussed informally; not "matters of this kind" particularly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is the last part of that sentence-


George Harris Hees: It is right here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister read the whole sentence? Perhaps that is the simplest way.


George Harris Hees: Very well. I said:
I made no formal submission or recommendation of these valuations to treasury board but, as the hon. member knows, it is quite customary for matters to be discussed informally both with the treasury staff and at the board itself without formal recommendations being submitted and this is just what happened in this case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad to have my memory refreshed. Now my question is simple. Was this discussion a discussion with the board as opposed to a discussion with officials?


George Harris Hees: It was not discussed as a formal submission by myself. I am advised that the members of the staff discussed it informally with members of the treasury board.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: But it was never before the board?


George Harris Hees: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Fine.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the report made this morning by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) on the activities of his department. I congratulate him warmly for the magnificent work he has been doing until now. I also thank him for the interest he has always shown towards the problems of my constituency, and I am sure that that interest will take tangible form in the near future.
Among those problems, there is one I am keen on solving, since it is of interest, not only to the people of my constituency, but of that of Riviere du Loup, Rimouski, Matane and Bonaventure.
Mr. Chairman, it is inconceivable that in 1959-more than four centuries after Jacques Cartier landed at Gaspe-a part of my area, so rich in forests, fisheries and in ore of all sorts, should be deprived of a railway, that indispensable means of communication for the economic development of a country.
At the present time, several mining companies which have staked claims in that area are waiting only for the building of the railway, from Matane to Sainte Anne des Monts, to develop those mines. Several important corporations are also interested in establishing industries there but, they too are waiting for that indispensable means of communication.
The Gaspe area has been isolated for a long time. Until 1938, there were no decent roads and no electricity; but today, electrification has been extended throughout my county; and you know, sir, that electricity is as indispensable as a railway to the development of an area. We therefore only lack a railway to develop the natural resources of that constituency.
The province of Quebec has not been favoured very much with railway construction. In the Canadian National Bank monthly bulletin for February, 1959, we note the following:
A rapid glance on the railway map for 1956 reveals that the provinces have not been equally favoured. Federal statistics break down as follows the length in miles of railroads by province:
Newfoundland	 934
Prince Edward Island		285
Nova Scotia	 1,391
New Brunswick	 1,799
Quebec	 4,940
Ontario	 10,516

Manitoba	 4,974
Saskatchewan	 8,721
Alberta	 5,680
British Columbia	 4,015
Yukon	 58
Further on, the bulletin goes on to say:
There is no doubt that the province of Quebec is clearly less favoured than other areas; with 30 per cent of the population, it has only 11 per cent of the railroads. Existing railroads in the province are often only sections required to link the Atlantic with the Prairies. Why, for instance, was not Abitibi linked with Montreal by an extension of the Montreal-Mount Laurier railway? Why postpone the building of the Matane-Gaspe section, which would serve so interesting an area?
Well, Mr. Chairman, you have there an outline of the railway situation in Quebec, as confirmed by the statements in the monthly bulletin of the Canadian National Bank.
We read also in the Daily Report of the Canadian National Railways, for February 1959, the following:
(Text):
New Gaspe Line Would Help Campbellton-Construction of a railway between the town of Gaspe and Matane would enhance the position of the city of Campbellton as a distribution point for the entire Gaspe peninsula, believes the Saint John Telegraph-Journal of February 25, 1959. "It would mean that, in addition to the present railway service to Gaspe and the highway transport system to all points, the entire area would be served by rail.
Completion of the Campbellton-Cross Point highway bridge across the Restigouche river in about a year will mean that only the bridge will lie between Campbellton and the Cross Point station on the present railway line to Gaspe. Rail shipments for Gaspe at present go westward from Campbellton to Matapedia and thence eastward again to Gaspe. With completion of the bridge, such shipments could be trucked to Cross Point for shipment eastward without making this rail detour as at present.
Rail shipment from Campbellton to points east of Matane on the St. Lawrence would go by way of Matapedia to Mont Joli, thence to Matane on an existing rail connection and then by way of the proposed new railway line. This would apply up to some point between Matane and Gaspe where the optional distances around the peninsula become equal."
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, when, in 1957, I made my maiden speech in this house, I urged the government to build this railway line between Matane and Gaspe. I mentioned the matter again in 1958, and I am proud to raise it again today.
As I was saying a moment ago, we have a great wealth of natural resources, as well as qualified workers in Gaspe. Our young people are strong and, what is more important, they have pluck. There are many good sites for new industries, but investors are not taking any chances, because there are no means of transportation. The northern part of the Gaspe peninsula is completely isolated.

In 1959, at a time of prosperity and of high technical progress, barges are still being used to carry goods from Montreal or Quebec, and they can be used only in the navigation season, which lasts 4 to 5 months. That is a striking and dangerous inconsistency for the economic life of that part of the country, and also for the family life of its people. Having to find work elsewhere in order to support his family, a father has to spend a large part of the year away from his wife and hardly ever sees his children. The children, left only to the care of the mother, often leave home at a very early age. It is easy to realize the moral responsibility of the government in the face of such chaos.
The authorities realize this, they are aware of the situation, and if I raise the matter again it is because I know that something can be done and, I hope, will be done. I want each of my honourable colleagues to know that my constituency, which stretches over a distance of 320 miles and is populated by large families, is not seeking any favours. However, it wants to share in the general prosperity of this great country, and it is calling out loudly, sometimes desperately, for its due. My constituents will feel they have largely received their share when a railway is built between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.
Oh, Gaspesians are patient alright. Indeed, they have been asking for this railway for 20 years. For 20 years, the previous administrations have considered the matter as insignificant. However, the people of Gaspe showed that their patience can reach a limit, and placed their trust in the Conservative party. I know that this government, and particularly the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), will see that this problem is settled, and I do hope it will be soon.
I do not believe that Mr. Gordon, for whom
I	have great respect, can decide whether a railway is important or not for the Gaspe peninsula. Members are elected to point out to the government the needs of their constituents. If action on this project is left to the bureaucrats, the member's prestige will suffer, and I know that such is not the intention of the present government.
Before closing, I must also commend the government, and particularly the Minister of Transport, for the improvements made to the railways between Matapedia and Gaspe. Up to 1957, a trip between those two points took
II	hours, whereas the same trip now takes six
Supp ly-Transport
hours. The train is always filled with passengers, and I am sure the Canadian National Railways is not losing money on it. I hope that, by 1960, I shall be able to rise again in this house, not to press for this railway, but to thank the government for carrying out a project that is dear to the hearts of the member and the people of Gaspe, namely, the construction of a railway linking Matane and Ste Anne des Monts.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I have no wish to delay the passing of these estimates, but I would like to deal with an urgent issue. On behalf of the municipal authority and the citizens of Repentigny, I would ask the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to put in the extended sector service in the town of Repentigny, one of the most progressive collectivities in the federal riding of Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm.
Mr. Chairman, the municipal authorities of Repentigny, the chamber of commerce and the citizens' association, have, on many occasions, approached the Bell Telephone Company of Canada asking it to grant, as far as possible, the service asked by the people of that progressive locality. Mr. Chairman, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is treating Repentigny as if it were an underdeveloped locality. I would not like that company to think that this town is part of a Colombo plan country, but it is located in Canada, i.e. in a wealthy progressive country which is setting the pace for the whole world in this field.
At this time in Repentigny, almost 400 subscribers of the telephone company still use the crank-up telephone, a 30 year old gadget. The company goes on multiplying users of a single line and we are now up to 16 on the same one, which, in this case, can, indeed be called a party line.
Mr. Chairman, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a public service corporation which has to keep abreast of the progress of towns like Repentigny. The company has made an $11 million profit during the first quarter of 1959, i.e. $3 million more than in the same period of 1958. Company profits have gone up from $7,299,118 in 1946 to $29,146,855 in 1956. Those revenues are, as a matter of fact, only apparent ones, for the real profits are much more considerable. The company has increased its depreciation reserves to $247,347,199 and its deferred taxation reserves to $58,133,562.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada has practised automation on a high scale

Supply-Transport
reaping enormous profits. Telephone subscribers should also benefit accordingly.
Before concluding, may I be allowed, Mr. Chairman, to read out, or to give the substance of a brief submitted by the chamber of commerce of Repentigny to the president of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. These are the points made to the company by the Repentigny chamber of commerce:
(a)	the chamber of commerce considers that by the crank up telephone service part of the town of Repentigny is isolated from the rest of the locality within the same territorial limits from the public site known as the Chateau du Fleuve;
(b)	The chamber of commerce considers that there is complete confusion in the telephone service, because that part of the town has to communicate through the St. Paul l'Ermite central to speak with another point within the same town of Repentigny and that moreover, in order to communicate with subscribers living east of the town, it is necessary to resort to long distance service.
(c)	The chamber of commerce considers that the Repentigny central should be autonomous, and that causes for discrimination within the limits of one and the same municipality should disappear.
(d)	The chamber of commerce considers that the town of Repentigny should enjoy direct service with Montreal, like other municipalities in the area which have such service;
(e)	The chamber of commerce considers that its territory is definitely situated within the 15 mile radius, and that every effort should be made to admit this geographical fact, rather than to attempt to evade the issue by any means, either by dealing with it from the point of view of "central to central", "sub-branch", or any other angle which does not agree with the facts.
(f)	The chamber of commerce feels it is very easy and even necessary to set up any telephone central on Bourdon Island;
(g)	The chamber of commerce considers that a study should be made and reports submitted on the possibility of using the cable facilities as they exist on the LeGardeur de Repentigny bridge (there are 12 of them, we are told).
Mr. Chairman, that problem has been existing in the town of Repentigny for some years. The town of Repentigny has enjoyed extraordinary development in recent years. It has residences of great value and, once again, after all representations made by your humble servant, by the authorities and associations of that town, I ask, once and for all, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada to settle that problem in order that the progress of that town in the federal constituency of Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm, be not paralyzed.
I would also ask the company if, in English speaking centres-


The Chairman:: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm that he has been out of order for quite some time. It is with regret that I

must interrupt him, but I cannot allow him to go on with his remarks about the Bell Telephone Company, in connection with Repentigny, in this debate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me. I thought the Bell Telephone Company of Canada came, to some extent, under the transport commission, which in turn, as far as its estimates are concerned, comes under the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees).


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, before I come to the main part of my remarks, I should like, with your permission, to address a few words to the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English).
I congratulate him on the speech he has just delivered about the construction of a railway in his peninsula. It is one I have been hearing about for a long time, since I have been here in the House of Commons, but I should like to remind him also that the Prime Minister, who is now in the house, has also made very pertinent statements during the election campaign about that railway. Therefore, without casting any reflection on him, I will say that one of the peremptory statements he made was to the effect that in his opinion, there was no railway extension which deserved more sympathy and a more generous study than that of my hon. friend because, he said, he believed in a national development program for Canada, and the building of that railway was one of the projects which should be contemplated.
Now, during the sittings of the committee on railways, canals and telegraphs I inquired from the president of the Canadian National Railways whether he intended to include, in the estimates for 1959-60, an amount for the construction of that railway, and he bluntly replied no.
I hope the hon. member will continue putting pressure on the government and on the minister for the carrying out of this project, and I can assure him that we, on this side of the house, will give him our hearty support.
(Text):


John George Diefenbaker: After 22 years you are going to suport that? Why did you not do something when were in power?


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Prime Minister for the interruption. It is true that we were in office for 22 years but there was no promise made either by the former government or by the minister of transport. I hold in my hand

-and I do not want to delay my own remarks-a clear-cut undertaking by the Prime Minister-


John George Diefenbaker: Read it.


Lionel Chevrier: -when he was in that area that he would give careful consideration to it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what I did.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister said "read it", and I will read what he said at Mont Joli and at Ste. Anne des Monts on February 26, 1958:
The line is the type of project that we have in mind for opening up Canada, the type of project that should receive first consideration in any national development program.


John George Diefenbaker: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: I say it does not look very much as if that railway has received much consideration because when the president of the Canadian National Railways was here he stated positively that no funds were included in the estimates of the Canadian National Railways for either 1959 or 1960 to deal with a matter of this kind. (Translation):


Mr. Tremblay:: You have kept promising a railroad in my area for 22 years.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I want to turn to another problem which is of importance to me and I think to the committee generally, but before I do that I will not take the opportunity of attempting to reply to what was said by the hon. member for Assiniboia although I could deal with the matters which he raised because I had some association with them in the early stages. I think I shall leave that to the minister who is much more capable than I am to deal with it because he has the facts at his disposal, and I do hope that before the first item of his estimates is disposed of he will deal with the charges that were made.
I rose to deal with another matter affecting the St. Lawrence seaway, namely one which has to do with the development of power and navigation in the Lachine section. It is not only of importance to those who live in the metropolitan area of Montreal but it is, I know, of importance to the officers of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and those of the Department of Transport. I refer now, of course, to the joint development of navigation facilities and power facilities in the Lachine section. As the house knows, the seaway authority proceeded to develop navigation facilities in the Lachine section independently of power following approval of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act in 1954 and thereafter. This is a matter which has engaged the attention of the public
Supply-Transport
for some time in the Montreal area and I shall attempt to deal with it as objectively as I can.
It has recently been stated that the Quebec government had good reasons for not carrying out the development in conjunction with the St. Lawrence seaway authority; that had Quebec proceeded with the development of power at Lachine the cost would have been far in excess of what it will be if Quebec goes ahead alone, and that this decision is based upon the opinion of qualified hydro experts. That is not what the qualified experts of Quebec hydro thought for a long time and, as a matter of fact, over a long period of years.
In 1948 the government of Canada established what was known as a board of engineers to deal with the improvement of the Lachine section of the St. Lawrence waterway. The board was composed of distinguished engineers, Mr. R. A. C. Henry, then chairman of the air transport board; Dr. T. H. Hogg, who was at one time chief engineer of Ontario hydro; Dr. Arthur Surveyer, an outstanding engineer in the city of Montreal; Mr. Guy Lindsay and Mr. C. W. West, then employees of the Department of Transport. At the time of this report the engineers who made the report asked the experts of Quebec hydro for their opinion on this whole matter and Quebec hydro undertook to organize an enginering staff to carry out the investigations necessary for the preparation of estimates covering a combined navigation and power project.
As a result, Quebec hydro after extensive studies submitted five different projects for the consideration of the board and the board, after reviewing these projects and in consultation with the representatives of Quebec hydro, selected two projects for power development which embodied the best features of the five projects submitted, either of which would provide the navigation facilities required and permit full utilization of the power available. The estimates of cost prepared by the engineers of Quebec hydro were adopted by the board with some slight increases.
I should like to refer to page 9 of this document, which is a public document tabled in the house, and ask that it be given consideration. On page 9 there is a detailed statement of the cost of improving the Lachine section for navigation alone. That is fixed at $87 million. On page 10 there is a detailed statement prepared by Quebec hydro of the cost of improving the Lachine section for power, and that amounts to $213 million. That makes a total of $300 million for the development of navigation and power in the Lachine section. Then there is another

Supply-Transport
detailed statement on page 10 showing the cost for a joint power and navigation development prepared by the officials of Quebec hydro in the amount of $266 million. Therefore anyone who looks at this report can see at once that there would be a saving of $34 million were the matter to be proceeded with jointly rather than separately, and these are the estimates prepared by the engineers of Quebec hydro. This is not only prepared by them but it covers a power development in the vicinity of Victoria bridge to the extent of 1,200,000 horsepower so that in accordance with the figures of Quebec hydro's own officials a joint development in 1948 would cost $34 million less than a separate one.
I should like to consider for a moment what transpired later. This is what happened. The then chairman of Quebec hydro and other officials thereof made their position clear to the officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. They stated that, speaking for themselves as private citizens and not as members of the hydroelectric power commission of Quebec and without having had any discussion with the premier of the province, they thought it would be extremely unwise to separate the development of the Lachine section into navigation and power. They thought that the development should be done jointly according to the plans prepared by the board of engineers in 1948 with which I have been dealing.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member from what document he was quoting?


Lionel Chevrier: I am afraid the Solicitor General was not in the house when I gave that information. I am quoting from the 1948 report of the board of engineers.


Léon Balcer: What was the last document?


Lionel Chevrier: So far as the last document is concerned, I have stated that the Quebec officials thought that the development should be done jointly according to the plan prepared by the board of engineers in 1948, with the modification that the canal should be on the south side rather than on the north side. Is there anything my hon. friend would like to ask?


Léon Balcer: I should like to make the record clear. You have quoted the chairman of the hydro commission as having made a certain statement independently, speaking personally, and not as chairman of the hydro commission. I am wondering what kind of document you are reading from.


Lionel Chevrier: I will tell my hon. friend what kind of document. If my hon. friend will take the trouble to go to the pertinent

department and consult the file he will find that everything contained in my speech is on the record.


An hon. Member:: Don't lose your temper.


Lionel Chevrier: I will do my best not to. He will find there that there is no doubt that all along the line the engineers of Quebec hydro felt that this should be a joint development rather than a separate development. So interested was Quebec hydro in the joint project that in 1951 it made a revision of the costs I have mentioned for a joint development in the Lachine section. This estimate amounted to $360 million without interest during construction, and that was made in October of 1951.
No further estimates were made by Quebec hydro as far as I am aware but the engineers of the Department of Transport made a further estimate on the basis of the price level in midsummer, 1953, and that estimate amounted to $400 million for the project which I have been discussing. The estimated cost of the construction of the canal for navigation alone in the Lachine section, adopting the location on the south shore, was approximately $125 million without interest during construction.
Still later, in May of 1954, the then chairman of the Quebec hydro commission-this is not just conjured up-made the suggestion that if an arrangement could be arrived at with the province of Quebec similar to that which was arrived at between the federal government and the province of Ontario in 1941 then his opinion was that he would be willing to recommend the joint development in the Lachine section if the federal government would do both works, the navigation works and the common works, and finance the whole project, Quebec hydro agreeing to pay back on the following basis, one-third in five years, one-third in ten years and one-third in fifteen years. That is not conjured up. That is a matter of record which my hon. friend can see if he will go to the trouble of looking at the files.
Then, in 1956 a commissioner of Quebec hydro announced in New York city that the Quebec government was going to develop power at Lachine and in January of 1959 a member of the Quebec government was reported to have made a similar announcement. Notwithstanding these two announcements, the province has not proceeded with the development.
However, it is well known that a firm of engineers has been appointed to study the problem and that plans for a two stage development, one at Heron island capable of developing 850,000 horsepower and the other

below the Victoria bridge, capable of developing 350,000 horsepower, have been prepared. These engineers have now been appointed for three years, and surely the public is entitled to know what their recommendations are, and what the plan is. After all, all of the engineering reports beginning with the international section and going right down to Lachine including Beauharnois, ever since they have been made from 1921 on, have been made public and submitted to this house. There is no reason why any other plans having to do with this matter should not be made public so that at least those of us who have an interest in it, the engineers who have an interest in it, could study them and give them consideration.
The question arises, why are they not produced? Why are they not made public? What is now envisaged clearly is a two stage development in that area. It may be possible to develop Lachine in two stages. Either one of these two stages might well cost the province less money if done separately, but they will cost the province more money if done together. What has always been envisaged is the development of 1,200,000 horsepower of electricity. It now looks as if the province is hedging on the development at Victoria bridge, alleging that frazil ice down the river is going to affect the potential. The question is rather this: Has the construction of the diversionary railway Victoria bridge precluded the province from a one stage scheme? The Canadian National Railways have now proceeded to construct that bridge on the assumption that there would not be a joint development of power and navigation in the vicinity of Victoria bridge. Proceeding with a one stage scheme might well mean the raising of two bridges instead of one, with a consequent loss of power below Victoria bridge amounting to 350,000 horsepower.
I come now to another matter which is germane to this discussion. It is the fact that the federal government made a substantial contribution toward the development of power in the international section. It is inconceivable to me that the federal government, if it had been asked to make an analogous contribution in the Lachine section or in the Beauharnois section, would not have made it. Now, what were those contributions? As the committee knows, the federal government did not proceed on the basis of the 1941 agreement upstream. This was discarded in the international section. It proceeded on another basis, that is that Ontario would pay for all the power facilities and the federal government would pay for all the navigational facilities, so that the old
Supply-Transport
division of 37i per cent navigation as opposed to 62J per cent power was discarded for the time being, each party paying its own costs.
Nevertheless, Canada agreed to contribute no less than $30 million for the development of power in the international section, $15 million before the work was started. There are some parts of that sum of money that are going to be voted during the consideration of the minister's estimates now. The federal government agreed to contribute $15 million toward the development of power in the international section. This was in lieu of so-called common works. Then, later on, when an impasse arose over the tailrace dredging to be done downstream in accordance with the order of approval of the I.J.C., dated October, 1952, there was a large amount of work that had to be done amounting to about $37 million, and of that the power entities agreed to pay $12 million leaving a balance of $25 million, $15 million of which was absorbed by Canada, again as assistance toward power development in the international section.
The point I make is this. It is inconceivable that the federal government would contribute $30 million toward power development upstream without being morally and equitably, if not legally, bound to contribute a similar amount downstream. By refusing to accept the advice of Quebec hydro, therefore, the government of Quebec lost an opportunity of a similar payment. Since the government of Quebec has, to all intents and purposes, decided to isolate itself in this, as in so many other matters, it would appear that a contribution of this magnitude may well be lost to the province forever. I think the house should know about this, as well as about a letter which was written by the late Mr. Mackenzie King, on March 12, 1941 to be exact, to the then premier of Quebec dealing with development in the Lachine section and in the Beauharnois section. He wrote saying, you have the right to develop power there jointly with us for navigation purposes, and we will do thus and so in the Beauharnois section and the Lachine section. I am quoting from page 71 of the correspondence and documents tabled in this house dealing with the great lakes-St. Lawrence basin development, 1938-1941:
With this end in view, the government of Canada would be prepared to undertake that, if and when Quebec takes over the control and operation of the Beauharnois development, there will be paid to the government of Quebec, by the government of Canada, the sum of $7,972,500.
This is nearly $8 million. As I have indicated before in this committee, that sum is worth far more now when you compare the

Supply-Transport
value of the dollar in 1959 with what it was then. I say, therefore, it is unfortunate that these sums which were legally undertaken by the federal government, were at least morally and equitably committed in these documents as well as in the contribution in the international section. I say that because the government of Quebec has lost a great opportunity to obtain a substantial payment toward two projects which are urgently required in the area.
I did want to speak about one or two other matters. I know that there are members here who want to speak, so I will not delay the committee. Perhaps I could conclude my remarks by thanking the minister for agreeing to table the correspondence with the hon. member for Peel, as he undertook to do earlier. I wonder whether he would not be good enough, while doing that, to let the committee have the minute of treasury board appointing the appraiser and which, I take it, defines his functions, and any other papers relating to his appointment and to his duties.


Harold Edward Winch: Still dealing with one matter affecting the St. Lawrence seaway, I was wondering whether the minister could give us an up to date report on the situation with regard to the relationship of the department or the seaway authority with the various contractors and their payments, especially their demands or requests for additional payments. I was most anxious to have an up to date report because the committee will recall that on March 9 the house authorized an order for return in the following words:
For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, reports, briefs and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or his deputies, and any official or agency of the government and any person, persons, or organizations, since December 1, 1958, dealing with claims made by contractors for payments from the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, that order for return was passed in this house on March 9 and the department finally filed the return under sessional paper No. 165E on May 21. I will admit that it was quite a voluminous return and I have read it carefully. But I have one question I should like to ask the Minister of Transport. In view of the wording of the return, for all reports, briefs and other documents exchanged with any person, persons, or organizations since December 1, 1958, can he assure the committee that this sessional paper No. 165E fully conforms to the order of this house with regard to the filing of all documents?
I may say that I have been advised that it does not contain all the documents, especially a number which I had in mind

when I moved for the order for return. I know that there are certain individuals who seem to be persona non grata with the department as far as their names or their actions are concerned. I do not know the exact qualifications nor do I have a great deal of information about certain individuals, but I know that at approximately 11 o'clock this morning I was handed an affidavit. I was not going to put myself in the position of saying that certain papers which should have been filed had not been filed merely on the statement of an individual about whom I do not know a great deal. I felt that if that person wanted to put his information in the form of an affidavit, I myself would be protected when I make the statements I am now making. I am informed through the medium of this affidavit-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McCleave):: Order. Would the hon. member indicate whether he is going to ask the committee for permission to file the affidavit? Before he proceeds I should like to know that.


Harold Edward Winch: I will give all the information you want.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is
the hon. member going to reveal the deponent of the affidavit?


Harold Edward Winch: It is an affidavit. I most certainly will do so.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does he wish to file it?


Harold Edward Winch: I have no reason for not doing so. I have read it so I could table it with the committee. It is an affidavit that was made by Rothwell Grant in the city of Montreal in the province of Quebec. The affidavit was sworn before a notary public, commissioner et cetera in the city of Ottawa on the 14th day of April of this year. In the course of this affidavit it is stated that the Minister of Transport met with certain individuals here in Ottawa in the minister's office on the 22nd day of December, 1958 and certain information was given to the minister and certain photographs and photostats relating to the seaway construction together with copies of documents were shown to him and at his request were left with him. The affidavit further states that on two other occasions the same information was supplied to his department. According to the affidavit his department has had and he has himself seen and received the following:
(i)	Minutes of a meeting of seaway general contractors dated February 4th, 1958;
(ii)	Report to St. Lawrence seaway authority contractors on meeting with Mr. F. B. Common, dated February 7th, 1958;

(ill) Notes of a conference of St. Lawrence general contractors, dated February 12th, 1958;
(iv)	Draft outline for brief to Canadian government by a group of contractors on the St. Lawrence seaway;
(v)	Sumary of situation;
(vi)	Warnock-Hersey progress report No. 129.
I do not know of any information other than what is contained in the affidavit except this. If that information is correct-and it is a sworn statement; and I am not blaming the minister because he cannot go around collecting all the documents and everything -if he met with certain people; if he saw certain photographs and documents; and if not less than three copies were in the hands of his department even prior to that time, then I think we are entitled to know by whose authority officials override an order of the House of Commons for a return for all correspondence, telegrams, reports, briefs and other documents exchanged between the Minister of Transport or his deputies and any official or agency of the government, and any person, persons, or organizations since December 1, 1958.
I am not going to say anything more than that. I hope the minister will give an explanation or clarify the situation. Beyond that, I feel there is still a strong interest among the general public and among the members of this House of Commons with regard to what the situation is in connection with the claims of the contractors and the position of the government in respect thereto. I know that several weeks ago certain information was given by the minister. I am hoping that he can now bring us up to date on the situation.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to do so. With regard to the other matters of which the hon. member spoke, wherein he stated that certain material had been withheld from a return, may I say that I am not familiar with that matter although I certainly will have it checked up. If there is anything which should have been submitted and which was not submitted, I will certainly see that it is submitted. I would appreciate it greatly if the hon. member would give me the affidavit so that I can check the material to which he has referred.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes. I am filing the affidavit.


George Harris Hees: As to the situation in connection with claims at the present time, as of today claims have been received amounting to $38,959,957 on 30 contracts.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister there?


George Harris Hees: Yes.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: May I just ask if there is any change between that statement and the one he gave in the house in answer to a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes. I am told that the total has been increased. The present status is as follows:
Amount of claim Amount paid Claims settled ..	$1,484,028	$746,899
Claims refused ..	7,167,412
Awaiting
disposition _________ 30,307,617

These figures do not include a claim of unstated amount under contract 6 in 1956. Negotiations resulted in a unit price adjustment costing $1,918,564.
The authority has reached conclusions on four claims totalling $3,490,457 on which negotiations are pending. A great deal of work has been done on the remainder totalling $26,817,160; but pressure on the engineering staff in connection with the final phases of construction, and a great variety of problems in readying the seaway for operation, has prevented them from concentrating on the claims.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Before the committee proceeds further we should straighten out the matter of the affidavit referred to by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Some leeway was allowed in the debate, because nobody raised a point of order and the chair felt itself in the hands of the committee. It is not in order for the hon. member for Vancouver East to ask to table the document, but it would be in order for him to ask that it be included in the record of the debates today.


Harold Edward Winch: It is here for all members to see.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if it would be possible to see that document? I should like to see it very much, because I have heard a great deal about this gentleman and I should like to read the affidavit. How this should be done I do not know, but if it has been used I think it should become the property of the committee.


Harold Edward Winch: It is of great length. I do not see how I could ask that it be placed on record in Hansard.
The Acling Chairman (Mr. McCleave): The
committee could receive the document for the use of members without the necessity of if being printed in Hansard, if it is so agreed.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, at this stage of the consideration of the Department of

Supply-Transport
Transport's estimates, I should like to make a few remarks in order to draw the hon. minister's attention to certain problems affecting particularly the constituency I represent.
May I be allowed, first of all, to address very cordial thanks to the hon. minister who, since I have been member for Roberval, has always welcomed with much sympathy the representations I made to him on behalf of the citizens I represent.
I was listening a moment ago, with attention and at the same time with some amusement, to the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) about the railway situation in the province of Quebec, and, in particular, about the Gaspe railway which was referred to by my colleague from Gaspe (Mr. English). He stated in particular that his party had not indulged in promises about railways. I readily understand that the hon. member for Laurier should say such things, since, having been absent from the province of Quebec for so many years, he is certainly not aware of what has been said in my constituency and in my district about the railways.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order. I say that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) interrupted me earlier, it was not to deny that he had made promises in that constituency, but to ask me if the government had made promises during the 22 years we were in office. I replied that neither the government nor the minister of the day had made promises about the Gaspe railway, whereas the Prime Minister clearly did make promises in the statements he made out there.
The hon. member should not shift his ground; he may refer to the Prime Minister's statement, but he has no right to shift the subject.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I admire the scruples of the hon. member for Laurier on that matter, but what I wanted to say was that the hon. member for Laurier is in a very weak position to talk about promises which have been made by the government, by the cabinet, by members or candidates, because my district and my constituency have heard so many Liberal promises about railways that only a stranger like the hon. member for Laurier, in my opinion, can refuse to admit that we have been deceived, and many times, about the railways. But that is not my point, Mr. Chairman. Besides, I do not pro-

pose to take too much stock in what the hon. member for Laurier has said.
What I want to emphasize once again in this house, is the urgent need for the Chi-coutimi-Lake St. John district that the railway line between Chicoutimi and Quebec be completely rebuilt. The rebuilding of that railway line is absolutely necessary. It is urgent today and that urgency takes on special character because of the industrial development which has taken place in our district and is still increasing.
Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Gaspe pointed out earlier that the province of Quebec has not been particularly favoured in the way of railroad construction. I think that remark applies even more aptly to the Chicoutimi-Lake St. John district and to my constituency, since for more than 25 years, all kinds of public organizations, bodies and municipalities have repeatedly asked for the rebuilding of this line between Chicoutimi and Quebec, and at a time when those representations should have been sympathetically received since a certain prosperity would have allowed the Canadian National Railways Company, at the time, to undertake the rebuilding of that Quebec-Chicoutimi line.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, it was in the years between 1939 and 1957 that the Canadian National Railway Company should have considered the building or the possibility of rebuilding that line, at a time when the economic situation was good, especially at a time when the requirements for railway transport were extremely great in our district. However it was not done, for despite all the representations that were made, despite all the pressures by public bodies, the government of the time and the Canadian National Railway Company ignored the repeated requests of the public men and of the population, in spite too of all the promises that were made successively in our district by Liberal members or candidates.
Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the hon. Minister of Transport that, as I indicated a moment ago, the industrial development now going on in my area as a result of its closeness to a mining centre, namely that of Chibougamau, makes the need for rebuilding this Chicoutimi-Quebec railway line a matter of even greater urgency. And here, Mr. Chairman, I am not raising a new fact. I need not even quote statistics, because the house has heard so many appeals, in the

last 20 or 25 years, from members from the province of Quebec. I refer in particular to the former independent member for Chicoutimi Mr. Paul Edmond Gagnon, to the hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Balcer), and to members who, every year, pointed out to the house the problem of rebuilding the Chicoutimi-Quebec railway.
The present situation is deplorable. Please note, Mr. Chairman, that it is not my intention to lay a charge against the Canadian National. I simply wish to set the facts again in their proper light. The railway line from Chicoutimi to Quebec, including the section serving the Lake St. John area, is inadequate, does not meet present requirements of modern transportation, and does not meet the requirements of industrial development that has taken place in our area.
Mr. Chairman, this railway line from Chicoutimi to Quebec, which includes a section from Chambord to Dolbeau, and another as far as Alma, could also be extended so as to circle Lake St. John, because it is not normal, in our modern times, that a railway should not serve all the people of an area such as ours.
That request was possibly made in the past. I refer to it now, however, because a railway line circling the whole of lake Saint John, it seems to me, would be of great advantage to the citizens of my constituency as well as to those of adjoining constituencies. While it might not be possible for obvious reasons at the present time to carry out that project, it is one that must be considered. Those suggestions should also be considered because they are in the best interest of an expanding area whose development is bound to be even greater in years to come.
Mr. Chairman, this matter of the rebuilding of the Chicoutimi-Quebec railway must not however throw into the background other projects such as for instance, the one my hon. colleague from Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard) has in mind, namely the construction of a railway into northern Quebec.
The other day again, I listened with much amusement and interest to the remarks made in this connection by the hon. member for Laurier. I found this former minister of transport had a remarkable solicitude for our area, a solicitude which has not always been his, of course, especially when you remember the circumstances which surrounded the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway.
66968-9-2884
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow a question?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Of course.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. member
aware of the fact that when the former Liberal administration ran the affairs of this country, it was the one which introduced a bill-will you please excuse me, Mr. Chairman, for showing you my back-regarding the construction of the Beattyville-Chibou-gamau railway line, and the one between Chibougamau and St. Felicien? If, so, how can he make the statements he is making now, knowing very well that it is the former Liberal administration which had legislation passed to that effect?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I am extremely glad that the hon. member for Laurier should have given me a short lesson on the history of the province of Quebec which he knows so well.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to teach the hon. member a lesson, but he should at least stick to the facts.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Laurier that I am perfectly aware that, under the previous Liberal administration, when the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport, a program was initiated for the construction of a railway from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville; but those who took over-and the people of my area are among those who showed interest in that project and in the debate which followed in the House of Commons-know very well the representations then made by the ex-member for Chicoutimi, Mr. Paul Edmond Gagnon and by the Solicitor General, when they asked that both these railway lines be built simultaneously so that the interest of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area would not be prejudiced.
Mr. Chairman, you know that the stretch from Beattyville to Chibougamau, or I should say from Chibougamau to Beattyville has been completed by now and that we are still waiting for the completion of the stretch from Chibougamau to St. Felicien. Moreover, the hon. member can certainly not make up stories about this to the people of my area; my fellow-citizens know very well what that delay in building that stretch from St. Felicien to Chibougamau has meant for them in the industrial and economic fields.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Do not make up stories yourself; because you are not sticking to the facts.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier had the opportunity to make his speech a moment ago and I would ask him to show the same courtesy towards me as I showed towards him.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am quite prepared to show the same courtesy to the hon. member for Roberval, provided he states facts and does not attempt to gainsay them as he tried to do a moment ago.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I could also rise on a point of order and say to the hon. member that he has no right to impute motives to me.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: would remind the two hon. members who have just taken part in this debate that we are wandering a bit from the resolution that is now under consideration by the committee. I would ask the hon. member for Roberval, when he resumes his feet, to stay more closely to the resolution so we may avoid repetition of the exchange between the two members.
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I have come to the very matter I intended to deal with. I am talking in general about the estimates of the Department of Transport. I am dealing with problems of my district, and in particular, with that of railways, a problem which has taken a particular aspect because of the rebuilding by the company of the line between St. Felicien and Chibougamau, completion of which we are still waiting for and which, besides, has been for my constituency a source of financial, economic and industrial disappointment.
I was saying, at the time I was interrupted, that nobody can teach lessons to the people of my district about that matter or tell them about the consequences of the delay in building that railway.


Lionel Chevrier: Do not try to teach me lessons either.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, there is no need for me to mention to the hon. member for Laurier the articles published in the newspapers at the time of that debate in the House of Commons in 1954. However, the

hon. member must recall the statement which appeared in Le Devoir at the time of the debate on the bill dealing with the building of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railroad, when the speech made by the hon. member for Laurier was described as directed against Quebec by that newspaper. However, Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to keep strictly to the matter under discussion-
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The matter under discussion is the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport relating to departmental administration. I would ask the hon. member not to offend against the spirit of the ruling that was made by the Chair a few moments ago and to stick to the matter of the departmental administration of this department.
(Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Keep to the subject under discussion.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, on that
question of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien railway, may I be permitted to point out to the present Minister of Transport that the considerable delay in the construction of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway branch was a source of financial and economic difficulties and a handicap to the industrial development of my area. Mr. Chairman, in view of the sympathy with which the Minister of Transport received my representations, that the construction of this railway branch be speeded up, I am sure that his department is ready to give the representations made by the citizens of my riding all the attention they deserve. I feel that the Lake St. John-Saguenay area, and more particularly my riding, are now at the crossroads in economic and industrial development, and the lack of an adequate railway should not be allowed to prevent this area from sharing in the tremendous industrial growth which is in evidence elsewhere in the whole province of Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out to the Minister of Transport the matter of level crossings which is a source of great danger and of serious difficulties in my riding. Railway crossings are a source of danger, no matter what a senior official of the Canadian National may have said about them a little while ago. When there are three or four of these dangerous level crossings in a single city, and I am thinking in particular of my

own city of Roberval, I feel that one should not rely exclusively on good common sense, but rather strive to eliminate those sources of danger.
Mr. Chairman, before concluding my remarks, I would also ask the Minister of Transport to consider the possibility of rebuilding certain stations on the railway line going through my county, in particular the station of St. Prime. I know that officials of the Canadian National came to investigate the matter. They stated that the traffic and the revenue derived from the Canadian National's operation in the riding of Roberval, and particularly in that sector of the railroad, did not justify building that station. Well, I wondered at that time whether all officials of the Canadian National were necessarily well placed to know the exact needs of a given locality. In this case, I think that the member for the riding is in the best position to explain the needs submitted to him by the citizens of his county.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, allow me to remind again the Minister of Transport of the problem of the Roberval airport. The minister has welcomed, with such understanding, all representations I made about that airport that I am a bit uneasy about reminding him again of that project. We received very definite assurances from the Department of Transport, and I am sure that, in the very near future, the minister will be in a position to follow up the guarantees he gave me, which will allow my area and my county in particular to benefit from an adequate airport in keeping with the needs of the population.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him another question? He was so polite with me a moment ago. I should like to ask him this: is he aware that the Roberval airport was built under a Liberal regime, when the hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport?


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) that the contribution of the Liberal government at the time was rather small, and that the cost was borne in large part by the city of Roberval.
(Text):


Mr. MacLean (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Chairman, I have only three matters that I should like some information on from the minister. I assure him I will be very brief.
Supply-Transport
The first matter has to do with Scandinavian Air Lines, better known as S.A.S. The minister is well aware-


Lionel Chevrier: I thought it was "sauce".


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Sauce or S.A.S. The minister is well aware that at the present time they have refueling rights at the city of Winnipeg. Up until a few weeks ago anyone travelling on Scandinavian Air Lines who wanted to go to Winnipeg was not allowed to disembark at the city of Winnipeg but had to continue on to Los Angeles, disembark there and take transportation from Los Angeles and come all the way back to Winnipeg. This in itself is rather a ridiculous situation, rather ludicrous. I can well understand with regard to air agreements with different countries how this could come into being. However, within recent weeks there have been two occasions during which passengers have been allowed to disembark from these flights at the city of Winnipeg. I realize there might have been extenuating circumstances for the disembarkation. However, I would like to know from the minister first whether or not there has been any change with regard to the rules and regulations on landing rights in the city of Winnipeg of this air line. I think there should be but, if not, what is the proper procedure for certain people who might want to disembark from this air line at the city of Winnipeg. If so, what is the procedure?
My second matter, Mr. Chairman-


George Harris Hees: May I answer these questions as we go along? The hon. member perhaps knows that the arrangements for disembarking passengers of an air line at any particular airport are worked out between the two countries concerned and there never has been such an agreement worked out between Canada and S.A.S. for Winnipeg, and there has been no formal application ever made to us by S.A.S. for that right. Perhaps the reason for that would be that S.A.S. would have to give the equivalent right to a Canadian air line in return for that privilege. I am very glad to assure the hon. member that if S.A.S. does approach us on a formal basis and would like to discuss this matter we shall be very glad to discuss it with them.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Mr. Chairman, the only reason that I bring it to the minister's attention is that within recent weeks there have been two occasions when a passenger has been allowed to disembark at the city of Winnipeg. The people in the city of Winnipeg are not aware of the reasons for this, why it was done, and there is perhaps a little bit of confusion in their own

Supply-Transport
minds with regard to the procedure to be followed if this is done, or the reasons for it being done.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that if this was the case, as it must be if the hon. member says so, it would in all probability be because of particular hardship cases or something of that kind. There would be particular circumstances surrounding the case and it would not be regular practice.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Then, Mr. Chairman, I understand that if Scandinavian Air Lines want this right all they have to do is to apply to the minister for consideration?


George Harris Hees: They do not automatically get it; it is a matter of their approaching us and we shall be very glad to talk it over with them and possibly work out a mutually satisfactory agreement.


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Perhaps the minister could answer my next two questions together. The first has to do with the extension of the Winnipeg airport and its facilities. I understand that certain tenders have been called and contracts have been let, but I was wondering whether the minister might give us some sort of progress report and perhaps some sort of intimation as to when those contracts may be completed, when the extension of the Winnipeg airport facilities may be completed; some sort of report as to the progress at the present time.
I want to be very brief. My second point has to do with the lay-off at the present time on the Canadian National Railways at the Fort Rouge and Transcona shops. Neither of these shops is in my constituency, but the people who are affected by those lay-offs do reside in my constituency. I have received some representations. The news reports of those proposed lay-offs have been conflicting, to say the least. There have been a number of conflicting reasons advanced for those layoffs. I would ask the minister, if at all possible, to give the committee the reasons for the lay-offs and perhaps some information on what is being done for those people who are laid off in regard to re-hiring by the Canadian National Railways or in regard to the unemployment insurance commission.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the last question, I am afraid I am not familiar with this particular case because it is something that comes under the management of the Canadian National Railways. But I will be very glad to speak to the management of the railway and get an answer as soon as I can for the hon. member. With regard to the Winnipeg airport, there are a number of contracts and I wonder whether

the hon. member would indicate which contracts he is interested in. Is he interested in the contracts dealing with the new terminal building?


John Douglas Campbell MacLean: Yes.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the preparation of the contracts is now under way and we are in the process of submitting to treasury board an economic study of the whole project to justify the letting of these contracts. I can assure the hon. member that we are getting ahead with the whole project just as fast as we can.


Mr. Granger:: Mr. Chairman, 1 should like to speak briefly about a number of matters which interest my district considerably. As the constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador stretches from the airport at Gander north to the airport at Goose and then on to cape Chidley in the far north, naturally transportation and communications are of paramount importance to us. I have in mind particularly communications along the Labrador coast. In many small places the only means of communication are small radiotelephone sets. They serve a very good purpose in so far as they are available but there are altogether too few of them. Particularly during the winter time, when practically all transportation ceases except by air, the radiotelephone set is the only means of communication with the outside, the only means by which a doctor can be summoned or other messages sent in time of need.
As I have pointed out to the department on a number of occasions, more of these radiotelephone sets are required. I am told that the situation today is not as good as it was some years ago and in this connection I should like to read from a report prepared by Mr. George Sellars, M.H.A., the provincial member for Labrador South. He says:
Before wireless telegraphy became established, Canada supported a telegraph line along the Quebec north shore which extended to Red Bay. When a wireless was opened at Belle isle for communicating with steamers operating via the straits of Belle isle route a station was also established at Chateau, Point Amour, Point Riche, Newfoundland and Grindstone island and on up the St. Lawrence river. As improvements were made the stations at Chateau and also at Point Riche, Newfoundland, were closed and Belle isle worked Point Amour and Point Amour worked direct with Grindstone. Subsequently, Belle isle has been working Grindstone direct so that Point Amour is now working mostly as a radio beacon.
In the early days there were several wireless stations established in eastern Labrador chief among them being Battle Harbour which in the early days of wireless communicated with Fogo and Fogo communicated with St. John's by land line. Later Battle Harbour communicated with St. John's (Signal Hill) direct and Fogo station closed. Along Labrador there were wireless stations located at the following places, viz: Fishing Ships Harbour,

Venison Island, Hawkes Harbour, Domino, Flat Island, Grady, Smokey, Halton, Makkovik, Hope-dale, Cartwright, Cape Harrison.
Today the situation is: Battle Harbour, due to close this summer and to be replaced by a telephone; Marys Harbour, radiophone operated by Grenfell mission and used for communication with St. Anthony; Port Hope Simpson, logging centre, 25 miles up Alexis river or bay; Fishing Ships Harbour, private-Fishery Products-out in winter; Snug Harbour, private-Fishery Products-operates June to October; Hawkes Harbour, private-whaling company-now closed; Square Islands, private- B.W. Powell; Frenchman's Island, Department of Transport; Black Tickle, Department of Transport; Cartwright, Department of Transport; Parks Harbour, private, S. B. Fequet and Son.
Two large settlements in Sandwich bay and widely separated, Paradise and Separation Point, should have radiophones as should other settlements, particularly Paradise, Separation Point, Spotted Island, Batteau, Hawkes Harbour, George's Cove, Williams Harbour, Fox Harbour, Cape Charles, Marys Harbour.
The Minister of Transport suggested people of Spotted Island should form co-op and purchase radiophone and operate it without cost to D.O.T. after getting a $10 licence from Moncton.
Marys Harbour cannot handle commercial correspondence. There is only one nurse there and her time is fully occupied and it is very unreasonable to ask her to handle communications.
The decision to have Labrador traffic routed via Cartwright and Goose presents almost insurmountable difficulties. The high Mealy mountains are directly between Cartwright and Goose and in my experience these mountains are the birthplace and habitation of every known kind of atmosphere disturbance and static, so much so that it cannot be relied on for a constant communications channel.
Besides the cost of sending a telegram from Newfoundland to Labrador was until lately 55 cents. What will it cost via the maritimes and Quebec to Goose and Cartwright to destination in Labrador? The government of Canada ought to provide us with the same land line service that it provides over the same line for Quebec. Our portion of the line has not been repaired while the portion through Quebec is kept in A-l condition. Why should they let our portion of the line go into decay?
That was written by the provincial member for Labrador South. The point I am trying to make is that improved communications are needed along the Labrador coast. These communications form the only means by which the people of these isolated places can keep in contact with the outside world in order to make their needs known and obtain medical aid when it is required. As was stated in the letter, some of the sets are privately owned, some are owned by the Grenfell mission which operates on that coast and a number of places have no means of communication whatsoever.
Another matter of vital interest to Labrador and northern Newfoundland is air strips. Last year the Newfoundland department of highways built an air strip at Nain on the Labrador coast, helped to complete one at North West River, the seat of the Grenfell mission in Labrador, and
Supply-Transport
began one at St. Anthony, the headquarters of the international Grenfell association. The one at Nain is being used. I believe the one at North West River is being used but needs to be extended. The one at St. Anthony needs to be completed.' In addition, another air strip is badly required at Cartwright in Labrador while Baie Verte, Roddickton and Port Saunders are centres in northern Newfoundland that should be considered, as also should La Scie, although I understand that it will probably be difficult to get a suitable location at La Scie. I might also mention Hopedale in northern Labrador.
I hope that the minister will be able to do something about the construction of these air strips or some of them during this season. Large air strips are not needed. Small gravel strips on which Beaver aircraft can land are sufficient in most places, although it might be desirable to extend the runways at North West River and St. Anthony to take larger aircraft. Basically what is required are gravel or dirt strips on which Beavers can operate. They would be used largely by the planes supplied to the Grenfell mission by the Newfoundland government. These planes are used extensively for servicing the coast and to bring in patients to the Grenfell mission hospitals. I might add that at Nain eleven people died two years ago because a plane could not land there with serum.
The Newfoundland government built a small airstrip at Nain last year. As I mentioned, the value of this airstrip is particularly high during the periods of freeze-up and breakup. During the summer the planes can operate on floats, and during the winter they can operate on skis. However, during the periods of freeze-up in the fall and breakup in the spring they can use neither skis nor floats and strategically located airstrips are essential so that air services can be carried out during the whole 12 months.
I should like to mention a word or two here about Goose Bay. During Easter I was fortunate enough to be able to visit Goose Bay. While there I saw, to some extent, the preparations for defence, the superb communications, and sensed to some degree at least the global thinking of the warriors who were there. Suddenly the world seemed very small and Canada seemed a lot safer. I should like to pay tribute to those who operate this great airfield and those who are in command. I should like to mention in particular Mr. James Murphy, the head of D.O.T. at Goose Airport, Group Captain W. Swetman, Officer Commanding the R.C.AF. Station, Col. A. J. Beck, Wing Commander, U.S.A.F., Magistrate Terry J. Corbett and

Supply-Transport
Sergt. Pat Byers R.C.M.P. There exists among them a high degree of working co-operation which is equalled by the efficiency.
Now, I should like to say a word about Gander, where a native Newfoundlander, Mr. Rex Tilley is doing a fine job for the Department of Transport. A hotel is badly needed at Gander because I understand that passengers show little enthusiasm for spending the night there. A large modern terminal will soon be opened by her Majesty the Queen, something of which we are all proud. This, in itself, is a source of gratification to everybody, not only those who are interested in Gander but those who are interested in Canada because Gander is the only part of Canada which many people see. People going through from one continent to another often pause at Gander, and I think it is only proper that a fine terminal should be there as a monument to Canada because Gander is the real gateway to Canada. Gander is the first part of Canada that many people see coming from the other side. As I say, a hotel is really needed. Often planes have to remain there overnight and the accommodation at the present time is poor.
A suggestion has been made that Gander should be a free port. The flying public, I understand, prefers to make stops at places where the facilities of a free port exist. Recently there has been a tendency to by-pass Gander, particularly with the development of large, long range aircraft. I would suggest that nothing be overlooked which would make it attractive for people to stop at Gander. Then, the pressure from passengers may influence the airlines to make Gander an extra stop. I will add, too, that some of the pilots seem to be objecting to regulations respecting vaccination, etc., and I hope the Minister of Transport will speak to his colleague the minister of health to see if there cannot be some relaxation of these regulations commensurate with safety.
No word about Gander would be complete without a word of praise for Eastern Provincial Airways. They have an unexcelled record for safety and service. This company has flown many miles since its inception and its safety record is excellent and the stories of the mercy flights undertaken are legion. They perform a very vital part in the communications in Newfoundland, particularly in the more remote parts of the province. I do not believe any word about Eastern Provincial Airways would be complete without mentioning its general manager, Mr. A. J. Lew-ington, its traffic manager, Mr. Marsh Jones and its maintenance manager, Mr. William Harris.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
Chair is allowing latitude to the hon. member, but he does seem to have brought some matters into the debate this afternoon which are perhaps not under the general heading of administration of the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just intervene here? The hon. member is dealing with Gander airport, which is directly under the Department of Transport. I think that any of the matters affecting Gander airport are subjects for debate at this time. There is no doubt that all the facilities concerning Gander fall within the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and it would seem to me, in all deference, the hon. member would have the right to deal with all the aspects of Gander.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
hon. member has been very good in that his extraneous references at least commend themselves to the Chair because they are brief. I have allowed latitude and my opinion is unchanged. I would, therefore, ask the hon. member to follow the spirit of the Chair's attitude.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to transgress, and I shall try to remain within the rules. I did want to mention in connection with the airport at Gander the fact that Gander recently assumed the status of a full-fledged municipality and elected a new town council and mayor. I know the mayor and town council will continue to work cooperatively with the Minister of Transport, as they have been doing, in connection with the many matters which affect them both.
I should like to say a word about Canadian National steamers, and ask the minister if additional ports of call could not be added to their schedule. I am well aware of the fact that the more ports of call there are, the longer any one scheduled trip will take. However, it is possible that a few more ports of call could be added without unduly lengthening the present schedule for a round trip. I would appreciate if he would give careful attention to this matter. As I said, I know it is impossible for steamers to call at every little port without making their trips extremely long, and this would create a hardship on the public as a whole. But I do hope that, where possible, additional ports of call will be added.
If I may return briefly to the two matters which I mentioned first, the need for communications on Labrador and the need for more airstrips. If I should leave the minister feeling sympathetic toward these requests then I will be very happy indeed.


Mr. Macquarrie:: The minister would probably expect that a member from Prince Edward Island would have a word to say about transportation. I am sure that all his predecessors down through the years have known that this is one subject that is dear to us in Prince Edward Island. With my usual laconic brevity I should like to mention one or two aspects of the activities of this department.
I will not speak at length about the car ferries because the minister has heard much about it from myself and my colleagues for a long time. However, I would say that it is of the utmost importance that speed be of the essence in the construction of a new ferry in this area and in the interim I would urge on the minister that every measure be taken to make full and maximum use of existing facilities. The planking of the Scotia II is an important step but I wish he would, with the C.N.R., look into the prospects of making more trips with the existing ferries when the traffic demands it. I am convinced that there could be more and later trips which would help move cars and a great number of people wanting-and wisely so-to go to Prince Edward Island. This main transportation link is one which connects with the railway because that was a vital term of our confederation agreement that we were to be kept in continuous and efficient communication with the mainland. In that aspect there is an important consideration, namely that we have a speedier rail service from Moncton down to Cape Tormentine. It takes an interminable time to make that short trip which ties in with the major transportation link. That would be a vast improvement. I know the minister is convinced of the importance of that matter.


George Harris Hees: If I might just answer the question of the hon. member in order to show how quickly we accede to requests in this department. I am pleased to tell him that officials of the Department of Transport, the C.N.R. and the Department of Public Works are at Borden and Tormentine today doing just what he has in mind, namely improving transportation facilities, as he has so correctly outlined in his speech.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: In order to show my deep appreciation I think the best thing I can do is to move immediately from that subject, say a word or two on one more matter and then resume my seat. For a long time we have been interested in improving the airport in Charlottetown so that it might have a runway which would allow for the landing of larger aircraft. I am happy that work is progressing there on the building of a 66968-9-289
Supply-Transport
7,000-foot runway. I think that will make a great improvement in the transportation picture in our province and, of course, in the whole Atlantic area. The hon. member who has just spoken mentioned the airport facilities in Winnipeg. I may say that in that regard Charlottetown is ahead of Winnipeg. We have there already a new and enlarged terminal offering twice the space to visitors and travellers. That facility has proven of great convenience. For that I should like to say that the minister's energetic and swift action is much commended.


Mr. Cardin:: Mr. Chairman, although there are several interesting matters which I might usefully discuss on the estimates of the Minister of Transport, I have chosen to say a relatively few words on a project which is not new to the committee nor to the house but which I think is a timely one to be brought back before the committee at this time. I noticed a while ago just how quick the Minister of Transport was in answering requests from hon. members. I sincerely hope that the request that I shall make will receive the same quick action that we saw just a few moments ago.
I propose to say a few words about the Richelieu waterway or the Champlain waterway as some prefer to call it. As hon. members know, for many years there has been some traffic along the Richelieu river across lake Champlain and down the Hudson river to New York. Because of the nature of the waters it has not been possible for any ships of any size to go through this canal. But ever since the turn of the century representations have continually been made to the government asking it to create a navigable waterway from the St. Lawrence to the city of New York on this particular route. As the years went on and the recommendations and representations were more and more numerous the government decided to have the international joint commission study the project. In 1937 the international joint commission made some recommendations which I think would be useful if they were put on Hansard. At page 17 of the interim report of the international joint commission on the Champlain waterway we read as follows:
Taking into consideration the fact already mentioned that neither the engineers nor any of the interested parties who appeared before the commission in support of or in opposition to the proposed waterway, were of the opinion that it could be justified, if at all, except as an extension of or in connection with the St. Lawrence deep waterway and the fact that the St. Lawrence waterway is not yet assured and in any event could not be completed and put into operation for a number of years; and the further fact that it is impossible to foresee the changes that may take place in transportation in the meantime, or to estimate the

Supply-Transport
bearing the completion of the St. Lawrence waterway might have on the advisability of constructing the improvement now under consideration,-
And this part is important.
-the commission recommends that the present report be considered an interim report, and that it be authorized to retain jurisdiction over the matter until the St. Lawrence waterway has become an accomplished fact and the commission has had an opportunity of studying the effect of its operation upon the proposed Champlain waterway.
Of course this recommendation of the international joint commission at that time put a wet blanket on the project of the Champlain waterway. But once the St. Lawrence seaway had been decided upon, and more particularly as it approached its completion, there were increased activity and increased interest on the part of officials, municipal and civic, both in Canada and in the United States. Over the past few years I remember how many meetings were held either in Sorel or in Plattsburg with officials both of municipalities along the Richelieu river and those in the United States. Chambers of commerce had made repeated representations to the government and many other civic organizations have made similar representation.
Just about a year ago a United States-Canada delegation presented a rather complete and thorough brief to the Prime Minister. According to the Prime Minister's statement, it would appear that he was greatly interested in and taken up with the project. As a result, he promised that he would come to the area in Sorel and travel on the Richelieu river in order to see the project at first hand. Unfortunately-and I can well imagine that it was unavoidable-he was not able to carry out that particular promise. On this occasion I should like to extend to the Prime Minister a further invitation to come to Sorel at which time we will make it amply possible for him to visit what I think is a natural project and one which would be a most useful economical project.
On the United States side there has been as much if not more interest in this particular project. I could cite I do not know how many newspapers on the activities that have taken place in the United States and the comments that have been made on this project. But I think perhaps the greatest evidence of interest in the United States would be given if I quote an article that appeared in La Presse on April 28, 1959:
(Translation):
Consideration is given to a canal connecting Sorel to New York.
Washington, 28, (PCF)-A submission was made yesterday to the American congress for a $10,000 appropriation to allow for continuation of a preliminary study of a proposed canal connecting New York to the St. Lawrence. The present waterway through the Hudson river and lake Champlain provides a channel which is 12 feet deep on the

United States side, but shallower in Canada, in the Richelieu river.
(Text):
I believe it is quite evident that the United States has this project very much at heart and that we in Canada should see to it that a similar study is made. I am not sure whether it will be necessary, as written in the interim report of the international joint committee, to set up another body to conduct the study or whether, as stated on page 17 of the report, the present report could be considered an interim report and that it be authorized to retain jurisdiction on the matter. I am not sure whether or not the international joint commission would automatically go into this study or not but I should like to have the minister assure the committee that a study will be made at this time for the realization of a project which, to me, is an important Canadian project.
I think it would be useful at this time to read into the record the conclusions which were arrived at by the international commission. I quote from page 15 of the report:
Directing itself therefore, to the questions: Is it advisable to improve a waterway from Montreal through lake Champlain to connect with the Hudson river; and what is the estimated cost of such a waterway; the commission finds:
(1)	That there are five possible routes for a waterway from Montreal to the Hudson river by way of lake Champlain, the last-mentioned being an allwater route and the remainder overland routes, as follows:
(a)	From lake St. Francis on the St. Lawrence river to lake Champlain via the Chazy river.
(b)	From lake St. Francis to the Richelieu river three miles south of the city of St. Johns.
(c)	From Caughnawaga, on the St. Lawrence river, to Fryer's island on the Richelieu river.
(d)	From the St. Lawrence at Longueuil to Fryer's island on the Richelieu river.
(e)	From the St. Lawrence river at Sorel up the Richelieu river to lake Champlain.
I should like to draw the attention of the committee, in particular to what follows. I continue the quotation:
In the case of all five routes the existing waterway would be followed through lake Champlain and by way of the Champlain canal to the Hudson river at Albany.
(2)	That of these five routes, the last-mentioned (e) is the most practicable from an engineering standpoint and the least impracticable from an economic point of view.
I think I should remind the committee that this report was written in 1937, and that the development which has taken place in that area since has confirmed to my mind that from an engineering standpoint it would be far more favourable than any of the other alternatives and that from an economic standpoint it would be of the greatest advantage to all concerned. We recall that according to the first plans the St. Lawrence seaway canal was supposed to run on the Montreal

side of the river, but for some reason or another the plan was changed subsequently and the canal now runs on the south shore of the St. Lawrence. If any of the other alternatives were adopted it would mean that the Richelieu waterway would have to cut through the St. Lawrence seaway. It seems to me that there is already sufficient bottling-up around the St. Lawrence seaway without causing additional hazards in that area.
The other reason is that the channel of the Richelieu river, like that of the Hudson river, can only be a maximum of 12 feet. Because of the narrowness of both rivers, if the draught of the river were to be lower than 12 feet it would cost a fortune to sustain the river banks along both these routes. As a matter of fact, also, in favour of the natural water route, in 1937 there was some preparatory work done on the Richelieu river and a considerable amount of money was spent. The dam at St. Ours was reconstructed to take navigation at 12 feet. The Fryer's island dam was also built in prevision of the Richelieu waterway from lake Champlain right down to Sorel, and as a matter of fact the greater part of the Richelieu river as it is now is already 12 feet and it would to my mind cost very little to make it 12 feet all the way.
From an economic standpoint it seems to me that most of the ships which would be using the Richelieu waterway would come from below Montreal and below Sorel. They would be ships transporting paper and iron ore and would normally come up the St. Lawrence to turn into the Richelieu at Sorel. I think very little shipping would be made directly from Montreal to use this water route. Also in past years there has been a considerable evolution in the industrialization of the south shore and it would appear that within a relatively short number of years there will be several steel industries located there. All these industries would be greatly assisted if freight could move via the Richelieu river and on to New York rather than going up to Montreal and having to wait in order to get into the St. Lawrence seaway canal and from there having to enter into another canal and cross territory in order to reach the Richelieu river at St. Johns. I think it would be a serious mistake to divert ships in this way. I think it would be unprofitable to the companies to which I have referred and I think it would be endangering the seaway by cluttering it up with more ships than it has already. It seems to me that the seaway has enough trouble as it is without causing any further inconvenience.
So I make the suggestion to the minister and say that the time is now ripe for a study to be made of the project. I personally feel 66968-9-289J
Supply-Transport
that the most logical, most economic and best route would be to follow the natural route of the river from St. Johns to Sorel. I think it would be less costly and would prove far more effective than any other means.
I sincerely hope that the minister will look into this matter very seriously and if it is at all possible for him to do so to have either the international joint commission or some other body study the possibilities of this project. I invite the minister along with the Prime Minister to visit this area. We would be happy indeed to travel along the Richelieu river with them to follow the route which we believe to be the most desirable and in the best interests.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, may I refer back to a question asked earlier by the hon. member for Laurier. He asked me to state the qualifications of Mr. Clare and also to give the authority for his appointment. I should like to do that now.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the minister for what he is going to do but what I asked was if the minister would be prepared to table the order appointing Mr. Clare and to state his qualifications.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, Mr. Clare was not appointed by an order of the treasury board but by a letter from the regional manager of the real estate branch of this department in Toronto which I have here. I will be very glad to table that letter.
Mr. Clare is reported to have been a realtor in Port Credit and Toronto township for the past eight years; an appraiser and salesman for Harold A. Clarke, realtor, for two years; a graduate of the University of Toronto extension course in sales and advertising; an appraiser for the South Peel board of education, for the village of Port Credit and for the township of Toronto hydroelectric commission. He is also a director of the South Peel real estate board.
He was appointed by a letter, which I will table, from Mr. A. A. Speer, regional manager, real estate branch, Department of Transport, Toronto, written on October 23, 1957, and addressed to Mr. Clare. I would like very much to be able to table the letters I wrote to the hon. member for Peel but unfortunately they are not available. Because of the heat the department closed down at four o'clock as did other departments and we were unable to get into the files. I will be very glad to table that correspondence tomorrow morning.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister does not anticipate that he will finish his estimates tonight does he?

Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am always one of those who hope.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Perhaps I could ask the minister what he is attempting to do at this time. Does he ask that these documents be tabled or did I understand him to ask that they be placed on the record of Hansard?


George Harris Hees: I would like to make this part of the record of Hansard.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is it agreeable to the committee that the document held by the minister shall become part of the record of Hansard?
Some hon. Members. Agreed.
(Editor's note: The letter above referred to, follows:)
5168-648 Real Estate
Room 1311, 55 York Street Toronto, Ontario.
October 23, 1957.
Mr. Earl Clare,
Earl Clare Real Estate Limited,
103 Lake Shore Road East,
Port Credit, Ontario.
re: Toronto (Malton) Gwendolyn Hatton H. G. Hatton Ann Wales Aileen Drew
Airport, Ontario -Lot 41, R.P. 360 -Lot 40, R.P. 360 -Lot 1, R.P. 360 -Lot 5, Con. 7
Dear Sir:
The above mentioned properties were included in an expropriation by Her Majesty the Queen in the right o 1 Canada, by registration No. 79365, on the 12th of February, 1954 in the interest of the proposed future development of Malton airport.
The claimants mentioned herein have indicated their desire to have settlement decided by Exchequer Court. In this connection we have been authorized to engage your services to conduct appraisals of the properties concerned, basing your valuations on property market values prevailing in this particular area as at the date of expropriation, namely the 12th of February, 1954.
It may be possible that additional appraisals may be required and, if this is the case, we will again communicate with you.
Should you require any further information with regard to these properties please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned.
In submitting individual reports would you kindly include your invoice, in quadruplicate, showing the cost of your services in order that payment for same can be arranged.
We look forward to receiving your kind co-operation in this regard.
Yours very truly
A. A. Speer Regional Manager Real Estate Branch Department of Transport Toronto
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. McCleave): I
would remind the committee that only official documents can be tabled. We can receive 
unofficial documents such as the affidavit referred to earlier by the hon. member for Vancouver East. It may be placed before us and filed for the information of hon. members but it is not tabled.


Mr. McGee:: Mr. Chairman, normally when an hon. member rises in committee or in the house with a pile of books or documents on his desk it is sometimes indicative of rather extensive notes but far be it from me to involve myself in the problem of reading speeches.
In respect of some issues and particularly one now current in my constituency I receive letters and in this instance I suggest that by comparison Perry Como is a bit of a piker. The letters and documents in the folders on my desk refer to a matter which I am sure is well known to the minister. It concerns the Canadian National Railways by-pass over the north end of Toronto. The greater part of the proposed route to be followed falls within the boundaries of the constituency of York-Scarborough.
Perhaps before putting a specific question to the minister I should give the committee some background concerning this matter. The original proposal for this proposed bypass and the route it was to follow was put forward by the Canadian National Railways some time ago. It was greeted with mixed feelings in various areas and it is not surprising that many individuals owning and occupying homes in or near the proposed route of the by-pass were most upset and concerned. Judging from the many letters I have received on this subject and as a result of my personal observations in the constituency over the proposed route there is not on the part of the people concerned any specific argument or disagreement as to the necessity for the by-pass itself. The economic benefits that will flow into the area and into metropolitan Toronto in general are conceded to be valid in every respect.
There have been a number of ratepayer groups formed in various sections of my constituency and neighbouring constituencies involved in this matter. When the original route proposal was announced maps were made available to residents in the area. Various groups were formed, some of them outgrowths of existing ratepayer groups, and some special groups were organized to look into the matter with a view to making recommendations in respect of this proposed route.
I must say that the officials of the Canadian National Railways and the minister have been most co-operative in acceding to my demands that every reasonable consideration should be given to persons who are likely

to be affected by this route and in the main that pledge and undertaking has been met.
More recently a group of ratepayers was formed in the Thornhill area comprising some engineers qualified to examine and assess various aspects of engineering data which I quite freely confess are beyond my grasp. This committee met on many occasions and expended a great deal of time, effort and money in examining an alternative route which was then proposed to the C.N.R. based on the general conditions set down in the original announcement. This alternative route would largely by-pass the village of Thornhill, move northward along existing C.N.R. lines and would cross Yonge street at a point which in the view of the committee would affect fewer people. This route in the view of the committee would be consistent with the original undertaking given by the Canadian National Railways.
The alternative route proposal was studied by the engineering division of the railway and within the last week the project director of the railway company wrote to the people concerned in the following terms:
A detailed study of the second route was undertaken and, on completion of our studies, we expressed the view that this route failed to compare favourable with the one originally chosen by us.
Since the last meeting with your committee of engineers, we have again studied the second route and have confirmed our decision that there are no compelling characteristics to this route over that originally selected by the Canadian National Railways-
I would like to repeat, Mr. Chairman, I am not qualified to judge the relative engineering merits of these two alternate routes but I would appreciate some comment from the minister concerning this when I resume my seat. This group having advanced specific reasons of a humane nature concerning the possible effect on schools, school children, the health of the residents in the Thornhill area; having examined this question in a manner and to a degree that certainly surprised me; having dealt with such matters as degrees of sound emitted by diesel engines, the amount of dust, and so on, suspended in the air, and many other related factors; having done this, having conducted a count of the adjacent homes affected by this original proposed route and, as I say, having obtained more engineering data, they received what in their view and in their opinion, as a result of the letters I have received this week, amounted to an out of hand refusal. I certainly feel that if there are good and sufficient reasons why this original route must prevail we are all prepared to adopt a reasonable attitude in this regard. I would respectfully submit, Mr. Chairman, that this group is entitled to a point by point rebuttal of the
Supply-Transport
proposals they have put forward and an answer to the reasons they have advanced in support of their case.
I do not wish to detain the committee. I am ready to resume my seat and ask the minister whether he would submit to my specific demand for a further review of this matter and certainly a more specific and detailed rebuttal of the proposals put forward by this group.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to accede to the hon. member's request. If he will give me the correspondence to which he has referred I shall be glad to forward it to the management of the Canadian National Railways and request that this matter be given fuller consideration and a full and detailed answer given to the people on whose behalf the hon. member has just spoken.
While I am on my feet I should like to answer questions put to me earlier by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He complained about certain work on the locks of the St. Lawrence seaway which, in his judgment, had not been properly finished. I have spoken to the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority and he has given me the following report: The hon. member referred to the construction work which, according to his information or judgment, did not appear to be satisfactory. In a work so complicated and extensive as the seaway, with a good deal of winter construction, there are likely to be individual items of work which in the first instance do not meet the specifications. It is the responsibility of the engineering staff to insist upon remedial measures and satisfactory work, failing which there are retained funds to protect the public interests. I am assured that this course has been followed in seaway construction and that where work remains to be done sufficient funds to cover the same are held back.


Mr. Phillips:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief remarks on the transportation estimates, as transportation has always been one of our most important problems. Recently we have seen considerable progress made in solving some of those problems. First, there was the reduction in the freight rates and more recently the announcement of a new car ferry which will be designed to meet our specific needs in carrying the increased car and truck traffic across the Northumberland strait. The announcement was very well received and the people of our province are grateful to the Minister of Transport for the consideration he has given the province.
An effort was made to stampede the federal government into purchasing a second-hand


Mr. Macdonald (Kings):: Mr. Chairman, before the first item is passed I should like to make a few remarks with regard to the transportation problems concerning our province and particularly my own constituency of Kings. I hope the committee will not be bored with the repetition of our island problems but I know it is appreciated that because of our insular position we are very "transportation conscious" and all our people are very sensitive to our problems in that regard.
Last week I spent a few days in my constituency visiting the very many fishing harbours all along the coast. I should like to say a few words about navigational lights. Our larger harbours have been pretty well taken care of for a number of years but unfortunately the smaller ones have been more or less neglected. I want to commend the government on the installation of the new small lights of the Wallace and Tiernan type, which are being installed in a great many of our harbours and which have proven very successful besides being very economical to instal and maintain. I should like to commend them also for the rebuilding of lightkeepers' accommodations. When I visited Souris I found, not very far from the splendid federal building which is being erected, that the foundation had been completed for a new lightkeepers' dwelling in that area. This is the second one replaced under this government.
In the waters off the eastern part of Prince Edward Island we have a great abundance of fish which has attracted a great many draggers during the past few years. Representations have been made by the dragger owners' association for the erection of a ship to shore telephone service at East point. There is a small one operated by a private company at Souris but it is

not nearly adequate to look after the problems that the draggermen have when at sea. We all realize that this is a very dangerous occupation and a very monotonous one at times, and there is a great lack of adequate communication with the mainland. The only suitable place for the erection of such a station is at East point and I would strongly urge the minister to give early consideration to the problem of the dragger fishermen in that area.
We in the maritimes have been very interested to note that the icebreaker facilities of the department have been enlarged this year. I want to thank the minister for providing assistance to the sealing industry during the past two winters. On several occasions icebreakers of the department provided assistance at a critical time and it was greatly appreciated by those engaged in that industry. Now that these icebreakers are in operation I should like to mention that prime consideration should be given to the ports of Souris and Georgetown in my constituency which are the latest to remain open in the province. I might say that sometimes at the tail end of the season the whole province depends on the use of these two ports for the export of large shipments of potatoes, particularly to southern United States markets, and it is very important that we have good icebreaking service. We have been fairly successful to date and I hope that with the new facilities available we will have no difficulties whatsoever in that regard.
In passing may I say with regard to icebreaking on the St. Lawrence that I believe there is a limit to what we can do in bucking nature. I know that during the last season winter set in more quickly and severely than had been expected, but I do not think so much expense is warranted in any year to try to keep the St. Lawrence open.
I should also like to submit that a landing strip should be constructed in Kings county. I may say that this was recommended to the royal commission on transportation, often known as the "Turgeon Commission", and we feel that we are at a considerable disadvantage economically in our county because of the fact that we have never had an air strip there. There are many advantages economically and otherwise which would follow the construction of such an air strip and I hope the department will give strong consideration to this in the near future.
One of our main problems with regard to transportation, of course, is the connection with the mainland. As has been said over and over again, one of the terms under which we entered confederation was that we would be provided with "continuous and adequate
Supply-Transport
transportation to the mainland", and ever since there have been a great many problems involved in maintaining that link. I am not going to go into the whole history because it is very lengthy and has been given on very many occasions.
We know that the present service is by large icebreaking ferries which carry railway cars, and it has been considered for a number of years that this service is not sufficient. Various other solutions have been discussed, for example, the building of a tunnel or a bridge and latterly the building of a causeway. I might say that the last suggestion is perhaps the most practical and economical. The previous government talked about the construction of a causeway for some years but I know they did not do a great deal about it because I have a letter in my office from the Department of Public Works stating that they spent only $6,600 in investigating the possibility of building such a causeway. That is insignificant in comparison with the over $600,000 which has been spent or appropriated to be spent on a thorough survey to determine whether or not a causeway is feasible.
There are, of course, many factors to be considered such as: tides, ice conditions, the effect on fisheries, the availability of fill near the point of construction and armour rock for the sides of the causeway, whether a railway track will be included in the project, and so on. However, we are still hopeful that the project will be declared feasible and we are awaiting with interest the final report on the causeway survey. Even if it is declared feasible, of course, it would be a project which would take a number of years to complete. Meanwhile, the traffic to and from Prince Edward Island continues to grow. We appreciate very much the recent action taken to help the situation by the appropriation for a new boat at the earliest possible time. We feel that the construction of a new boat and the expansion of all the available facilities, such as the minister mentioned were being investigated, will be of great assistance in alleviating our transportation problems. I can assure the minister this is greatly appreciated by the people of Prince Edward Island.
I have a rather long range request. I should like to suggest that if the causeway becomes a reality and some of these boats are available, a new service might be inaugurated between Pictou and Georgetown, P.E.I. Both of these points have splendid harbours, and we have no hesitation in saying that we feel the service will be very popular and very well patronized. In summing up, Mr. Chairman, I would just ask the minister and his departmental officials to

Supply-Transport
give urgent and early consideration to three points I mentioned, namely: the ship to shore station at East point; the expansion of the icebreaking service next fall, and the construction of a landing strip in Kings county.


Mr. Herridge:: I have been most uncomfortable this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I have perspired, occasionally retired, and now I feel like expiring. I have been looking around for the reason and suddenly my eyes fell on the calendar, June 10. It was on a former June 10 in 1957 that there was a political volcano erupted in Canada and, unfortunately from our point of view, a lot of Conservative lava flowed over some jolly good C.C.F. members. We are working hard during these months, and we expect they will come to life again before the next election.
I am going to make a few very brief remarks on this item. I have a few other remarks to make on the particular items, but I like to deal with particular matters under the particular items so that the minister has the appropriate officials in front of him, although I know the deputy minister is familiar with most of these matters.
For a number of years I have raised my voice in this house on behalf of the people in the southeastern portion of British Columbia in protest against the inadequate service on the Kettle Valley railway. I want at this time to thank the minister for the part he has played in making arrangements with the board of transport commissioners to hold public hearings in Nelson on June 22. I can say, Mr. Chairman that there has been an excellent response to that opportunity by the people in the southern interior of British Columbia. They will let the board of transport commissioners know what they think about the present service. I can assure the minister and the board there will be strong representations from chambers of commerce, from trade unions and from other bodies who, when they make their representations before the board, will speak for all the people in the southern interior of British Columbia, regardless of party.
I just want to take this opportunity to bring a matter to the attention of the committee, and it entered my mind because I have been dealing for a few minutes with the curtailment of service and the inadequate service on the Kettle Valley railroad. It was brought to my attention by a very old gentleman in my riding who has had a lot of experience throughout the years in northern Canada, and who has made a very close study of the railroad needs of the country. I promised him to bring this matter before the house. While doing this, I want to say that

I remember, in conversation with him, reading the minutes of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines or possibly the committee on government railways, I am not sure-I am getting on in years and my memory fails me on occasion-where there was a reference to the thousands of miles of railroad owned by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific in the United States, while we in Canada are suffering a curtailment of passenger service in various places and the abandonment of passenger service in other places.
It is my opinion, Mr. Chairman, that not only should we make a study of freight rates and the cost of freight rates to the carrying on of business in this country, but I think there should be some study given by the government and its agencies to the level of passenger service required to meet the needs of the people of Canada. I think there should be some study made and some co-ordination of the present services. There should be some study of the necessity for building railroads to meet the needs of the future. I think we should begin to look at this question now, and the proper authority to give the lead on that question is the government of Canada and particularly the Minister of Transport. I make that suggestion, and when the minister replies I should like to get his comments. I do not make that as a suggestion-


Mr. Hicks:: I wonder if I could ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Certainly.


William Harold Hicks: Does he not think it was the action of his neighbours, the Doukhobors, that caused the curtailment of passenger service and the higher freight rates in that area?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Nothing of the sort; the Canadian Pacific Railway took advantage of the situation created by a few indecent bombs to curtail the service as quickly as possible; that is the opinion in my district. Anyone can prove that by the fact that there are freight trains running 24 hours a day, while the passenger trains are running in the daylight. All the bridges have lights and there are handcars to proceed over the bridge first to make sure it is safe. If the needs of the people are considered by the persons concerned, if the board of transport commissioners and the officials of the Canadian Pacific railway get together, I am sure they will be able to work out something that will be satisfactory to all concerned, especially if they enter these negotiations in the right spirit and with good will.

I mentioned this need for a study particularly of the railroad requirements of Canada with respect to passenger service, the existing railroads and the need for extension of them.
Before concluding, I want to bring the minister's attention to a map which has been supplied me by this very old gentleman who has studied the problem for years. I promised him I would bring this up in the house. He suggests there is an opportunity in the future for a third national railway to serve the more northerly portion of Canada. I see the minister opening his mouth and looking with despair, but I said an opportunity in the future. According to this gentleman's map, there is an opportunity in the future for a third national railway to serve the northern portion of Canada by connecting up a lot of railways that exist today. His plan here shows the railway starting at Winnipeg, going to Hudson Bay Junction, Birch Hills, Meadow Lake, Boyle, Athabasca, McLennan, Hines Creek, and eventually to Prince Rupert.
I just told this gentleman I would bring his suggestion before the committee. He has been very keen about it. I think he has written some letters to former ministers of transport throughout the years, and possibly to some officials in the department. In making these few remarks, I am keeping my word to this old gentleman. When a person takes the time to buy books, travel at his own expense and study a problem, even though his solution may not be the correct one, I think it is the proper attitude on the part of anyone in public life to do anything they can to recognize that spirit. This old gentleman, who is nearly 90, is still interested in the development of Canada. I wish there were a good many young people between the ages of 15 and 20 who were as interested in the development of this country at this time as this old gentleman. I bring that matter to the attention of the minister and I should like to have his comments when he replies at a later date.


George Harris Hees: I should be very glad to look over that study and the recommendations which the hon. member has just mentioned. It sounded extremely interesting. If he would be good enough to let me have it, I and my officials will be glad to give it careful study.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 392 carry?


Walter Clarence Henderson: I do not like to take up much time of the committee but there is something I should like to mention. I obtained a good bit of notoriety in the papers in connection with the Banks case. Apparently Mr. Banks has been moving in on a ship's crew and telling them that if they hire certain people they would jerk the crew off the ship. I have here a sworn statement made by a man who had worked fifteen years on a boat.
Supply-Transport
Banks told him at eleven o'clock on June 2 that he would have no ship if they hired the man. The gentleman's family is hard up against it. He spent fifteen years working for these people. Banks told him distinctly he would take the crew off the ship if the man were employed. What kind of country have we?


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 392 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to join with my colleague the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres in dealing with a matter which is of extreme importance not only to himself but to all Quebec members, particularly those in the Montreal area. I refer, of course, to the Champlain cut-off or the Richelieu waterway as it is often called. It is a question which has been under discussion for some years. It is one with which the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is more conversant than am I. It is one that should be engaging the attention of the House of Commons at this time.
I say that, Mr. Chairman, not only because of the representations which have been made to many hon. members, and more particularly to hon. members opposite, but also to several of the ministers of the present government. I know that groups and associations have banded themselves together in order to make the requisite recommendations in favour of this waterway. I think the time has arrived, first, for the appointment of a board of engineers to consider the economics of this waterway. I do not suggest that the time has arrived to go beyond that point yet. But in order to have a perfect understanding of the problem that is before us there must be at least some sort of economic or engineering study; and that is what I want to plead for on this occasion.
The committee knows the matter engaged the attention of the international joint commission many years ago. The matter came before the international joint commission because it concerned, I presume, boundary waters; it concerned waters which had to do with the Richelieu river and the canals of Canada, including the Champlain and St. Ours canals, as well as the Champlain waterway together with the Hudson river. Because of the fact that several states of the union were interested in the project, the matter was referred to the international joint commission for determination. That was done back in 1937.
The international joint commission at that time considered a number of alternate routes. It is not my intention at this time, because of the hour, to go into these routes seriatim. There were two routes which extended from the south shore of lake St. Francis to the

Supply-Transport
city of St. Johns. Consideration was given to a number of other routes, one of them going from Caughnawaga to the Richelieu river and another following the Richelieu river itself.
The point I wish to make at this time is that the international joint commission felt that the time had not arrived to make a determination of the issue and they asked that the matter be held in abeyance, that the report which they made in 1937 be considered as an interim report and that as and when the great lakes-St. Lawrence seaway was developed the international joint commission should be seized of the problem again.
It is quite clear why the international joint commission made that decision. At that time consideration was being given to the great lakes-St. Lawrence waterway. It was inconceivable that this cut-off should be built when so many discussions and so many negotiations had been carried on in connection with the other project. But now that the other project is in fact completed; now that the official opening will take place; now that we know what is going to happen I think the time has arrived first for the appointment of a board of engineers to consider the economics of the Champlain-Richelieu cut-off and, next for referring the matter to the international joint commission so that it might give the proper consideration to it.
The Minister of Transport or the government might feel that the international joint commission is the body itself to appoint the engineers to deal with the matter. But to my mind there is no doubt that the time has now arrived to give this matter consideration. I say that the time has now arrived to give this matter consideration because of the fact that a board of engineers dealing with a matter such as this will take many months, perhaps a year to report; I do not know how long they might take. Because of that fact I think the government should be giving the matter more active consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call it six o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what the business is for tomorrow and Friday?


Howard Charles Green: We shall continue with these estimates and then take the estimates of the Department of Justice.


Lionel Chevrier: What about Monday?


Howard Charles Green: I cannot give the hon. member that information.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 448
Hazen Robert Argue: 1.	Is a Mr. Jean C. Lessard presently employed with the St. Lawrence seaway authority? If so, in what position?
2.	Does Mr. Lessard hold any positions with crown corporations or boards?
3.	If so, which ones, in what capacity, from what *date, and at what remuneration?
4.	Is Mr. Lessard a director or officer of any other non-government company?
5.	If so, what companies, in what position, from what date, and in what business are these companies engaged?
6.	Has any department of the government, crown corporation, the Canadian National Railways or the St. Lawrence seaway authority, contracted, purchased or had any business relationship with any
Question
of the companies with which Mr. Lessard is connected since his association with them?
7.	If so, what departments or government bodies or agencies, what was the nature of the business, the date, and value of each transaction?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	Yes; vice president:
2.	Yes.
3.	Cornwall Internationl Bridge Company Limited, president, 1 October 1957, no remuneration; Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation, director, 1 March 1957, no remuneration.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by 4.
6.	Answered by 4.
7.	Answered by 4.

Thursday, June 11, 1959



INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on industrial relations-Mr. Small.