1959-06-11

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


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, one week from today Her Majesty the Queen will once more set foot on Canadian soil. As Canadians prepare to welcome her, I think it is appropriate that I should make an announcement which I feel sure will be of general interest. The Queen has always shown a personal interest and concern in and devotion to the welfare and physical well-being of children; therefore in place of the usual presentation it has been considered desirable that the commemoration of her visit take the beneficiary form of a fund which would provide new hope for Canadian children.
This matter has been brought to her attention and she has been graciously pleased to approve the proposal of the Canadian government that a fund for research in children's diseases be established. With Her Majesty's consent the fund will be known as the Queen Elizabeth II fund for research in children's diseases.
The purpose of the fund will be to provide financial aid to institutions and individuals in Canada engaged in research in children's diseases, a field of medical science in which many problems remain unsolved.
The amount of the fund will be $1 million, for which amount the government will shortly ask parliament for its acceptance. I should add, too, that without in any way constituting a suggestion, much less a direction in this regard, if any provincial or municipal authorities desiring especially to mark the visit of Her Majesty would desire to do so, the Queen has signified that she would be happy if the fund were to be the beneficiary of any additional contributions which might be offered from such sources.
May I express satisfaction that it is possible, in thus commemorating her forthcoming visit, to manifest in her name as
Queen of Canada support for the efforts being pursued in all parts of the country toward the progressive elimination of the scourge of diseases affecting children.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of the house will have heard with great pleasure the Prime Minister's announcement. In so far as we on this side of the house are concerned, we warmly support this proposal as a most imaginative and constructive way of commemorating Her Majesty's visit. If there could be additional contributions to the fund by provincial and municipal authorities and perhaps even by private individuals, that might make the fund even more important in carrying out the great work which the Prime Minister has mentioned.
I am quite certain that Her Majesty will get a great deal more satisfaction from this kind of gift than from another mink coat or piece of jewelry. I am also satisfied that Canadian children in the years to come, because of the work done through this fund commemorating her visit, may have cause to remember the visit with even greater joy than would ordinarily be the case.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, the C.C.F. group feel that the Prime Minister's announcement is most appropriate. We believe that Her Majesty and Canadian citizens generally will welcome and support the proposal to provide a million dollar fund for research into children's diseases as a most suitable indication of the esteem of Canadian citizens for Her Majesty. I am certain that Her Majesty will derive great personal satisfaction from this tribute in the realization that for many years to come the fund will be used to improve the lives and increase the hopes and happiness of certain of Her Majesty's subjects, those who are stricken in childhood, so their future may be brighter.



CRIMINAL CODE

Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-58, to amend the Criminal Code.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

Proposed Legislation



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE

Edmund Davie Fulton: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-59, to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Mr. Pickersgill:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I would appreciate the opportunity of making a short explanation. This bill contains one clause which would provide the governor in council with the power to appoint ad hoc commissioners and to pay them such remuneration and allowances as might be set. When the bill was first submitted it was thought there would be no need for a resolution. Since notice of the bill appeared in Votes and Proceedings a question has arisen as to whether, with that clause in the bill, it would require a resolution. However, the bill is now on the order paper and in view of the time factor this session and since it is not absolutely essential to have this provision in the bill at this session, it is my suggestion that the matter be dealt with by my giving notice that at the committee stage, after second reading, I will move to delete that clause. This would have the result that there would be no financial implications in the bill and, on that basis and with that explanation, I would ask the house to give consent to the introduction of the bill at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to give consent to the introduction of the bill, on the basis of the minister's explanation?
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIME MINISTER'S RESIDENCE ACT


Hon. Howard C. Green (Minister of Public Works) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the schedule to the Prime Minister's Residence Act to bring certain property in the township of Eardley, county of Gatineau within the scope of the act.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the

following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to extend its operations for a further period commencing on the 1st day of April, 1959 and ending on the 30th day of June, 1962; to provide that the maximum amount of bank loans made in the new period and guaranteed under the act shall be three hundred million dollars; to provide further for certain changes in connection with the administration of the act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether he can give the house an assurance that the Canadian air division in France under the NATO command will not be affected by any orders that may be issued to the United States squadrons by the NATO commander, moving those squadrons out of France.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: At present there are six squadrons of the air division located in France. Four of these squadrons are equipped with the F-86 and two with the CF-100. These aircraft are not equipped to carry nuclear weapons, so the question of their redeployment hardly arises at the present time. I think, therefore, I can give the necessary assurances to the Leader of the Opposition.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, if it has not already been done, he would table the exchange of notes modifying the Rush-Bagot treaty concluded, I think, last spring, to make possible the passage of 27 United States vessels through the Welland canal?


Howard Charles Green: I will be very glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Has the minister of mines given any consideration to the proposal by the

united mine workers of America that the powers of the dominion coal board be enlarged so that it can act as a coal sales agency?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: I shall take the question as notice and have an answer prepared for tomorrow or Monday at the latest.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement made by the premier of Quebec, appearing in several newspapers, to the effect that he will attend the meeting of ministers to be called here in July, will the premier be welcomed at the next meeting and will he be entitled to take part in the discussions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I have had no intimation on this subject except what has appeared in the press as alluded to by the hon. gentleman. I expect that any provincial premier coming to Ottawa at any time is assured of a welcome.


Lionel Chevrier: Does it follow from the minister's answer that he is also assured of taking part in the discussions?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will be
a matter, I take it, for decision on the part of the government of Quebec as to its representation at the conference. It will certainly not be the intention of the federal government to put obstacles in the way of the selection by a province of whatever delegates it may choose.


Lionel Chevrier: Would that answer apply also to all other premiers of provinces, whether or not they are ministers of finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: We do not attempt to draw distinctions between provinces. [Later :1


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the Prime Minister consider, with a view to relieving the Minister of Finance of all the embarrassment which will obviously be caused by having his uninvited guest turn up, inviting the premiers of all the provinces and having a real conference in July?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: The only embarrassment which I perceived was that caused to the questioner a moment ago, and not to the Minister of Finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But does not the Prime Minister think that in view of the fact that the premier of Quebec has announced his intention of coming it would be a very beneficial thing to invite all the premiers and have a real conference?
(Translation):



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State. Could he tell us whether positions held in what are known as semi-staff post offices of the Post Office Department come under the civil service commission? If so, are those positions filled after public notices have been put up and an oral or written competition has been held to that effect?


Hon. Henri Courlemanche (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for having given me notice of his question. The reply is as follows: Assistants appointed to semi-staff post offices are appointed by the Postmaster General.
Postmasters of semi-staff post offices come under the civil service commission. Those positions are advertised by the commission, offered to patrons of the post office concerned and filled on the basis of a written and oral competition.
However, when the Post Office Department recommends the appointment to a postmastership of an assistant postmaster with ten years' service, the commission may, if satisfied that the employee concerned has the required qualifications, ask the governor in council to approve waiver of the Civil Service Act so as to proceed with the appointment without a competition being held.
(Text):



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arihur):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Can the minister comment on the statement issued a few days ago by Northrop Aviation to the effect that they were ready to let contracts in Canada?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: I have read articles in various newspapers about the letting of contracts worth several millions of dollars in Canada. I can only state for the time being that any aviation company is at liberty to make propaganda for its own planes. In the Department of Defence Production several suggestions have been made for contracts, and we are working on them. If Northrop are interested in placing contracts, as they have stated in the press, we have not been officially advised of it. We are certainly interested.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. Can the minister say whether Northrop have any contracts for aircraft at the present time which might fit into the Canadian defence picture?


Mr. O'Hurley:: At the present time my answer is no.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to ask the Secretary of State if his department has yet received the partial return which the Minister of Finance told us over a week ago had been sent to his department in response to a request by the hon. member for Trinity-Conception; and if so, would the minister table it?


Henri Courtemanche: Mr. Speaker, I think I will be able to deposit everything tomorrow.



REQUEST FOR HOUSE OF COMMONS SOFTBALL TEAM SCHEDULE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. J. McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of tourists and others seeking high class entertainment, could I ask the hon. member for Waterloo North the schedule of this year's House of Commons softball team?


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: I may
advise the hon. member for Halifax that the first game will be played on Wednesday, June 17 against the protective staff, and on Wednesday, June 24 we shall be playing our friends in the press gallery.


An hon. Member:: Friends?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this is business of the house or orders of the day.


The house in committee of supply, Mr. McCleave in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 392. Departmental administration, $2,587,500.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, last evening when the house adjourned I was discussing a matter which had already been introduced by my colleague the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, and that was the allimportant question, for a number of us, of the construction of the Champlain waterway or cut-off, as it is often called; or again, the deepening of the Richelieu.
I think I had almost completed my remarks, and I will not detain the house unduly, but there are one or two additional points I would like to make. However, before making them I think I should say this, that after the house adjourned one hon. member, with whom I am friendly, indicated to me that perhaps it would not be opportune to give consideration to this question when there is at the present time so much uncertainty about additional facilities at Welland. While I welcome that suggestion from the hon. member, which I think is very much to the point, it does seem to me, sir, that the two projects are not exclusive of each other.
Before I return to my original point I would like to pause here for a moment to remind the Minister of Transport that on an earlier occasion I asked him whether or not consideration was being given by the seaway authority engineers to the duplication of facilities at Welland. He avoided the question, as he sometimes does in his very elusive manner. But here may I make this suggestion to the minister. I said before that it is too early to determine now whether or not the facilities at Welland are sufficient. It would take at least one navigation season in order to determine that, if not two, but as the committee knows much of the work on the St. Lawrence seaway has been completed and many of the trusted officers and engineers have been forced to find work elsewhere.
Would it not be an excellent idea if some of those engineers who were associated with the special projects branch of the Department of Transport were retained in order to make a study of the cost and the economics of duplicating the single locks in the Welland canal? There is no doubt if that job were to be done it would take some years and would cost substantial sums of money. Therefore it seems to me to be opportune at this time for the special projects branch of the department to give consideration to that suggestion. I wonder whether the minister when he replies would not be so good as to let the

committee know whether this matter will be attended to, if it has not already been started.
I come back now to the question I was discussing in the first place. I do not think that by any stretch of the imagination these two projects are exclusive one of the other. On the contrary, I believe that if the Richelieu and Champlain cut-off were constructed it would add to the potential and increase the traffic of the St. Lawrence seaway. If I could pause here for a moment I should like to bring to the attention of the committee one of the findings of the international joint commission dealing with the Champlain waterway in April of 1937, concerning the costs.
After having come to the conclusion that five routes had been under discussion the commission stated that the estimated capital cost and annual carrying charges for the construction of a 12-foot waterway from the St. Lawrence to the Hudson via lake Champlain would be approximately $12,884,000 and $953,000 respectively; that the estimated annual cost and annual carrying charges for the construction of a 14-foot waterway would be approximately $50 million and $2,738,000 respectively, and that the estimated capital cost and annual carrying charges for the construction of a 27-foot waterway would be approximately $342,205,000 and $17,646,000 respectively. This will give the committee some idea of what was envisaged in 1937 by way of cost for the three depths of waterway, 12-foot, 14-foot and 27-foot.
My colleague the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres dealt with the technical aspects of the waterway from the United States side right up to the international border and then on up the St. Lawrence river. In the remarks I am making now I am not suggesting any route, because the commission in its report had under consideration five different routes and it may be that with the St. Lawrence seaway having been developed new routes not under consideration at that time should be considered today. I am certainly not in a position to say so. I believe that is a matter for a board of engineers. That is why I reiterate the statement I made last evening and on several previous occasions, that a board of engineers be established which would study the economics, the cost and the traffic aspects of this route.
I need not tell the committee that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys as well as the Minister of Defence Production, I believe, if not the Solicitor General as well, have received very strong representations in connection with this matter. I am sure their interest in this project is as keen as my own. I have not the slightest doubt that these three hon. gentleman have brought to the attention of the government the various aspects
Supply-Transport
of the problem. However, having had some experience in government I know that very often it is not possible for ministers to rise and say everything they would like to say on occasions such as this because of government policy concerning this and other matters affecting other parts of Canada. I am sure they will not disagree with me when I rise and put forward for the attention of the government the various aspects of this problem.
It seems to me that the time has arrived, as stated in the report of the international joint commission, for that commission to be seized de novo of the problem. I believe the international joint commission should be asked to consider it once again. It strikes me that because of the time limitation mentioned in the original report, in which it was stated that this matter should not be considered until after the St. Lawrence seaway had been completed, the time has now arrived for a study of it. It is not too much to ask the government to study it. It would not be a commitment. I think the people interested are entitled to know what are the economic, traffic and financial aspects of the problem, and the only way to do that is through the establishment of a board of engineers or the reference of the question to the international joint commission.
I am sure if the government were to do that it would be a step in the right direction. I need hardly say that I am delighted the Prime Minister is in his seat. I know he takes great interest in problems of national development, and this certainly is one which envisages both Canada and the United States. I ask him if he will not give the matter consideration in the light of the remarks I have just made.
There is one other matter I should like to discuss before I resume my seat. I have taken it up on other occasions, but to me it is a problem of great importance. As the committee knows, once the St. Lawrence seaway was completed a number of canals disappeared. The Soulanges canal disappeared-not physically, I hope, but it disappeared from a point of view of navigation-because the route is now moved from the northern part of lake St. Francis down through the Beauharnois canal. The Lachine canal does not disappear but will continue to service industry so long as industry remains there. The movement of the 27-foot draft ships will be up the south shore through the new locks at St. Lambert and Cote St. Catherine. As hon. members may be aware, several of the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals will disappear including the Farran's Point canal, the Rapide Plat canal, the Williamsburg canal, the Cornwall canal and the Iroquois canal. In fact they are gone now. They are under water save and except about

Supply-Transport
2\ to 3 miles of the Cornwall canal. With the disappearance of these canals-if not physically, as I have said, at least from the point of view of traffic-also go the employees, and that is the point I want to deal with. I ask, what will happen to the employees of these canals? I know the minister has the problem under consideration; I know the minister and his officers have given this problem pretty serious consideration. I know that in some cases they have succeeded in finding jobs which were adequate for people who have been displaced, which were equal to the jobs they had before; but I also know of a number of cases which I personally took up with the minister where that has not been possible, where that was not done. I am now asking the minister whether he will bring the committee up to date on the position of all these employees of the Department of Transport on the various canals. These employees have been there for many years, some of them I think for as long as 35 or 40 years, and others have been there a shorter length of time.
In answer to a question which I put on Hansard it was indicated to me what the position was at that time. I think it was indicated that in the eastern district, that is concerning the Lachine canal, there were about 230 employees affected. It was indicated that in the central district, which included the Soulanges and Beauharnois canals, there were 136 employees affected, and in the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, the western district, there were 225 employees affected, making a total of 591. In the return I think it was indicated that it had been possible to find employment under the St. Lawrence authority for 432 of those employees, leaving 159 without work. I believe that was in April of this year, and I hope the position is better now than it was at that time.
So as not to rise again on the matter, 1 would like to bring certain things to the attention of the house. The minister may remember that on a similar occasion some years ago, in 1954 as a matter of fact, the Department of Transport disposed of certain assets in British Columbia to the British Columbia Telephone Company. These telephone services were operated by the Department of Transport. An agreement had been made with the British Columbia Telephone Company under which the employees of the Department of Transport would be taken on, and the officers of the Department of Transport did their best to make sure that no one would lose employment because of the transfer. They succeeded in large part but they did not succeed in full and when I came before the house with my estimates there was no one more insistent than the British

Columbia members that there should be no one who, having been an employee of the Department of Transport, should suffer because of the transfer and because of the exchange.
I was impelled by the strength of the argument to indicate to the officers of the department that I left a great deal more should be done than had already been done. I remind the committee that on that occasion more than one member said that the financial treatment because of the transfer was much better with the new corporation than with the Department of Transport, although certain superannuation benefits were perhaps not as good.
The result was that the Minister of Justice, then the member for Kamloops, as he still is, rose in the house and spoke at some length on the matter. After a full discussion of the whole matter by parliament, after parliament had been given the views not only of the member for Kamloops but also of a number of the members from the C.C.F. party, it was felt that no one should be left without employment because of that transfer.
I am happy to report that in the discussion which followed I think most members of the house felt that the arrangement made was satisfactory. I am not going so far as to say, sir, that no one was left without employment. No, that was not the case. I think I was able to report that, dealing with certain other employees of the Department of Transport who were displaced because of radio matters-260-odd members -employment had been found for every one of them with the exception of 7, and among those there was, of course, the difficulty of age.
I am sure the officers of the Department of Transport and the minister himself will want to see to it that no injustice is done in this case. May I go a step further and make this statement. I hope it will not be found to be an exaggerated one. I believe it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to see that every one of those canal employees who has been displaced is given a job similar or closely similar to the one he had before. I know that is a difficult task. I know it is not easy when you move from one branch of government to another to meet that requirement. But I know the sympathetic attitude of those who are dealing with this problem. I am sure they will keep that in mind. I am as convinced now as I have always been that when, because of a great public project, a large body of men are displaced there is an obligation, certainly a moral and an equitable obligation,

on the part of the state to see to it that similar employment is given to the man who has been displaced.
I do not want to deal with individual cases; I have taken them up with the minister. He has been very courteous in his treatment of those individual cases, but there are a number of individual cases where the employment found is not nearly comparable to that which existed before. On behalf of all those employees I ask that consideration be given to the matter with the end in view of seeing that no one is left without employment.
I wonder whether the minister could bring me up to date on the present position.


Mr. Hees:: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to. First of all, the hon. member for Laurier suggested that the St. Lawrence seaway authority keep a nucleus of engineering staff for future planning and operations. Several months ago the president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority spoke to me about this matter and made that suggestion to me. I readily agreed that this was desirable, and it has been in operation for some time now.
The hon. member mentioned what might be done to speed up operations in the Welland canal. That is under active study at the present time, and it would appear that the most effective thing we could do would be to introduce mooring walls between certain of the locks. It is estimated that this should increase the over-all capacity of the canal by about six ships per day.
The hon. member spoke about the Richelieu canal, and I should like to read him a short report made to me by the members of our economics division and the public works engineers who are working on this project at the present time. It reads as follows:
file previous cost estimates are now being revised in the light of recent alternative plans and present-day costs by the Department of Public Works, and when these are completed some estimate can be made of the volume of traffic required to justify improvements to the present canals and studies will be made to determine probable traffic available.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask who are the
members of the committee dealing with this matter?


George Harris Hees: There are no specific members. It is our regular economics staff and the engineering staff of the Department of Public Works. Between the two of them they are handling it. If the hon. member wishes I can find out later who they are.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to insist, but were they given terms of reference to deal with the report of the board of engineers of 1937?
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: These are the terms of reference under which they are working. First of all, we are trying to find out what the economic justification might be for proceeding with work of this kind, and the probable engineering costs.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to pursue it unduly, but has the economics branch of the department the mechanics to do this? My understanding is that the economics branch consists of a group of efficient officers who deal with problems of an economic nature, but are there any engineers attached who can go down to the area and study the problems of traffic, the volume of traffic and so forth?


George Harris Hees: Yes, the public works engineers are doing that end of it and our economics branch is capable of producing a preliminary economic study.
The hon. member also asked about the replacement of displaced personnel from our canals branch. When I last reported to the house on April 9 I reported that at that time there were 61 Department of Transport canal personnel who were still unplaced. Of the surplus of 61 considered eligible for employment, 3 have since been given regular appointments and 29 casual employment, leaving a total of 29. In all the seaway authority has given employment, regular and casual, to 407 former Department of Transport employees, and I might add that as time goes on we are endeavouring in every way to find employment for those whom we have not yet been able to place. I think the hon. member is particularly interested in the Lachine canal section. There are only 4 there physically capable of doing the heavy work required who are still unplaced.
While I am on my feet, yesterday the hon. member-


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister? I think he would want me to say this. So far as these employees are concerned, from what the minister has said and what I know there appears to be an improvement over the situation indicated in the return made in the house. I am grateful to the minister for that improvement. The minister has said there are 29 canal personnel still unplaced, but I would ask him to give consideration to the fact that many of those 61 employees who have been placed have not found comparable jobs. Would he ask his officers to direct their attention to that point, and also to the fact that of the 61, 29 are casual workers. While it is much better to have casual work than none at all, and I agree that is a step in the right direction, none the less casual workers only work during the season of navigation lasting seven

Supply-Transport
and a half to eight months, and will be without employment for four to four and a half months. Would the minister ask his officers to see if it is not possible to find employment for all these displaced people from now until the end of the year?


George Harris Hees: I am very glad to be able to assure the hon. member that we will do our very best to do just that. Yesterday the hon. member for Laurier asked if I would have included in Hansard the correspondence I have had with the hon. member for Peel regarding the Malton expropriations. I have here all the correspondence that was referred to in the court case and also any other correspondence that I or my department have had with the hon. member on this matter. I am glad to include this correspondence in the record. I will also be glad to send an extra set to the hon. member for Laurier. I am afraid he is going to be disappointed with it, but I am sending him absolutely everything.


Lionel Chevrier: I am never disappointed.


The Chairman:: Is it the pleasure of the house that these letters be put on Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of letters referred to above, see appendix].


George Harris Hees: Before I sit down I want to finish the questions that were brought up yesterday. The hon. member for Vancouver East suggested yesterday that the return to address No. 67, calling for the production of correspondence, documents, etc. dealing with claims made by contractors for payments by the St. Lawrence seaway authority, was not complete, and to substantiate his remarks he produced and laid on the table an affidavit of Redmond Grant which referred to documents which the latter presented to me in December, 1958. Attached to the affidavit was what purports to be a record of the proceedings of a meeting of contractors discussing ways and means of presenting their claims to the government. These appendages to the affidavit are marked "confidential".
The matters which concerned me in connection with Mr. Grant's submission were complaints of faulty work in the construction of piers for the Cornwall island south channel bridge and in the painting of mitre gates. I did not concern myself with the "confidential" documents relating to contractors' claims. I did not know how they came into the possession of Mr. Grant or whether he was authorized to make them public. As I said some time earlier this session when the debate was taking place on the St. Lawrence seaway and when I was asked if I was aware of this report of contractors' meetings, I said I had

no knowledge of it and I did not. It is not a matter that I have any recollection of Mr. Grant having discussed with me when I met him in my office some time last fall.
Return No. 67 was, of course, compiled from the official records in the normal way. I reviewed the return before submission, and as far as I knew it represented a proper and complete return in the terms of the address. Any references to contractors' claims in the submission made to me by Mr. Grant were incidental and confidential, and the propriety of including these documents in the return was certainly questionable. As I have said, the matters complained of by Mr. Grant which concerned me were his suggestions of improper workmanship by seaway contractors.
As to the Cornwall island south channel bridge, I was very familiar with that matter and followed closely the remedial measures required. In answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver East, complete details were furnished and I shall repeat the gist of the information then given:
The Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited was retained by the seaway authority to review all field information, the decisions made and the procedures followed in the construction of the piers, and to give an opinion as to the adequacy of remedial measures undertaken. A preliminary report, dated January 11, 1958, included a statement that ". . . and the remedial measures being taken are reasonable ones".
In view of the concern subsequently expressed in some quarters as to the adequacy of the piers, the corps of engineers, United States army and the seaway authority appointed an independent board of consultants to investigate and to rule or recommend on the matter. This board comprised Emil H. Praeger of Praeger-Kavanagh, consulting engineers, New York; G. F. Ferris, president of Raymond International Inc.; and D. F. Murphy, chief structural engineer of Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited.
The board first met on April 4, 1958, when it approved of the remedial measures adopted. Following a thorough investigation of all features of work performed, the board, in its final report dated October 14, 1958, stated that the piers and the soil on which they rest are now adequate to safely sustain all dead and maximum live loads.
As to Mr. Grant's complaint concerning the painting of mitre gates, the president of the seaway authority reported to me as follows:
There has been a suggestion that unsatisfactory work was accepted in connection with the painting of certain lock gates, as reported upon by the War-nock Hersey Company Limited, who were employed as inspectors. Certain objectionable features were observed and remedial measures were taken, or are to be taken, to restore the vinyl system of painting to an acceptable condition. The chief engineer of the St. Lawrence seaway authority has reported as follows:
"Although, as indicated by the inspection company, the surface texture and appearance of the painting does not strictly comply with the requirements of the specifications, this can be observed only by close examination and will certainly not be apparent when the gates are placed in service.

"The important feature is that, despite the somewhat uneven surface, the paint has been applied to at least the minimum specified thickness and its adhesive properties are excellent. It is expected that the durability of the paint will be as great as that contemplated.
"Some of the walkways, handrail and diagonals had been shop painted without first having received a wash coat, with the result that there was improper adhesion. These parts were recleaned and completely repainted to specified requirements.
"The authority may be assured that neither the Warnock Hersey Company nor the authority engineers will accept workmanship inferior to the specified, except for the somewhat rough surface texture in some areas which are of insignificant importance."
It is the practice of the authority to retain sufficient security to ensure proper completion of the work.
The house may be interested in the status of Mr. Grant, who issued the affidavit. He was employed by the seaway authority in their inspection branch in May, 1957 at $300 a month. He resigned in March, 1958 when his salary was $310 a month, giving poor health as the reason for his resignation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East and perhaps also the hon. member for Assiniboia appear to be concerned by reason of the representations they have received from Mr. Grant, and perhaps others, concerning faulty work by contractors on seaway construction. I know there have been difficulties, arising partly from the urgency of having to complete the work on schedule. On the other hand there is a danger in exaggerating the situation and leaving an improper impression on the public. I make the suggestion that I would be very glad, at any time that would suit the convenience of the hon. members for Assiniboia and Vancouver East, to arrange a meeting at Ottawa at which the responsible officials of the seaway authority would discuss with them the complaints they have received, and indicate to them the action which has been taken by the authority. I would be very glad to arrange such a meeting, and to see that all relevant documents are made available to them.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to make a reference to the minister, since I am speaking for the first time on his estimates. About a year ago I was travelling west by train and I was in company, fortunately I will say, with a number of young Progressive Conservatives who were returning from a gathering in the east. They began discussing the future of the party, and they were in almost unanimous agreement that the Minister of Transport was going to be the crown prince or was the crown prince of the party. I was telling them I thought they should wait a bit and see how the crown prince performed with this particular department before they went overboard.
Supply-Transport
In so far as his performance in this department is concerned, and it is one I have followed more closely than any other in the House of Commons, it has not been one that has impressed me very much.
I have a strong impression that the deputy minister has too much work to do and that there needs to be one or two more deputy ministers in the department. I hope when the parliamentary assistants are handed out this department will get a couple of them, because I think the very situation that developed in connection with the Malton land deal is an indication that perhaps there should be a bit closer rapport between the elected assembly and the officials of this department.
The Malton case interested me many months ago. I put a question on the order paper which, unfortunately, could not be answered because a decision had not yet been rendered by the court. I have no question or doubt about the integrity or honesty of the hon. member for Peel. In many ways I admire the stand he tried to take throughout the whole situation, but the problem brings up the whole question of the functions of a member of parliament. The hon. member for Peel had some constituents with a very definite grievance. This grievance was turned down in a court of law, in effect, but long before that he brought it to the attention of the minister. According to the evidence he gave he got some kind of undertaking from the minister, in the presence of some of the minister's officials, as to what would be done. Unfortunately the minister could not follow up on the undertaking to the hon. member for Peel, and we have to accept the fact that there is confusion as to just what was said or just what was accepted at that particular meeting.
In my opinion this particular case has significance because one often hears that opposition members are ineffective and, in a sense, are just futile mouthers of words; that one needs to be a government member in order to get anything done. This seems to be a case where a government member, a member with a strong enough personality and ability to be appointed whip of the party, was not able to achieve his particular goal. In a sense I almost regret it, because I think in this particular case he had some real worth and some real justice behind his request.
What does a member of parliament do when he has a constituent problem such as this, and he gets some kind of undertaking from the minister or from the officials to investigate the matter? There seems to be a kind of no man's land in here in which the position of the member of parliament is

Supply-Transport
extremely indefinite. I do not know whether it could be or should be defined, but certainly I think this is one demonstration of the lack of power and the lack of influence of the member of parliament. I am not speaking particularly of the member of parliament for Peel. I think this is an indicator, in a general way, for all members of parliament.
We are continually getting requests from our constituencies: would we try to do something about a certain situation, a personal grievance or a regional area grievance. We take it up with the officials and the minister and in some cases we get attention, while in other cases we get the brush-off. The Department of Transport seems to be one of those in which we get the brush-off more often than we get attention, but certainly it is not as bad as the Department of National Defence or some of the others.
In this particular kind of case, what position has the member of parliament in so far as his word is concerned? What undertaking could we have? It seems to me one of the faults in this case is that we do not have any kind of written account as to what took place at this particular meeting. I first became interested in this case when it was brought up in the Telegram by one of the columnists. The position she took was harshly critical of the minister. I was attracted by her phrase that these people had been "Heesed out". Later another correspondent for the same paper, Mr. Peter Dempson, wrote a long story which appeared on November 14 and November 15 of last year, trying to present the matter from the minister's point of view.
I cannot make out from this, or from the story given to the house, what is the minister's conception of the position of a member of parliament, and I would suggest that in future dealings with all members of parliament he should try to put something on record so we shall not misunderstand what the minister wants, or means because I am confident that the hon. member for Peel did not realize that the minister did not have the authority to give him an assurance.
In closing my remarks on this subject I should like to reiterate that there is no question at all in my mind about the integrity of the hon. member for Peel. I think he was honest and direct throughout the whole course of these events, but we are still left in the position that the individual member of parliament, whether supporting the government or the opposition, has a very peculiar relationship and a very indefinite relationship to many of the purposes he is seeking to achieve. My own comment on that is that anything we can do to increase, I will not say the power but certainly the scope and the ability of a member of parliament to

perform a more important function than he is performing at the present time should be under consideration at all times by the government and the house.
The next point I wish to raise in dealing with these estimates arises from a great deal of contact which I have had in the last ten days or so with people who work with the Canadian National Railway and who are interested in the Canadian National Railway, and I wish to bring this up in fairness to the president of that railway, Mr. Donald Gordon. Following the meetings this session of the standing committee on railways, the impression has gone widely abroad that Mr. Gordon treated members of that committee in a rough, tough and nasty fashion and that he, in a phrase, put the members of parliament in their place.
Mr. Chairman, I attended every meeting of that committee and I did not get that impression, though it is certainly the impression that is abroad in the country. In consequence, many employees of the C.N.R. who have always doubted Mr. Gordon's knowledge of railway problems have been incensed about this and have said, "What are you members of parliament going to do about the president telling you off?" To be fair to Mr. Gordon, he made his remarks on the functions of the committee after he had been persistently asked by me to make his comments on the work of that body.
I have been on the committee for two years and I have gone back over its records in previous years, and I am as willing as any other member of the committee to admit that its performance could be improved. That is why I wanted to get suggestions from the president as to what he thought about the ways in which the committee could be improved. I was disappointed that the committee did not bring to the house any of the recommendations which Mr. Gordon said he would give us. It seems to me that we could take a better look, in committee, at the operations of the Canadian National railroad; but I want to put it clearly on record, as perhaps the most persistent questioner in the committee, that I had no feeling at any time that Mr. Gordon had told us off. As far as I am concerned he only gave us information which he was asked to give. My only regret is that somehow that committee did not function well enough to enable us to enquire more deeply and in a more informed manner into the operations of the railway.
I cannot resist making some remarks about lakehead harbour and shipping, and, in particular, the lakehead harbour commission. We have had a provincial election campaign going on, and right at the centre of it in.

our region has been the lakehead harbour commission. I remember telling the minister months ago that if the government is going to appoint Conservatives to this commission it should remember that there are smart Conservatives and some Conservatives who are not so smart, and I appealed to him to appoint some smart Conservatives.
We put through the bill setting up the lake-head harbour commission last August. The commission held its first meeting only about three weeks ago. All that delay, coupled with the fact that an expert from the Department of Transport did not reach the lake-head until May 18 to consult with the local people, is an indication to me of the correctness of my remarks on an earlier occasion about the way this department operates. I have a very definite feeling-and this is one of the concrete examples-that the burden of work is too heavy on the senior men in this department. Otherwise how can one explain that a commission which is given authority to get moving last August does not hold its first meeting until May 18, after the first foreign ships are through the seaway?
In a political sense this has not redounded to the credit of the Progressive Conservatives either federally or provincially, but that is aside from the point. We need a lakehead harbour commission which has members with a great deal of initiative and background, people who will work hard and really set up something which will make our lakehead one of the best ports on the lakes. But if the performance of this commission up to now is an example, it shows that there is a sad future ahead.
One of the things in connection with this commission which has bothered me is the fact that several of its members are definitely employees of interested parties. I raised this point with the minister before and he decided not to make it an issue, but the fact remains that the C.N.R. owns a great deal of property in the harbour, while Canada Steamship Lines has a very active business into the harbour and also owns a shipyard there. Yet employees of both the Canadian National Railways and of the Canada Steamship Lines are members of the commission. These two employees happen to have been appointed by two cities; they are appointed members. That, of course, is the responsibility of the cities. Evidently the minister did not feel that he could or should check that. But the other three members are chosen by the minister, and I should like to ask the minister if he could explain how he came to make these particular choices. I should also like him to explain the relationship of his government to
Supply-Transport
the provincial government with regard to the provision of transport facilities out of the lakehead harbour in this interim period before the terminal is completed.
One of the most enjoyable things about the election campaign is that it brought Premier Frost into our area on two occasions, and on each occasion he made the point that he was a partner with the federal government in this magnificent lakehead harbour development and all that was going to follow from it.
We are still left with the situation that between the Manitoba border and the lake-head we have no decent road as far as any kind of heavy traffic is concerned, and I should appreciate it very much if the minister would explain to me what conversations he has had with the provincial authorities about the provision of proper routes out of the lakehead harbour.
There is very definite concern in our particular region over the Welland canal toll structure, and a very definite feeling that the government should consider whether it would be possible to abandon these tolls at the end of this shipping season. I know there is a feeling which extends very widely in western Canada, judging by newspaper reports that such a step should be taken, and I know this feeling is also very strong in the Hamilton and St. Catharines regions. I hope this is something which the minister will have his experts consider.
One of the points which come up many times along the lakes is the whole question of shipbuilding. I have often wondered whether some of the present cabinet ministers have not given their speeches of a few years ago to the hon. member for Laurier. The hon. member has been making speeches around the country, including one at the lake-head, about the need for Canada to have both a salt water and a fresh water fleet. This is very much along the old line taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and some of the other members of the cabinet, including the present Minister of Transport.
We have had indications that the shipbuilding industry along the lakes is in for pretty heavy weather, specifically at the lake-head, and I would like to ask the minister if at some time during the discussion of his estimates he would review the shipbuilding situation and the prospects for the shipyards along the great lakes. I know there is very definite confusion at the lakehead as to our inability to obtain any substantial contracts. The issue is confused, and in view of the fact that the shipyards are a subsidiary of a

Supply-Transport
much larger concern, in effect Canada Steamship Lines, I would very much appreciate it if the minister could give us an outline in this particular field.
One of the questions I would like to ask the minister, which could be answered when we are dealing specifically with the radio regulations, and I want to give him notice of it, is whether it is still impossible for anyone to get a radiotelephone in his car if he is not a British subject or a Canadian citizen; that is, as an individual. If this is so I would like an explanation in that regard. I would also like from the minister later on an explanation as to when his department is going to abbreviate its regulations and make it easier for a model enthusiast to use radio frequencies in controlling various models which he may use in his hobby. If the minister would give me that information later it would be very much appreciated.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourbonnais:: Mr. Chairman, yesterday we heard the former president of the St. Lawrence seaway bewail the fate of employees who after working on the canals, were transferred, and have not yet found a job on the seaway. I remember that when the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was president of the seaway, in 1957, men who had been employed on the Soulanges canal went to see him so as to find out what was going to happen to them. He then told these men that they should not expect to be transferred to the seaway, on the grounds that the employees at the Beauharnois canal had not been so favoured when they had found themselves without a job.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but that is not at all what I told those men. There has been no question of a transfer. I am certain that the hon. member does not wish to be unfair to me.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Of course, I do not want to be prejudicial to the hon. member in any way. But when the employees of the Soulanges canal went to see the former president of the seaway, he told them that the member for the riding of Beauharnois would have a say in the replacement of employees and that they should not expect to be favoured with employment at Beauharnois. 1 was told of this by good old Liberals who had no reason whatever to lie about it. That was the sort of guarantee they received under the former administration.


Mr. Dupuis:: On a point of order. Have you any proof of this? Have you any documentary evidence of the truth of your allegation?


Marcel Bourbonnais: The best evidence is that I was told about this by good Liberals.


Yvon Dupuis: Name them.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Certainly. Albert Sabourin and Ivan Castonguay.
Moreover, since the change of administration, about 60 of the 130 permanent and temporary employees of the Soulanges canal have been transferred to the seaway, while 20 or 30 kept their work at Soulanges, and several others were transferred to Lachine. Those men could be asked about the guarantee that was offered them by the Liberal party under the former administration and about the security they are now enjoying thanks to the present administration.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I heard the former president of the seaway complain and express his disappointment about the bad publicity received by the seaway late last season, when a great many ships were icebound in the Lachine canal and in Montreal harbour as a result of sudden very cold weather and an early fall.
Contrary to the statements of the hon. former member for Stormont-now member for Laurier, by grace of importation-I hold excellent publicity was given that misadventure in Montreal harbour. Every day-[DOT] not to say every hour-radio, TV and all newspapers reported the progress made now by nature, now by the icebreakers, or again by canals or Montreal harbour employees. To prove this, I would say that, as soon as the seaway was opened this year, as soon as it was ice free, so many large freighters sailed into the waterway that there was a bottleneck at the entrance. This proves that, if there really was some bad publicity last fall, shipowners refused to believe it. Anyhow, it was not as unfavourable as the hon. gentleman from Cornwall would have us believe by making statements which have no basis whatever on facts.
I wonder why our hon. friend should have done this? Is it to distort the facts? It is a well known and widely used Liberal practice to sow doubt in people's minds, to make equivocal statements, and to lie in thought as well as in words, wilfully and with impunity.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday we heard the hon. member for Laurier demand a public statement by the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) about a so-called contradiction referred to by the president of the Court of the Exchequer. I wonder whether he himself could not make a statement on professional ethics because one day, at the time when my hon. friend was president of the seaway- around 1956-a professional engineer working for the seaway authority was denied the right to leave his job-by the then president, the Hon. Lionel Chevrier-to take another job with the Miron Manibeque Company, a firm which then had contracts with the seaway. My good friend, sometime president of the seaway, argued that professional ethics did not allow a professional engineer working for the seaway authority to quit his job and take on another one with a contractor working under that same authority.
Now, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend, who professes sacred respect for professional ethics is now a member of the legal firm Geoffrion and Prud'homme, lawyers for the Canit-Canamont company which has now claims against the seaway authority. In other words, the former president of the seaway, who laboured from 1954 to 57 to see this great scheme carried through, and who necessarily is privy to all its secrets, is now preparing to tear down part of his handiwork on behalf of a few contractors who happen to be his friends. If this can be described as professional ethics, it surely needs a genuinely Liberal mind to see it in that light.
After I am through with my remarks, I should like to hear my good friend make a statement on professional ethics, instead of calling for such a statement from the present Minister of Transport.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member (I mean the former member from Cornwall) referred to the popularity of the seaway. He should have consulted the railway companies, the manufacturers of rolling stock, railway employees, canal employees, and people in Montreal, Lachine, Vaudreuil, Soulanges and Cornwall, before making statements on the popularity of the seaway. I am not saying that the seaway should not have been built, but this is a far cry from saying it is popular. Perhaps it is popular with the shipping companies and a few others, 66968-9-290
S upp ly-Transport
but I would point out that one of its drawbacks, one of the main obnoxious features lies in the fact that railway companies stand to lose plenty because of it.
The cost of railway operations in that area is bound to go up. That is partly the reason why the railways, both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., are planning to hike their passenger rates 17 to 37 per cent. Recently, under pressures from every municipality in the district from Montreal to Rigaud, the board of transport commissioners held hearings in Montreal and all the parties concerned were able to express their views.
If those increases are authorized, several of those municipalities will be quite seriously affected. The municipalities of Pointe Claire, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Dorion, Comeau, Hudson and Rigaud, especially the last four, many of whose people commute by rail to their jobs in Montreal, will find their future development greatly jeopardized unless other steps are taken to make it less expensive for those people to travel to and from work.
If it were proven that the railway companies are operating their commuter service at a loss, I would support any measure designed to maintain the present level of rates.
Since large amounts of money were spent for research on war equipment which proved unnecessary, manufacturers of rolling stock could also be subsidized, but for much more human and permanent reasons.
Practically all our passenger cars and diesel locomotives are of entirely American design. I feel it would be in everyone's interest if certain research was undertaken to produce passenger cars of purely Canadian design which would be much more economical and, at the same time, more comfortable for commuters.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the attention of the house to some of the arguments put forward by the municipalities in their submission to the board of transport commissioners, in an effort to avoid an increase in commuter rates.
Unquestionably one of the most interesting resolutions was the one prepared by the municipality of lie Perrot, part of which reads as follows:
Whereas, since the last rate increase, the service has been cut down instead of being improved,
Whereas a rate increase can only be an economic burden for the present users of the regular service;

Supply-Transport
Whereas, on economic grounds too, the rate increase will fail of its purpose by cutting down the number of train users.
Whereas any increase is likely to jeopardize the demographic expansion of our region;
Whereas the municipalities' power of taxation over railways is limited;
Whereas the service to employees has been curtailed and that, in the interest of commuters, the service should be improved, and no existing train should be changed or eliminated;
Resolved-
Mr. Chairman, those are some of the reasons set forth by the municipality of lie Perrot.
As for the municipality of Rigaud, the reasons given are as follows:
(Text):
Since 1945 the commuter rates have increased to the point where if the proposed revision is granted the cost per trip from Hudson to Montreal will have increased by approximately 400 per cent from the rate in effect in 1945. This means the virtual elimination of commuter rates.
The financial gain to the railroads from this rate increase will have an infinitesimal effect on their total revenues consequently one can only assume that by this action they are attempting to avoid their obligations as a public utility. Is it too much to expect that they have a responsibility to the public as well as to their share holders, etc.
(Translation):
Now, Mr. Chairman, here are other reasons put forward by the municipality of Hudson:
(Text):
The Canadian Pacific Railway intends to impose a 34 per cent increase in rates on Hudson commuters. This follows a recent 100 per cent increase. The following points might be considered:
1.	That the above rate increases are abnormally high over a relatively short period.
2.	That it is doubtful logic to isolate one minute phase of a public utility's operations.
3.	That commuters out of Montreal seem to be merely pawns in a game involving freight rates and western farmers.
4.	That there are many obvious economies that the Canadian Pacific Railway could effect in their operations.
(Translation):
Those, Mr. Chairman, are the reasons put forward by the municipalities in urging the railway companies to reconsider their intention of raising commuter rates.
If I refer to this matter after speaking about the St. Lawrence seaway, it is because the seaway might well be a big asset for the country as a whole, but to the prejudice of a section of the population, and not the least important one in the country.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member during the course of his remarks, complaining about the questions I posed and the attitude I took concerning the case of the hon. member for Peel, left the impression that my position was more vulnerable than that of the
[Mr. Bourbonnais.l
hon. member for Peel because of the fact that the firm with which I was associated in the city of Montreal was acting on behalf of certain claimants who had claims against the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
I want to say here and now that I am not in the legal sense a partner in the firm of Geoffrion and Prud'homme in the city of Montreal. I have a working arrangement with this firm and I have an office in the firm. The claim was made by the hon. gentleman that the firm of Geoffrion and Prud'homme acted for Miron and Manibeque. I believe that to be the case, but this case was in the hands of the firm of Geoffrion and Prud'homme long before I had any association with the firm.
(Translation):


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Chairman, according to the Parliamentary Guide-
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is
the hon. member rising on a question of privilege?


Marcel Bourbonnais: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
(Translation):
It is stated in the Canadian Parliamentary Guide that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) is a member of the legal firm Geoffrion and Prud'homme. I got my information from the Parliamentary Guide and if the hon. member for Laurier says that he has an office next to that of Messrs. Geoffrion and Prud'homme, well, he is their legal advisor. That is his privilege, but let him not talk about professional ethics.
(Text):


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I did not say I had an office alongside of the firm office. I said I was not a partner in the legal sense of the word, that I did not participate in the profits of the firm, that I had a working arrangement such as many lawyers have in larger cities, and that the hon. member should accept my word because I make this statement now on my responsibility and on my honour as a member of parliament. I add further that I have no interest in the claim which Geoffrion and Prud'homme have on behalf of Miron and Manibeque, which they had long before I had any working arrangement with the firm.


Mr. Regnier:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to make a few brief remarks. I want first of all to thank the minister for his courtesy and prompt action whenever I have made a demand on behalf of the constituents of St. Boniface. In my constituency is located the progressive town of Transcoma. There are Canadian

National Railways shops situated in this most important industrial town in the area which employ hundreds of people from Transcoma. I should like to thank the minister for his assistance in maintaining a high level of employment in Transcoma so far; but at the present time there seems to be a fear that lay-offs may take place soon. I should like to bring this to the attention of the minister. Anything he can do with the Canadian National Railways to avoid this lay-off will be greatly appreciated.
In the city of St. Boniface work was started last fall in connection with the Symington yards. This work will require the expenditure of many millions of dollars and will employ hundreds of people from the city of St. Boniface. The people of St. Boniface are interested in the improvements which are being made at the present time to the Winnipeg airport; I believe the expenditure there will amount to over $10 million.
Yesterday I listened with a great deal of attention and interest to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in connection with the disembarking privileges of the S.A.S. or Scandinavian Airlines. I remember an incident which happened about two years ago. A passenger had booked passage from Sweden to Winnipeg. He got off the plane when it stopped for refueling at Winnipeg and as Winnipeg was his destination he attempted to remain there, but he was arrested by the St. James police and forcibly put back on the plane. I believe this was an infringement of human freedom and rights.
I understand, of course, the explanation the minister gave yesterday that Scandinavian Airlines cannot disembark passengers in Winnipeg because no application has been made for such privileges by the Swedish government. It is a matter of negotiation between the governments concerned. However, if the Swedish government does not initiate negotiations I believe the Canadian government should do so, because after all this is something of great importance to the Canadian people living in Winnipeg, St. Boniface and in the province of Manitoba as a whole.
In the city of Winnipeg we have no direct communication with any large centre. We have to book passage from Winnipeg to Toronto or Montreal and then land at some place in Europe where we do not intend to go. Since there are the facilities of Canadian air lines right in Winnipeg, I believe Canada should take the initiative to provide the same privileges to the citizens of Winnipeg that are accorded to the citizens of 66968-9-290i
Supply-Transport
Toronto and Montreal, where they have planes going direct to Europe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the hon. member permit a question with reference to the incident to which he referred? He said he thought it was an infringement of human rights. Does the hon. member not think it was also a breach of the Canadian Citizenship Act to put a Canadian citizen, who always has the right to come into Canada, on a plane and take him out of the country?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Chairman, that may be so. I know it seems unreasonable. I do not care under what heading the breach is made, but there was much indignation in Winnipeg at that time and it is time such things were corrected. The minister gave us a full explanation yesterday, but I would appreciate a further explanation.


George Harris Hees: I would like to explain to the hon. member that there is direct service from Winnipeg to London. For quite some time T.C.A. has had direct service from Winnipeg to London. You do not have to go to Toronto or Montreal; you can fly direct.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I thank the minister for his explanation. I am glad to know that I was wrong in part, but my submission is that if you desire to go direct to Stockholm I do not see any reason why landing privileges and the embarkation of passengers and even the unloading of cargo should not be permitted in Winnipeg. After all, this is a matter of making trade for Winnipeg. It is of great importance to the city of Winnipeg to have direct air service with the world. I think it would bring great credit to Canada if we were to stop thinking all the time of the almighty dollar and saying, we want to prevent competition. I believe we should take the initiative with the Scandinavians if Sweden is not going to do so. Thank you.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: At the very beginning of my remarks I should like to offer my congratulations to the minister on the way he handles the administration of his department. I know he has taken a few lessons in French. I am now going to proceed with my remarks in that language, and I hope to hear from him when I am through with my brief remarks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the same language. (Translation):


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about two matters concerning not only my constituency, but also the Saguenay-Lake St. John area in general.
First, I should like to say a word about the rebuilding of the railway line serving the four constituencies from both Montreal and Quebec.

Supply-Transport
We have listened with great attention- and when I say "we", it is not the plural of majesty but the "we" of plurality-we listened, as I say, with great attention, to the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) recalling the promises made by Liberal members or candidates during election campaigns.
I believe everyone back home wants and has always wanted the Montreal-Chicoutimi and Quebec-Chieoutimi railway line rebuilt. Everyone talked about it during the election campaigns.
The former member for Roberval, Mr. Vil-leneuve, brought up the matter in this house. Mr. Gagnon-and I shall not show the same bias as was shown by other members-who is a former independent member from Chicoutimi, also dealt with the matter of rebuilding the railroad between Chicoutimi and Montreal. My predecessor in this house, who was also an independent, called for the rebuilding of this railroad. Mr. Andre Gauthier, the former member for Lake St. John, also made the same request. Mr. Spence, a former Conservative member for the Roberval constituency-I think the hon. member for Roberval might at least have mentioned the work done in this field by one of his predecessors-Mr. Spence, as I say, also urged the rebuilding of the Montreal-Chicoutimi line.
As regards the rebuilding of this particular railway line, Mr. Chairman, there is a point I wish to mention to the hon. Minister of Transport. The automobile dealers association, which extends to the four ridings in my area, has been trying since 1955 to get preferential rates for the transportation of automobiles from Oshawa or Windsor, Ontario, to Chicoutimi, Jonquiere and other parts of the four constituencies of the district. Talks were then held between representatives of the Canadian National Railways- whose names I do not think I should give here-anyway between authorized representatives of the Canadian National Railways and the association. Unfortunately they ended in a stalemate with the result that the contract for the transportation of some 2,000 cars from Windsor or Oshawa, Ontario, to the Lake St. John-Saguenay area was given to a competitor of the Canadian National Railways, which means that our national railway must have lost about $340,000 on this item alone since 1955.
That question was thoroughly gone into by Canadian National Railways officials, and I should say that they must have done their

best to try to reach an agreement; nevertheless, the Canadian National Railways have been losing about $340,000 a year since 1955.
It seems to me that the Minister of Transport or his officials could try to bring that question again to the attention of the Canadian National Railways authorities, in an effort to find a solution to that problem. Since 1955, the Canadian National Railways have lost more than $1 million in freight revenue in our region.
Preferential tariffs exist for some other parts of the country and I wonder why it would not be possible to have in our region what is called an "agreed charge" or a preferential tariff.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like to say a few words about the civil airport or the absence of a civil airport in the constituencies of Chicoutimi and Lapointe.
There is an RCAP airport there where aircraft of presidents of companies or individuals are not allowed to land or take off.
I submitted the matter to the minister, to his able officials, and I know that it is under study.
If the Department of Transport are still interested in the developments of civil aviation, as they used to be at one time, I wonder if they could not hasten the day when it will be possible to build a civilian airport- I am no fanatic-not necessarily within my riding, but within the boundaries of Jon-quiere-Chicoutimi, where a civilian airport is urgently needed. If they should build it in my riding, of course, I would not complain. However, I realize that a lot of money has been invested in St. Honore, and I have a feeling there would be no complaints should the department choose to put in a civilian airport in St. Honore, in the riding of Chicoutimi. I am sure that the people in my riding would understand that, for the sake of economy, it was necessary to build the civilian airport in Chicoutimi riding.
Should the airport be erected in that part, in my opinion it would still promote civil aviation development in the whole area. Moreover, since early May in 1959, a company has been granted a permit for what is called a flying school. It no doubt will use the facilities of St. Honore airport. But the time has come for the department to send out inspectors who shall then report to the minister for him to take decisions. I know that the minister is a man of energy and capable of quick decisions. We have had some proofs of it before and I wish he would give us others.

I have listened to the hon. member for Roberval speaking of the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and mention his attitude concerning the building of the St. Felicien-Chibou-gamau railway. There is practically no abuse which he has not used against the hon. member for Laurier. I was not in the Department of Transport when it was headed by the member for Laurier, but I know, for one thing, that the construction of the Beattyville-Chibougamau-St. Felicien Railway was decided by a Liberal administration. I also know that it was under a Liberal administration, that is under my former chief, Mr. Marler, that the decision was taken to construct the second part of the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway. Let me repeat, I am no fanatic like a few other members whose fanaticism in certain cases is equalled only by the high opinion they have of themselves. Fortunately that does not apply to all members. However I should like to remind my hon. friend for Roberval that Mr. Gagnon was not the only one who was interested in the construction of the Chibougamau-St. Felicien Railway.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The hon. member for Laurier did answer the points which the hon. member who has now taken his seat seems to be bringing before the committee again. I think there was a satisfactory solution to the problem when it arose at that time, and I would ask the hon. member to keep away from that particular subject when he resumes his remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, would you allow me to express an opinion on the words you have just spoken? I did not reply to the hon. member for Roberval; I asked questions, to which replies were made. I did not have the opportunity of replying, and I do not think it can be considered that questions are in the nature of a reply. I would ask the Chairman if he would not allow the hon. member to continue.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The Chair does acknowledge itself in error. I misunderstood which member the hon. member who has just taken his seat was referring to. I confused him with another speaker.
(Translation) :


Augustin Brassard: I remember also, Mr. Chairman, that my predecessor, Mr. Girard, had called for the construction of the railway between St. Felicien and Chi-
Supply-Transport
bougamau. Mr. Andre Gauthier, Mr. Georges Villeneuve and Mr. Spence have already mentioned it. But, one thing I know is that Messrs. Gauthier and Villeneuve came to see Mr. Marler, I don't know how many times, to ask him to come to a decision regarding the construction of the railway between St. Felicien and Chibougamau. They even had appointments,-how many, I don't know,- with the former minister of transport to point out to him that a railway should be constructed between St. Felicien and Chibougamau. There is in this house, Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Tremblay:: On a point of order. What I should like to ask, Mr. Chairman, is really-
(Text):


Augustin Brassard: Is it a question or a point of order?
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: I should like to ask in this
house-
(Text):


Augustin Brassard: Is it a point of
order?


Some hon. Members:: Order! Order!
(Translation):


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, I never said in this house that those who discussed-
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Members are now offending against the Chair's ruling. We are dealing in committee with the general administration of the Department of Transport and I would ask that hon. members taking part in the debate confine their remarks to departmental administration and not speak as they have been doing in the last few minutes.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Augustin Brassard: Mr. Chairman,
when the committee took recess at one o'clock, I had been speaking about the construction of the railway between St. Felicien and Chibougamau. I should like to say a few words now about the construction of a civilian airport at Roberval.
I remember very well that, when I was with the Department of Transport, the mayor of Roberval at that time, Dr. Plante, had

Supply-Transport
approached the minister to obtain additional grants tor the Roberval airport. I have here, Mr. Chairman, the amounts paid on a proportional basis between the city of Roberval and the department. In 1955-1956, the department paid $25,000; in 1956-57, the department paid $20,000, while in 1956 and 1957, a sum ot $4,600 was allotted to the airport. Thus, an amount close to $50,000 was paid under the former administration. In 1957-58, to give the full statistical data, the department paid or promised to pay $65,000. I think it is quite fair to submit that the former Liberal administration did its full duty, as was right, for the construction of the airport at Roberval. The same remark holds good, of course, for the Alma airport.
Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, I should like to refer to the most unseemly remarks concerning the hon. member for Lau-rier, which were made by the hon. member for Roberval and by the hon. member for Vau-dreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais). Almost nothing was left unsaid to besmirch his good name. If all members had the sterling qualities of the hon. member for Laurier, I believe there would not be cause for complaining about the way the affairs of this country are managed.
The hon. member for Laurier was minister of transport for nine years and president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority for close to three years. He devoted every minute of his time to those two great organizations of this country. If there be in this house a member who can boast of his record, I believe it is surely the hon. member for Laurier. But there will always be individuals bent on petty politics and in some cases on tearing down their fellow citizens.


Mr. Bourget:: They will never be able to do it.


Augustin Brassard: I am not ashamed to say I would like to have the merits of the hon. member for Laurier, and I am sure that if the hon. member for Roberval had them he would be occupying some other seat in this house.
An attempt was made to refer to a report published by le Devoir that the hon. member for Laurier is against Quebec, but I would suggest to the hon. member for Roberval that he read le Devoir for October 23, 1956. He will find there an article which will prove very interesting for him, with regard to his party and certain of its leaders.
Mr. Chairman, I will conclude my remarks by saying that I support the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) concerning the personnel of the Department of Transport.
The Department of Transport is one whose activities are related to so many economic

sectors of our country that it is important for the minister to have at his service the people required to carry the heavy load of work which must be done every year. It was my great privilege and opportunity to work there for almost three years, and I know most of the chiefs of the divisions of that department as well as the deputy minister. It is a very great satisfaction for me to commend them and to say, even if some members do not like it, that the employees and the officials of the Department of Transport are doing an almost super-human job. I hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker) and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) will see to it that more help is given to the deputy minister and to the chiefs of divisions who sacrifice themselves continuously.
I hope also that the Minister of Transport will do me the favour of saying a few words on the civil airport at St. Honore when the opportunity arises.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I should like to answer the hon. member's question about airports. I recognize the problem in the Chi-bougamau area in regard to airport requirements. The needs of the R.C.A.F. at Bagot-ville are such that they have been unable to open their military airport at that place to all types of civil traffic.
We have reviewed the general area from the point of view of other locations for a field, and have the matter under continuing study. However, the type of requirement that is involved is not for an airport to handle scheduled airline traffic but rather to handle local and itinerant scheduled and private aircraft. Airports in this category under present government policy are normally established on a cost-sharing basis, and it is therefore important that some municipality or group of municipalities be found which would be willing to assume responsibility for the local part of any cost-sharing project.
Now, Mr. Chairman, while I am on my feet I should like to answer two questions that were put to me by the hon. member for Port Arthur. First of all, on the matter of the road west from the lakehead, this is obviously the responsibility of the appropriate municipal and provincial authorities who are, I feel, quite competent to deal with it. I have not, therefore, presumed to intervene in this regard.
He also asked me a question as follows: "Can one have a car telephone if not a British subject?" The answer is yes, under three conditions (a) if a landed immigrant, who has not been a landed immigrant for more than six years and is employed by a

British subject who is the licensee of the radio station; (b) if a United States citizen licensed in the United States for an amateur radiotelephone, in which case he may operate an amateur radiotelephone in his car in Canada; (c) if the vehicle is employed in the operation or maintenance of a pipe line or other industrial facility extending across the border of Canada and the United States, or if the vehicle is engaged in the public carriage of persons or goods between Canada and the United States, and if the person is duly authorized by the minister or the government of the United States and the radiotelephone is used for communication with stations of either country that are licensed to be operated in the same type of service.
Another question was what is being done to simplify the radio regulations. The answer is that new radio regulations were promulgated on April 1, 1958 and are continuously under review with simplification being a prime objective.
(Translation):


Mr. Eudes:: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed on this item to point out through you to the Minister of Transport a matter which was raised last year at the same time by my colleague the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets).
At first sight the matter seems to be of a local nature, since it affects particularly the people of Hochelaga and Maisonneuve-Rose-mont counties.
On second thought however, if one takes time to consider the relations existing between the general and local interests, a question of principle is involved that cannot be evaded or made light of.
I am referring to the railroad tracks which run from Moreau street, cut through Hochelaga, Maisonneauve-Rosemont and Mercier counties, along the St. Lawrence river, and toward the north-east of Montreal island right up to the end of the island. Built in 1913 by the Canadian Northern Quebec Railways Company, those tracks have since then been taken over by the Canadian National Railways.
Although, unquestionably they have considerably hindered the commercial expansion and housing development in Hochelaga and Maisonneuve-Rosemont counties, those railway tracks were for some years very useful and even essential. For instance, three passenger trains, including one that went as far as Chicoutimi, used those tracks daily in both directions. The tracks were also used by many east or westbound freight trains on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river.
That was in another era. In 1913, the section of the Montreal island crossed by those tracks in Hochelaga and Maisonneuve coun-
Supply-Transport
ties, was almost entirely comprised in the town of Maisonneuve which has since been annexed to the city of Montreal.
At the time, that section of the island had a population of a few thousand.
Those tracks were then running across vacant lots, intersected by a few sparsely built streets.
Today the population there is well above
200,000.
If we consider this population on the basis of the area it occupies, we surely arrive at one of the highest ratios of population density in Canada.
This increase in population, and the general progress, have wrought a complete change in the make-up and the topography of this Montreal area.
Since the central station was built, the Moreau station was torn down. High-level railways were built in the north-western district on Montreal island. New streets were opened up. Numerous public buildings and thousands of new housing units were erected.
Passenger trains which used to stop at the Moreau station come now to the central station.
Except in rare cases, freight trains are now using these new high-level railways which were built further north on Montreal island.
However, these tracks are still there to serve, between Moreau and Viau streets, less than a score of rather averaged-sized plants, about eight of which are located in the Hochelaga riding. They are also used daily to carry a tank car train from the oil refineries in eastern Montreal. Near Moreau street, in Hochelaga, those cars transfer from C.N.R. to C.P.R. tracks.
Such today, on the basis of their necessity fifteen years ago, is the relatively negligible purpose served by those railroad tracks.
Besides, this "usefulness" factor is of very minor importance.
Indeed, the presence of those tracks gives rise to a problem which involves a much more important factor, the human factor. The mere study of the route followed by those rail tracks immediately reveals the implication of the human factor.
Starting in the neighbourhood of Moreau street, the tracks run eastward, along a line following Lafontaine street, across Ontario street and then along Rouen street.

Supply-Transport
Between Moreau and Viau streets, they cross more than 25 streets, which means that many level crossings.
Those 25 streets are situated on the island of Montreal, where the residential population attains one of the highest percentages of density.
From Notre Dame street, which runs along the busy commercial wharves of eastern Montreal, those streets are used not only by the local population but also for the daily transport of thousands of motor vehicles from all parts of the metropolitan area.
I am thinking more particularly of Pius IX boulevard, one of the most congested arteries of Montreal which crosses the entire island of Montreal between Pius IX wharf and the Prairie river bridge.
I also have in mind Ontario street, which is crossed by those tracks at the Valois intersection.
Ontario street is one of the largest commercial thoroughfares of Montreal. From both sides, and particularly in the ridings of Hoche-laga and Maisonneuve-Rosemont, Ontario street is bordered by shops representing invested capital of several million dollars. Public transportation buses constantly use that thoroughfare, with their large loads of passengers travelling to or from the centre of the metropolis or other large thoroughfares that cross the city.
On Ontario street, as on Pius the IX boulevard, and all other streets crossed by railway tracks, the traffic and movement of the population are particularly intense in the early morning and in the late afternoon.
At those hours workers and school children are travelling to or from work or school.
Let me point out that, between Moreau and Viau streets, some twenty schools and convents, about ten churches and eleven playgrounds are situated in the vicinity of the tracks.
Therefore, several times a day, thousands of citizens, walking or riding, have to cross the tracks either to go to some of those public buildings or to reach main perpendicular streets or thoroughfares such as St. Catherine, Adam, Lafontaine and Ontario.
Now it is generally during that period of the day when that heavy traffic of people and motor vehicles is at its peak that this train of tankers or other freight trains, happen to block one after the other, all streets between Viau and Moreau.

Ensuing delays and inconveniences can readily be realized.
That undesirable situation reaches its peak in the neighbourhood of Moreau street, where shunting of cars takes place between our two big railway companies.
Over an area which frequently covers six or seven streets eastward from Moreau street, the coming and going of those cars paralyse the traffic for periods of as much as half an hour at times, in flagrant and repeated violation of article 314, chapter 234 of the Railway Act, which limits such obstruction periods to five minutes.
At the corner of Prefontaine street, I personally have seen fire department vehicles immobilized at the crossings and having to wait there for more than fifteen minutes on account of that shunting of cars.
When that violation was later brought to the attention of the C.N.R. authorities, a member of the legal department of that company replied, very seriously, that in such circumstances, the vehicles had only to use some other street. As if it were possible to have those huge trucks back up and turn around in narrow streets, crowded over a distance of 100 feet with other vehicles that cannot move for the same reason!
It seems to me hardly necessary to describe the serious inconveniences as well as the numerous and grave prejudices which those railway crossings cause to the 200,000 persons who live in the constituencies of Hochelaga and Maisonneuve-Rosemont.
Those twenty-five railway crossings, or thereabouts, present a constant danger, especially to the thousands of children who live nearby or who, of necessity, have to cross them. For reasons of economy, I presume, the traditional gate guards have given way to signal lights which constitute a very weak means of defence against the mortal dangers that can be caused by the passage of a train across a densely populated street.
Finally, from the aesthetic point of view, those tracks are a disgrace which should no longer be countenanced in an era when town planning strives and manages, even in industrial areas, to introduce constructions and arrangements pleasing to the eye. The very presence of the tracks is, no doubt to a large extent, the reason for the considerable delay in developing that part of Montreal east, as compared to the west end of the metropolis.
Since 1951 the association of businessmen of eastern Montreal has repeatedly and urgently requested that those tracks be left unused, or removed. Practical and positive solutions were submitted to the authorities concerned, by that association. From Viau

street the westbound tank-cars could use the national harbours board trackage. Car shunting could then be made without obstructing traffic.
It must also be pointed out that the few plants served by the branch line extending from Viau street to Moreau street use their privilege only from time to time.
They might more easily, and probably at a saving, receive or ship their goods through other means, for instance by trucks travelling between those plants and the railway lines along the Montreal waterfront.
The C.N.R. legal division, taking a practical down-to-earth point of view, has replied to the association of businessmen of eastern Montreal that its recommendations and suggestions could not be considered.
Of course, the suggested relocation of these tracks would involve some expense for the railways but this would be of a very minor character, and the loss of revenue would be negligible.
That is precisely the problem. Must we allow a railroad company and perhaps 20 industrial firms to go on enjoying privileges which are neither essential nor necessary, to the detriment of the rights of over 200,000 people who pay exactly the same taxes as their fellow citizens who do not have to put up with the many serious problems arising from the presence and use of these tracks.
I should be grateful to the Minister of Transport if he would kindly look into this problem and get in touch with the C.N.R. authorities in order that the decision taken in this regard be seriously reconsidered, in the light of the broad principle as to whether individual interest should take precedence over public welfare.


Mr. Brassard (Chicoutimi):: I do not want to delay the adoption of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I just want to say a few words to support the hon. members for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) and for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) who, like so many others who have sat before us in this house, and like many public organizations, have pressed for the rebuilding of the Chicoutimi-Quebec Montreal railway line.
I notice particularly that the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) now supports those requests. With the zeal of a convert and his experience, I have no doubt that he will help us obtain the rebuilding of that railroad 66968-9-291
Supply-Transport
which, incidentally, like other railroads and canals in Canada, is essential to any region, and in particular, to a region like mine which has many natural resources, a large mining centre and a surplus of population which requires new industries to prevent unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lapointe has requested a civil airport, and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has made a statement about it. But I want to point out to the house that the civil airport of Chicoutimi is already built. It was built during the last war at a cost of several million dollars and, for the information of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pick-ersgill), who seems to be jealous of the profits that people can make on government properties, let us say that that land was sold by the former administration at a price of $22,000 and that the man who bought it made a net profit of more than $172,000 by reselling the hangars alone which were on the land. Yet, the airport still exists, and its runways are like new.
Besides, may I point out to the house that the airport is used by light aircraft despite the absence of any protective system, of any aid to navigation, and only last Sunday, I saw aircraft and motorcars playing hide and seek on the runways. Therefore, I ask the Minister of Transport to send some protection officers there so that they may put an end to this situation before anything too serious happens.
A last word concerning Chicoutimi harbour. Now that the St. Lawrence seaway is completed, this harbour is not equipped to handle deep draught ships. The channel should be given a depth of 27 feet so that ships plying the seaway could go up the Saguenay to Chicoutimi. It would be enough to deepen the channel over a very short distance to allow the port of Chicoutimi to operate in the black, to the advantage of the nation as a whole.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return to one question which has already been considered by the committee but on which we would like some further information, and that is the question of the expropriations at Malton airport. The minister did give some information yesterday and some papers have been tabled, but there are

Supply-Transport
still some details which we would like him to supply and to which we think we are entitled. We pursue this matter on this side not in any cloak and dagger atmosphere but entirely to secure information on the passing of the minister's estimates, and I think it is our duty to try to get that information on a matter which has certainly caused a great deal of concern on this side of the house.
This particular expropriation about which I am talking, as the members of the committee know, went before the exchequer court. There was a petition in which the suppliant in this particular case sought to recover a sum of money, being the amount of a valuation made by an evaluator, on the ground-and I am now quoting from the judgment of the exchequer court-
*-that there was an agreement between Her Majesty acting through the Minister of Transport as herself with Mr. Clare-
-who was the valuator-
-to appraise the property and that both parties should be bound by the amount of his valuation.
Yesterday the minister said there was no such agreement. That was a categorical and definite statement on his part. But, Mr. Chairman, there have been equally categorical statements made on this particular aspect of the matter by the hon. member for Peel to the effect that there was such an agreement. I now quote from the judgment again, page 7, one sentence which reads: When Mr. Pallett was asked what line had been indicated to him in the discussion, his answer was "Whatever valuations were made by the independent valuator would be accepted by the Department of Transport."
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, so far as the member for the riding is concerned, he was equally categorical in his statement that there was such an agreement. In confirmation of that I can quote again from the record of the judgment, page 10 of my copy, the following sentences:
There was of course he said the conflicting evidence of what took place in the minister's office on September 14, 1957. Mr. Pallett asserted that the minister had accepted his proposal that there should be a valuation by an appraiser approved by the department and acceptable to the owners and that both the owners and the minister acting for Her Majesty should be bound by such valuations.
It is understandable that we should be in a state of some confusion as to what actually happened. It is unfortunate that the hon. member for Peel, no doubt for very good reasons, cannot be in his seat this afternoon to give us his version of what actually happened and his interpretation of these remarks I have just quoted, which indicate that certainly in his mind there was no doubt as to whether there was or was not an agreement, an agreement which, as was indicated 
later in correspondence by an officer of the minister's department, would have been of doubtful legal validity under the Expropriation Act and which would have established a most undesirable precedent as we could well understand.
Following this matter up I should like to ask the minister a few more questions. Perhaps he will let me place all my questions on record before he rises to answer, or if he prefers another procedure I will be glad to follow any that he wishes to adopt. If he wishes to answer my questions as we go along I would naturally be agreeable to following that procedure.
My first question on this matter is, how many qualified persons evaluated this particular property-the Drew property, which was a test case for ten others, I believe- before the minister decided to appoint an independent valuator? Would he give us the details of the valuations before the independent appraiser was appointed?
The second question is, were these earlier valuations by the departmental officials and the persons appointed by the department considered satisfactory by the department? According to the judgment the assistant deputy minister of the department did consider them satisfactory.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as there are a number of questions perhaps I could answer as we go along. In the first place I am advised there were approximately half a dozen valuations done. The exact valuations, of course, I do not have here. I will be very glad to give them to the Leader of the Opposition, but he will quite understand that I do not have them in my head and we do not have them at the table at this time. The answer to the second question is yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: My third question is this.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely.


John George Diefenbaker: Where in the judgment does it say that the earlier valuations were considered proper? I am attempting to follow the hon. gentleman's address.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the Prime Minister would look at the bottom of page 5 of the judgment he will find it. There may be another reference to it, but certainly there is one at the bottom of page 5. Mr. Booth, who I think is the assistant deputy minister of the department-


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -pointed out that the department was satisfied with the valuations that

had been made and that they were valid. If the Prime Minister would like me to read the rest of that sentence I would be glad to read it.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has now said there were six valuations made.


George Harris Hees: I said approximately six.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, approximately. My
next question is, is it not a fact that the hon. member for Peel, though approximately six valuations had been made, did request a further and what is referred to as an independent valuation because these previous valuations, presumably all six of them, had been too low? My next question is, did the hon. member for Peel recommend to the minister-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could answer the hon. gentleman's previous question before he proceeds. Yes, the hon. member did request that another valuation be made. There is nothing out of the way in that he should, because as the member of parliament representing these constituents he was absolutely convinced-I know, because I talked this over with him on many occasions -that these valuations were too low and were unfair, and his whole purpose in seeing me and pursuing this matter was to get for his constituents what he considered a fair deal. He was never at any time requesting any more than fair and equitable treatment for them.
There was nothing out of the way in the course of conduct of the hon. member, as the Leader of the Opposition is trying to imply. Even though there had been five or six valuations before, there was nothing out of the way in his requesting that a further valuation be made, because he is a very conscientious member of parliament and was striving only to see that his constituents got a fair deal.
I am beginning to understand, Mr. Chairman, why this witch hunt is proceeding. I found it very difficult yesterday to understand it but now I know, having thought it over during the evening. It is simply this. Hon. members opposite in the Leader of the Opposition's party find it very difficult to understand how a conscientious member of parliament operates. Members of the party to which he belongs are not interested in doing a thorough, conscientious job for the little, ordinary people in their ridings, people who need help, the small people who are very often pushed around by bureaucrats.
The hon. member for Peel believed that during the previous three years, 1954, 1955 and 1956, before we came into office-and 66968-9-291J
Supply-Transport
he saw me about it immediately after we did assume office-the people had been pushed around. Rightly or wrongly, he was convinced that they had been and they, too, were so convinced. As a conscientious member of parliament he came to see me and said, "I am convinced that these people are not getting a square deal; these valuations are too low, and I would like a further independent valuation to see what it comes out at". I replied that I considered this a reasonable request and said we would have an independent valuation, and that is the reason we had it.
The Leader of the Opposition appears to find it extremely difficult to understand why a conscientious member of parliament would go to work like that for his constituents. Members of the Liberal party seem to feel that if someone in the capacity of the hon. member for Peel, the capacity of a member of parliament, does try and obtain a square deal for his constituents, in some way he is getting a kick-back or some kind of nefarious reward. That is the whole implication of what the Leader of the Opposition and those associated with him have been saying.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, that is a false and a base inference the minister has made from any statement I have made on this matter in the house, and I ask him to withdraw it. I never suggested that the hon. member or anybody else was getting a kickback.


George Harris Hees: I did not say you had suggested it. No one over there has had-shall we call it the courage?-to come out and lay a charge. It has all been innuendo, it has all been underhand and it has all been sneering. Hon. gentlemen opposite have risen and in an obsequious way have prefaced their remarks with statements like, "I should like to ask a few questions, Mr. Chairman", or "I do not wish to take up the time of the committee but there are questions to which we must get answers", or "We must see that our money is properly spent." Of course, you must see that money is properly spent, but in this case you are implying by everything you do and say-and this applies to all other hon. gentlemen who have taken part in this discussion or raised questions- that there is something wrong, crooked, nefarious or sinister about the actions of the hon. member for Peel.
From my personal dealings with the hon. member I am prepared to say without hesitation that all the time he was working 100 per cent for the good of the people of his constituency. It may seem strange to the Leader of the Opposition to learn that members of this party have always been dedicated

Supply-Transport
to the principle of doing a good job for the ordinary little people in their ridings, the constituents they represent.
I want to tell my hon. friend this. The very fact that he and those in his party have difficulty understanding the conscientious efforts of the hon. member for Peel emphasizes what is one of the main reasons why we are sitting here and the Leader of the Opposition and his supporters are sitting on the other side of the chamber. The reason is that the Liberal party forgot the little people of this country. That is why the Leader of the Opposition and his party are going to sit on that side of the chamber for quite a while, until they move a little farther down the chamber and sit to the immediate right of where they now are; and the next thing we know the Leader of the Opposition will be rising in his place to speak for his party and will preface his speeches with the words, "Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group I should like to say."


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has obviously been thinking over the matter and the result of his thoughts has been that brilliant, impassioned political speech he has made which has elevated this subject to a higher plane, in his estimation. Now, the minister said we did not have the courage- he said a lot of other things which have nothing to do with the questions I asked him -to pursue this matter in the regular way. I tell him that we have a sense of responsibility over here, and before we decide whether or not to pursue this matter in another way we want to get the facts and give the minister a chance to tell us the facts.


George Harris Hees: And you got all the facts; you got every fact that you asked for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the member for Peel were in his seat he probably could add a lot to the facts as well. He has made statements on this matter outside the house; he has said nothing in the house-


George Harris Hees: Who, me?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The member for Peel; when we get the facts, or when we have done our best to get the facts we will make our decision. None of this impassioned eloquence of the minister will have any bearing on that decision.


George Harris Hees: You keep on asking and you will get the answers.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This afternoon the minister has become the champion of the little man who in this situation, the expropriations at Malton, was he said, being pushed around by bureaucrats, the bureaucrats presumably being the officers of his own department.


George Harris Hees: I said that is what the hon. member for Peel felt because he had been dealing with your government for three years and getting nowhere.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I stand corrected. The minister said it was the member for Peel who said the little men in his constituency were being pushed around by bureaucrats. The bureaucrats were the officers, the civil servants, of the minister's own department. Does he accept that criticism of them by the member?


George Harris Hees: I will answer that question right here and now. The hon. member for Peel came to me less than a month after we had taken office. He did not know anything about the civil servants in my department. He had dealt only with the government that had been in office for 22 years, and because of its callous attitude toward people such as those he represented he felt that it was about time there was a new deal for the people he represented. I have found since I came to that department that the people who are working under me are absolutely first class in every way, but the hon. member for Peel, a month after we took office, had no way of knowing that and he thought the people working for the government were the same kind of people as the members of the cabinet from whom he had been trying to get some action and had been getting none for three years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, let me pursue these zealous efforts of the member for Peel and the minister to secure a new deal for those little people in the riding of the member for Peel. As the result of their joint actions a test case was taken to the exchequer court. What was the result of that action? Did it give the little people he is talking about the increased valuations they thought they were entitled to? It did not. It confirmed in substance the valuation that had been made by his own officers, whom he now refers to as bureaucrats. The minister can sit down for a second.


George Harris Hees: I was sitting down, but I will stand up and I will say simply this. I am saying that the hon. member for Peel, having dealt with the members of the former government, felt that he was dealing with bureaucrats and he did not know there was any difference between them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Repetition does not make reputation.


An hon. Member:: You guys should know.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Let us see what happened, now that the minister has become so excited about this. In his efforts, with his colleague from Peel, to protect those little people in

Malton and get them what the member thought was a better valuation for their property, which had been evaluated already by six officers of his own department, whose valuation in substance was confirmed later by the Exchequer Court of Canada which showed-


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member a question? Does he think the hon. member for Peel as member of parliament for his constituency, was doing wrong in trying to get the best possible deal for the people he represented? Was there something wrong in that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course not.


George Harris Hees: Well, all right; don't try to imply that there was.


Lester Bowles Pearson: There are ways and means by which these things should be done, and if the minister will give me a chance I will follow through how the hon. member attempted to serve, no doubt to the best of his ability, the interests of his constituency. The minister has not said anything about the statement of the hon. member for Peel that there was an agreement. He said this before the courts, that there was an agreement between him and the minister that the independent valuator's valuation would be binding on the government and on the owners of the property. What has the minister to say about that? He says there was no such agreement, yet the hon. member for Peel in the court proceedings is reported as saying there was. What has the minister to say about that?


George Harris Hees: I said yesterday and I say again that there was no agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then the hon. member for Peel was wrong.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What has the minister to say about the statement of his colleague from Peel who, in an effort to protect his constituents, says there was? What about the statement of the hon. member for Peel?


George Harris Hees: I have no doubt that the hon. member had an idea that there was an agreement. The Leader of the Opposition probably does not realize that people can make mistakes and perhaps misunderstand what one person said or another person said. He obviously was under the impression that an agreement had been made, and I am very definitely of the opinion that there was not an agreement made, and that is the case as it stands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It may be said that it was very sloppy work on the part of the minister.


George Harris Hees: Well, perhaps it was.
Supply-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now the minister says that perhaps the member for Peel may have been under a misunderstanding.


George Harris Hees: He could have been.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will repeat what the member for Peel said in the exchequer court. I think he is a lawyer, and he knows what he is saying before a court. He said that whatever valuations were made by the independent valuator would be accepted by the Department of Transport. That is his statement, which directly and specifically contradicts what the minister has said, and then the minister wonders why we get up in the house asking some questions. I will ask him some more.


George Harris Hees: Go right ahead.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am going right ahead. Did the member for Peel recommend to the minister an independent appraiser? The recommendation came from the member for Peel. Was that independent appraiser one of his political organizers?


George Harris Hees: These questions were all answered yesterday. If the hon. member had been in the house yesterday he would know perfectly well that these questions have been answered. He knows perfectly well from the record that an independent valuator was named. His name was Mr. Clare. I said yesterday I had no idea that he was any political affiliate of the hon. member for Peel. I answered these questions yesterday, but you want to drag them out again, to produce them again, to try to create some cloak and dagger atmosphere and imply that there is something nefarious about this. If that is all you can think about as questions on the estimates of the Department of Transport, if this is the only kind of thing you are interested in, it shows how little interest you take in the operations of the government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We ask these questions because we have an interest in the operations of government under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend.


George Harris Hees: Keep asking them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will ask him a couple of more questions.


George Harris Hees: Let us have one that is at least a sensible question; we have not had one yet.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know how you feel about it.


George Harris Hees: I get tired of answering them two or three times over.

Sup p ly-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister agree that if the efforts which were unsuccessful, because the courts prevented their being successful, to increase this particular valuation had been successful, similar increases would have been required for several others because this was one of 10 cases, and the whole question of 180 valuations would have been reopened which had been previously completed to the satisfaction of this group-


George Harris Hees: This is one of those hypothetical questions which has no bearing on the case at all. This question came before the courts and was decided on its merits. The hon. gentleman knows how it was decided. His question is simply a hypothetical one, if so and so happened and something else happened, what would be the result, and so on.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I suggest to the minister that if this case had been decided in the way the member for Peel wished it to be decided, by increasing the valuations to the point which he thought was fair, then the 180 cases which had been decided would have had to be reopened. There is nothing hypothetical about that. Let me ask the minister this. How many other properties did this independent evaluator, Mr. Clare, evaluate in addition to the Drew property, and what was the amount paid for his services?


George Harris Hees: I think he evaluated 12 properties, and we will be very glad to get the amount he was paid. It has no bearing on the case whatsoever, but like all the other answers to all the other questions we will be very glad to give it. You have had the answer to every question you have asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am grateful to the minister for his promise to produce that information. Perhaps he will also produce this information, and I know he has not got it here. Will he give the committee the values set by Mr. Clare for each of the properties and the price previously offered by the department as a fair settlement for that property?


George Harris Hees: With a great deal of pleasure. It is on record. There is no problem in giving it. If I had it here I would give it right now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Then may I ask one final question at this particular moment. Were the valuations for the 180 or so properties that had been satisfactorily settled and accepted, and where everything had been satisfactorily concluded, made by departmental appraisers and evaluators?


George Harris Hees: By departmental and by independent appraisers as well.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. Member:: Junior counsel.


Lionel Chevrier: -I have listened to the minister bring forward his estimates on a number of occasions.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is the first time he ever got mad.


Lionel Chevrier: I have also noticed how cool he is as a rule when he discusses his estimates in the house, but within the last 15 minutes or so he has been anything but cool. In fact he was extremely excited.


George Harris Hees: I get excited when I hear an attempt made to smear a colleague. That is why I get excited.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has said there was an attempt made to smear a colleague. That is quite unparliamentary and it is also quite untrue. The minister does not know the difference between an attempt to smear and an attempt to get the facts.


George Harris Hees: To me what you are doing is an attempt to smear.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I repeat without hesitation that there is no attempt either on the part of the Leader of the Opposition or on the part of myself in the statements I wish to make and the questions I should like to ask to smear anyone in any way whatsoever-


Mr. Grafffey:: Nonsense.


Lionel Chevrier: -and if there is any doubt about that I can cite two cases that occurred when I was on the other side of the house and refer to what happened on similar occasions. Perhaps there will be silence if I do cite them. I do not want to go into these matters now, but I think we are entitled to ask these questions. We are entitled to ask them because it is our responsibility to get the information. It may be that some of the information does hurt.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: If it does, I am sorry; nevertheless I think the minister should, as he has done, do his utmost to give us the facts so that, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier, we will then be able to determine what our course of action should be. The minister put on the record today copies of the correspondence. I, of course, have not had the opportunity to read it all but I did read one letter, and I should like to put the second last paragraph on the record. Perhaps I should put the whole letter on the record. It is dated at Ottawa, October 24, 1957, addressed to the minister, and reads as follows:

Dear George:
Re: Malton airport expropriations
I hate to bother you with such things, but I have had a telephone call and a telegram; Bill Beach has had telephone calls; and apparently Speers, the land agent in Toronto, has made the statement that he and not the minister is running the department in Toronto.
I take it that Speers is the district appraiser of the Department of Transport in Toronto.
I have had a talk with Earl Clare, whom you appointed for the purpose of evaluating small holdings, and he tells me that Speers was in Ottawa today, apparently with some proposal to the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister that Clare be taken off the job.
Clare has already promoted the public relations of the Department of Transport more than the land agents have done in the last three and a half years. He has taken the time to examine each house and sit down and talk over the valuations which the owners want, with each owner. Needless to say, he will come to his own valuation.
Now I come to the second last paragraph.
I have known Clare for many, many years and he is not going to be influenced by Speers or any home owners. You may or may not hear of this through your deputies but, if so, I suggest that they be told in no uncertain terms that Speers is to get off Clare's back and let him do the valuations in his own way; if not, it defeats the purpose of appointing him.
No answer is expected and this, I suggest, might be ripped up and thrown away.
Well, I am not surprised that the last paragraph is in the letter, but in view of the second last paragraph I ask the minister this question. The minister has said here is a man who is so anxious to assist his constituents and do the very best he can to get a good deal for the small people, does the minister now think the sentiments contained in that second last paragraph are the kind of sentiments that should be expressed in the light of what has been discussed this afternoon, and does he think this is good administration on the part of a member of parliament?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peel was only anxious to see that these valuations should be fair valuations, and in expressing that opinion he was only saying that in his opinion that was the way to see that the valuator, Mr. Clare, could carry out a fair and independent valuation which would get a square deal for the people whom the member for Peel represents in parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that the valuation was to be increased substantially and if one reads the judgment, which is quite clear in that respect, it leads one to believe that the moment these valuations were accepted then the 180 other cases would also have to be reopened. Whether or not they were adequate valuations I am not saying at the moment.
Sup p ly-Transport


John George Diefenbaker: May I ask the hon. member where there is any support for that conclusion in the judgment? I have the judgment before me.


Lionel Chevrier: Oh, there is no support for that in the judgment at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Now, just a moment. The Prime Minister asked me a fair question and I answered it frankly. Of course there is no suggestion of that in the judgment. It was not being considered. But I am making the point now that the moment you increase the valuations on 11 properties, how on earth are you going to leave the properties of 180 other people living alongside in the same district without increasing their valuations? It just cannot be done. I know that similar cases have taken place before-


John George Diefenbaker: Will the hon. member mention any cases-he will know, of course, because he was minister of transport-where final settlement had been made and thereafter as a result of court proceedings some adjoining property was valued at a higher amount Which required the reopening of the other cases? He said he knows of cases.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not say that.


John George Diefenbaker: I took it that way.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister interrupted me before I finished my sentence.
What I was going to say was this: I know of cases in the Department of Transport where valuations having been made and a series of claims having been disposed of and the compensation money paid, adjacent owners came along and said, "We are not going to accept that valuation". Then, pressures were brought about, not only by groups but by municipalities, associations and even members of parliament who said, "We do not believe that valuation is a fair and reasonable one; we think it should be increased because of increased prices in the area, because industry may since have been located in the area," or because of other reasons of which I am not reminded at the moment. But we took the position at the time that it is up to the exchequer court to determine what the compensation was, and the moment the exchequer court determined what the valuation was, then that made the position quite clear in so far as the other expropriatees were concerned.
I come back to the statement I made earlier that while there is no mention in the judgment of the 180 other persons, the moment this valuation was accepted, the moment this agreement was made as was suggested and as was said in the judgment, then the

Supply-Transport
other 180 cases would, of necessity, have to be opened. This being the case, then the federal treasury is in a pretty serious position in so far as these people are concerned because 1 am sure the Department of Transport or the government would not want to treat a group of expropriatees in one part of an area in one manner by paying them one price, and another group just alongside differently by paying another price.


George Harris Hees: If I may answer that, I would say that you have a distinct group of 180 people who were satisfied, who had signed with the department and whose deals were complete. So far as we know, they are quite satisfied. You had one small group of 12 people who said that they were not satisfied and it is, in a free country like this, your right to be either satisfied or not satisfied with the deal that is offered. These people said they were not. The hon. member for Peel felt that they had a good case and he decided to try to get them a square deal, to get them a fair valuation. That is all he tried to do.
I should like to ask the hon. member this. If in his riding there were a group of people who were satisfied with a certain valuation and a small group who were not, would he then say to them, "Oh, no, you have got to take what you are offered because 180 other people have been quite satisfied; I cannot go to the government because if you have been done a grievous wrong and if we look into it and find you have been done a grievous wrong we could not pay you any more because this would mean opening up a lot of other cases and that would cost the government a lot of money." If the hon. member were representing 12 constituents who felt they had a raw deal, would he not go to the government and fight tooth and nail to get them what he considered to be a square deal? Would he or would he not do that?


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to my hon. friend's interruptions or his questions.


George Harris Hees: This is a free and open debate.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, certainly. He states that the group expropriated earlier, the 180, were satisfied with their valuation.


George Harris Hees: As I understand it; they would not have signed if they were not.


Lionel Chevrier: I accept that statement, but does the minister think for one moment the man next door who noticed the increase in valuation would be satisfied? Does he think for one moment that as soon as a neighbour gets an increase of $5,000 or $10,000 for his property, the man who settled before will not come back and ask for a similar increase?


George Harris Hees: I will answer that right now.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment; that is what took place in a number of cases in the Department of Transport. All you need to do is consult your own officers in connection with expropriations.


George Harris Hees: I will answer that right now. In other words, if you have 20 constituents and 19 of them feel they have had a square deal but the 20th feels he has not-


Lester Bowles Pearson: You have had six valuations already.


George Harris Hees: Just a minute; would the hon. member say, "I will not try to have your case opened up because if I do try, and even if I feel you had a raw deal, it would mean that the government would have to open up the other 19 cases and give them a similar deal." If that is the hon. member's attitude, then he will not be back next time.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: The Chair has allowed the debate to continue for the last half-hour, but for the sake of relevancy I think it is about time we examined the situation. The Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Laurier have both said that no attempt has been made to smear the hon. member for Peel or any other member, and the Chair is ready to believe that no such attempt was actually made.
However, these repetitious questions and repetitious answers have continued and it seems that the present basis of this debate is a hypothetical question as to whether or not, if this valuation had gone through, 180 individuals would have protested the former valuation to which they had agreed. It is impossible to expect a debate to be continued on such a hypothetical basis. I regret to say that unless hon. members of the opposition explain clearly the purpose of all these questions and answers, and the reason for this debate I shall have to declare this debate out of order because it is not relevant to the item under discussion.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if you so declare then there will be no doubt about the position which we, on this side of the house, will take. We will accept the ruling of the Chair, but I tell you in all honesty and in all sincerity, that I do not believe that would be an equitable decision. However, it will be up to you to determine, sir.
I do not want to pursue the matter unduly, but I am not going to let the Minister of Transport get away with the last statement he made, that if I continue asking these questions I will find myself without a seat.


John George Diefenbaker: No, no.


George Harris Hees: I said, if that was your attitude toward your constituents you would not be back. I asked you a question.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend need not worry too much about what is likely to happen in my constituency because-


George Harris Hees: That is what George Marler said.


Lionel Chevrier: But my hon. friend's colleagues on the other side have done their best on two occasions not only to defeat me but to see that I would no longer be a member. They have not been successful. I do not imagine, judging by the popularity of the present government in the province of Quebec now, that they will be successful in the next election.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the minister. Before I do, I should like him to comment on this particular part of the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson, at page 16:
I have no hesitation in rejecting Mr. Clare's valuation. I do not believe that he was a free and independent appraiser. He admitted that Mr. Pallett, who had recommended his appointment, said that he wanted a good price and on his crossexamination, after long hesitation, he admitted that Mr. Pallett had instructed him to put as generous a valuation as possible on the properties and he told Mr. Speer, the Department of Transport's agent, that it was difficult for him to carry out his instructions.
Would the minister care to comment on that paragraph?


George Harris Hees: As I have said to the hon. member several times, and as he knows, being a distinguished barrister, it is completely wrong to ask me to comment on a judgment which has been rendered.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is not true, of course.


Lionel Chevrier: That is so if the case were sub judice, but it is not. It is a judgment, and so far as I know it is not under appeal.


John George Diefenbaker: It is still within the period within which an appeal could be taken.


Lionel Chevrier: That does not make it sub judice; it becomes sub judice the moment the appeal is launched. An appeal not having been launched, it is proper for anyone to comment on it and therefore it is proper for the Minister of Transport to comment on it, but every time I ask him questions concerning the judgment he always comes back and says in his very breezy and easy manner: you should know better, you are a lawyer, and so forth. But that is not an answer to the question. Either the minister answers the question or he does not. If he
Supply-Transport
does not answer it, then that is fine. We accept that. If he chooses to answer it, that is another matter again.


George Harris Hees: I have answered every question which the hon. gentleman has put to me. He asked for material, and I have given it to him. This morning he asked for correspondence and I gave him far more than was necessary. I gave him all the letters that could be found.


Lionel Chevrier: What do you mean by "far more than was necessary"?


George Harris Hees: I think it is completely wrong to ask a member of parliament to comment on a judgment of a presiding judge and I do not intend to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: All right, I will leave it at that. I think the hon. gentleman is in error, but he is entitled to his opinion just as much as I am to mine.


George Harris Hees: It is the only time I have refused.


Lionel Chevrier: Now I should like to ask the minister this: what is the position of the department with reference to the ten other cases which have not been disposed of?


George Harris Hees: We have offered, I am advised, immediate settlement at valuations comparable to that in the judgment.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is it not the intention of the minister, then, to give these other cases the benefit of the judgment of an independent valuator.


George Harris Hees: I am abiding, as I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would, by the judgment of the court.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking for this group. We have listened very carefully to the discussion of this matter and we want to be very fair about it. First of all, let me say that we think it is most unfortunate that the hon. member for Peel is not in his seat while the estimates of the Minister of Transport are being discussed. It seems to us that everyone should have realized that this matter would have been brought to the attention of the committee.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but having read in the press of the intention of the Leader of the Opposition to bring this matter up on Monday -that is what the press said-I got in touch with the hon. member for Peel and had him here. Every opportunity was given at that time for making any statement which the opposition wished to make-I am not referring now to the hon. member for Kootenay West and his associates. It was known the hon. member for Peel would not be here for the ensuing three days and he was here when it

Supply-Transport
was stated in the press that there was going to be some suggestion, insinuation or something of that kind made against him.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On that point, would the
Prime Minister give the basis for his statement that we were going to bring this matter up on Monday?


John George Diefenbaker: Only the reference in the press to the effect that one of the hon. gentlemen opposite was going to bring it up. There was some reference, either in the press or on the radio, indicating that the Leader of the Opposition intended to press this matter. Immediately I communicated with the hon. member for Peel. The hon. gentlemen first raised this matter last Friday. I noticed then that there were innuendos and implications made, and that the question was likely to be raised again. The hon. member for Peel was here on Monday, available to answer any questions. He was here in the house. From then on he intended to be absent for the next two or three days, and all I can say is this: up to the present, there has been nothing other than these suggestions and inferences and innuendos for which the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to take responsibility. He realizes that if he goes farther than he does in his suggestions, the fullest opportunity will be given to him to establish any alleged wrongdoing. There has been no suggestion yet of that because from the very beginning he said there was none.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps we can finish off this question of procedure. I should like to tell the Prime Minister that I am willing to take responsibility for every statement that I have made on this matter, and there is no basis for any statement on his part that I am running away from that responsibility, as he will find out when we get the information. Then the Prime Minister had the effrontry to suggest that because it was stated somewhere in a newspaper that we might be bringing this matter up on Monday he instructed the member for Peel to be here on Monday.
As the Prime Minister knows perfectly well, and if he does not I will refresh his memory, on Friday I first raised this matter and the Prime Minister said he would make a statement later. On Monday he made a statement, and I said at that time we would examine that statement and decide what course we should take. There was no opportunity to deal with this matter until the estimates of the department came up. That would be the first opportunity. The Prime Minister knows himself that the estimates of the Department of Transport could not

come up before Wednesday, so his excuse for the hon. member for Peel not being here is a very feeble one indeed.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us be clear. The
way in which this has been done in the past when this-I will not call it McCarthyism- has been indulged in is to face the issue. At any time the hon. gentleman can make the necessary motion, as Sir Wilfrid Laurier once said. I hope he will take that course, because on the face of the facts he will realize he can go no further than make suggestions-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I know something about
McCarthyism, and I say to the Prime Minister that McCarthyism means when a man is charged before you know the facts.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you are
doing.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When we get the facts we
will decide what action should be taken. Does the Prime Minister say that that is McCarthyism? Let me remind him of some of the things he used to do over here when he was attacking the government without a complete basis of information. His suggestion that our effort to get the facts from the minister is McCarthyism is not worthy of him.


John George Diefenbaker: I will not enter into that discussion. I will simply say that the Leader of the Opposition has followed a course of innuendo but is fearful lest he go beyond that.


Lionel Chevrier: I deprecate the statement which the Prime Minister has just made to the effect that the Leader of the Opposition has followed a course of innuendo rather than proceed in the manner in which the Prime Minister indicated on the orders of the day, I believe on Monday. The Prime Minister is too good a lawyer not to know that this is not the only method by which a matter of this kind can be proceeded with. The Prime Minister has been in the house far too long-


John George Diefenbaker: What would be that other
method?


Lionel Chevrier: I will come to it in a moment. The Prime Minister has been in the house far too long to try to throw the burden over to this side of the house and to attempt to scare the opposition into not pursuing this matter.


George Harris Hees: He has encouraged it.


Lionel Chevrier: That is exactly what the Prime Minister tried to do the other evening. If he is encouraging it, why does he not allow us to debate this matter as it should be debated, not by seeking information and

asking questions and prying it out, as we have to do. The position is this: the Prime Minister hastened, on the orders of the day, to say that the opposition would be given all the opportunities they wanted. Let them debate it all they like, he said. Let them have no complaint about the government. We are complaining now about the manner in which this question is being handled, and I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is so courageous he should give us an opportunity to consider this matter fully. Why does he not have the hon. member for Peel make a statement so that we may know exactly what the facts are.
I said a moment ago that I would remind the Prime Minister of another occasion. Does the Prime Minister remember an occasion on which the leader of the opposition in this house charged the Right Hon. C. D. Howe with certain interests having to do with the C. D. Howe Company? Does he remember that was a clear cut charge in express language or in any way you might put it? It was debated in this house day in and day out by innuendo and in every other way. It was talked of outside the house and it was talked of here. Was the leader of the opposition asked to resign because he was not able to substantiate his charge? Of course he was not. Surely this is not a new procedure. Surely because no charge is laid against an hon. member is no reason to deny information to those of us who want that information? I am sure the Prime Minister, he who has been speaking about introducing a bill of rights, would be the last one to do so. That is one of the foremost things concerning a bill of rights, that we should be entitled to information. Well, let us have that information.


George Harris Hees: What information do you want that you have not been given? You have had every question answered, and every piece of material has been given to you.


Lionel Chevrier: My friend gets exercised a bit-


George Harris Hees: I just want you to answer.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not for me to answer, but you.


George Harris Hees: I will answer any question you ask, except to comment on the judgment of the court, because I will abide by the judgment of the court.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. I would ask hon. members to please address their questions through the Chair. I would also remind hon. members that the hon. member for Kootenay West was on his feet and making a speech, which I allowed
Supply-Transport
hon. members to interrupt to deal with a specific point about the role of the hon. member for Peel. If they have concluded their remarks on that particular matter I would ask the hon. member for Kootenay West to continue with his remarks.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I make one short comment and then I will resume my seat; I am sure there will be no objection to it. The hon. minister has just stated that he will abide by the judgment of the court. I am glad to hear him make that statement. The judgment of the court is a clear cut condemnation of the member for Peel.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I want to express my sincere appreciation for the hon. members exhibiting the tolerance which permits me to continue with the speech I started some minutes ago. We have listened very carefully to this debate and I can truthfully say that the hon. members of this group want to be as fair as possible on this issue. It is very easy to get worked up on one side or the other.
I said in my preceding remarks that we had hoped that the hon. member for Peel would have been in his seat. We think it would have been more appropriate on this occasion, but the Prime Minister has apparently explained that. We have listened to the questions asked by the Leader of the Opposition and other very important people in the front benches of the official opposition and to the answers given by the Minister of Transport. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that I could not sleep last night again. I am a very bad sleeper on occasions. However, I read an article in Maclean's magazine about the Minister of Transport.


George Harris Hees: Not that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It mentioned his ability as a cadet and as a boxer. I was a boxer on one occasion and got knocked out on the same occasion. I was also a soldier and I would pay tribute to his record overseas, and as a political organizer and businessman. I do think this afternoon that he has exhibited a certain amount of ability to lay down what I would call a good smoke screen, and I do not think he has answered these questions directly enough. We in this group think it is most unfair for this issue to be left up in the air. It is most unfair to the member concerned and to the house. From what I can judge from listening very carefully, there are serious contradictions between statements made by the hon. member for Peel outside of this house and statements given to this house by the minister. I think that is accepted by everybody. There are very serious discrepancies between the statements made by

Supply-Transport
the hon. member for Peel outside the house and the statements made by the evaluator before the exchequer court. If statements made by a person giving evidence before the exchequer court are not correct, then that person has committed perjury.
To indicate how this type of situation creates doubt, confusion and suspicion, unfairly to the member for Peel and unfairly in the general approach of this house to this question our group received yesterday and today phone calls from various parts, and also letters in today's mail. These clearly indicate that it is a question which the public of this country would like to see cleared up. There is confusion, there is doubt and there is concern. I will be quite frank, Mr. Chairman, and say after listening to the questions and answers, in my opinion the hon. member for Peel exercised what I would call immature and poor judgment. That would be my opinion. But I think in fairness to him the whole matter should be cleared up, and on that account this group would support the request of the official opposition that a committee be appointed to inquire into the whole	matter	to settle it	once	and for all.The	Acting	Chairman	(Mr.	McCleave):
Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman.
The	Acting	Chairman	(Mr.	McCleave):
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wish to say something about the matter which is being	discussed.
The	Acting	Chairman	(Mr.	McCleave):
The hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine.


Mr. Keays:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to delay unduly the passing of these estimates, but I would wish to relieve the high pressure area which exists to our right and give them a little bit of the cold front.
I would like to bring to the attention of the minister a financial problem which affects the people of my riding. As you know the telephone system there is administered by the telecommunications branch of the Department of Transport. I would not be so naive to say that the expenditure of the department over the past few years is totally economically justified, but knowing the policy of this government of bettering the lot of people who live in areas such as mine, which is an insular area, the improvements which have been made to date have been quite satisfactory. I know it will be very difficult to obtain the revenue necessary to write off this expense. However, steps have been taken to increase the revenue, and one of the steps has been the monthly rental rate,
[Mr. Herridge.l
which has been increased considerably and also accepted very reluctantly by my constituents. However, it is accepted.
Another matter concerns the toll charges which are now being put into force by the department. As you know, sir, the Magdalen islands are comparable to a large village. In the centre section, Grindstone, is located the commercial and industrial centres. There you find the hospital and all the doctors of the islands and those in the east end and the west end of the islands must call Grindstone island quite frequently. As the minister is aware only one exchange exists. For those who must call Grindstone daily at the rate of 15 cents per call this becomes very expensive. I would ask the Minister of Transport, owing to the recent increase in the monthly rental rate, to give consideration to delaying this toll charge for some time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had not intended to say anything about this matter of Malton valuations at all until the Prime Minister made his intervention this afternoon. I could not help but feel that one point had not been made by anyone and that it seems to me is the most obvious of all. In his judgment the president of the exchequer court has made statements about a member of this house which certainly call into question-and I am not calling it into question; it was the president of the exchequer court who did it-the propriety of his conduct as a member of this house.
I would not have thought it would have required the Leader of the Opposition or the humblest member of this committee to bring up this matter. I would have thought that the hon. member for Peel himself as was his right and, I suggest, his duty, under our rules, would have taken the first opportunity to give this committee the explanation to which it is entitled and which it has not received. I do not intend to say anything more about the hon. member's conduct when he is not here; but I do want to say a word or two about the conduct of the Minister of Transport and I wish to make these comments in a very non-controversial way because I as a minister was faced with a precisely similar situation to the one with which the minister was faced.
I was faced with expropriations which were being made by the organization over which my friend the hon. member for Laurier provided in his capacity as president of the St. Lawrence seaway. I was acting as a trustee for the persons who were being expropriated in the Caughnawaga Indian reserve. A very high proportion of those cases had been settled. Proposals were made to me, not by a member of parliament it is true, but proposals similar to those made to

the Minister of Transport when he first came into office, that the department should try to deal in a different way with the group of dissenters from the way in which the majority of those who had assented had been treated. I said that was an impossible course for the government to take and that the vast majority of these people having accepted, on a certain basis, the government could not subsequently give better treatment to others, and ever face the public.
I therefore think the minister was wrong to appoint this special evaluator. In my opinion, based on such experience as I have had, he should have told the hon. member for Peel that he could not entertain this proposal, that the settlements had been made with all these other people in comparable circumstances and that those who were not satisfied had their recourse to the courts and that that was the place for the cases to be settled.
The Chairman presiding over this debate prior to your taking the chair, Mr. Chairman, raised the question as to whether this matter was relevant. It seems to me it is entirely relevant. One hundred and eighty of these cases having been settled on a certain basis it would, in my view, have been the height of inequity for the government of its own motion to give better treatment to the remaining twelve. Those people could take the matter before the courts and try to get better treatment as one ultimately did, but that is another matter.
I am not criticizing the minister very strongly for this because I realize that, in 1957, he was new, inexperienced and eager, but I do say that I think the minister was guilty in this particular instance of a very serious error of judgment.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a clarification in respect of what I said a moment ago to the Leader of the Opposition. I said I accept the judgment of the court. Not being a lawyer, I did not quite realize what I was saying. What I intended to say was that I accept the decision of the court in regard to the settlement to be made and I intend to follow it in regard to the other cases that remain.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask the minister a question about that, but I must say it slipped my mind. Is the minister satisfied not only with the conclusion reached by the court but with the reasons for judgment given by the president of the court?


George Harris Hees: As I said to the hon. member for Laurier, I think it would be quite wrong
Supply-Transport
and I do not intend to comment on the judgment of the court. What I do say is that I accept the decision with regard to the payment to be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the minister allows these other statements in the judgment to stand?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I do not comment on the judgment in any way whatsoever. As I said, I simply accept the decision of the court with regard to the payment to be made, that is all.


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word about an airport in my constituency. The situation there has been all muddled up. This coming Sunday there will be between 75 and 100 airplanes landing there. The situation is not the minister's fault. He has done everything he can and I think the muddling was done at the other end. I do wish he would undertake to look at this problem and see if action can be taken.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to look into it, Mr. Chairman.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, on May 5, 1959, as reported at page 3373 of Hansard, I asked the following questions:
1.	Have any requests been received by the government from individuals, associations or corporations to purchase or use a parcel of government owned land on the west bank of the Richelieu river at St. Jean, south of the Canadian National Railway bridge between St. Jean and Iberville?
2.	If so, from whom, and for what purpose?
3.	What action is being taken by the government?
In response to these questions I received the following replies:
1.	Yes.
2.	Messrs Robert and Bernard Goineau-for the installation of gasoline pumps and a repair shop for motor boats.
3.	A lease has been offered to the applicants who have not yet indicated acceptance of the offer.
Could I ask the minister if he has a copy of that lease. I asked for it and never received it.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am advised that the lease has not been signed yet but as soon as it is I shall be very glad to table it.


Yvon Dupuis: Could the minister tell me what is in the lease? Could the minister advise me of the contents?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I have not got the lease with me at this table. I shall be glad to tell the hon. member

Supply-Transport
tomorrow on the appropriate item or if he wishes to speak to me I shall be glad to give him the information at any time.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that I asked for a copy of the lease over a month ago. I feel that the minister has had ample time in which to give it to me. He gave me all the documents referring to that purchase-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, could I clear that up now. I am advised there is no lease yet. It is simply a proposal that has been sent but it has not been signed. When there is a lease I shall be glad to let the hon. member know all about it.


Yvon Dupuis: The minister tells me there is no lease. Can he explain the answer I received on May 5 at which time I was advised that a lease had been offered to the applicants who had not as yet indicated acceptance of the offer?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I can explain that very easily. A lease has been offered; that is to say, a proposition has been made. It has not been signed as yet, however, and there can be no lease until it is signed. When it is signed I shall be glad to give the hon. member all the information he requires.


Yvon Dupuis: Can the minister tell me what proposals were made to the people concerned?


George Harris Hees: I do not carry this information in my head and my deputy minister does not have it at the table. This information is in the department and I will be glad to give it to the hon. member tomorrow. If he would like to come to the department he can find out all he wants to know about it. There is no problem involved in getting the information.


Yvon Dupuis: I am very sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I am not satisfied with that answer. This is a very important matter of great interest to my constituents. The minister received a demand from Mr. Robert Sauve whom he knows very well as the defeated candidate in my riding. The demand was dated June 9, 1958. I should like to continue in French because I know the minister is competent in this tongue and I would like to be well understood.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, according to the documents given to me by the Minister of Transport, on June 9, 1958 he received from Mr. Robert Sauve, of St. Johns, a request to the effect that Messrs. Robert and Bernard Goineau should be allowed to set up gas pumps and a workshop for yacht repairs on the federal site I mentioned.
Mr. Chairman, I want to call the attention of the minister to that matter. I have

no wish to condemn his attitude, but I want to warn him of the existing situation before the lease is signed. If a lease has been offered, before the minister decides what he proposes to do, I want to warn him that the population of St. Johns will not view with favour the fact that the department or the Minister of Transport is giving a piece of public property to private citizens.
If the government disposed of a great stretch of land in that sector on the banks of the Richelieu river, we might perhaps consider such request to dispose of public property, but at this time, that site is the only one in the town of St. Johns, which gives access to the ships, boats and yachts, so that if use of that public site were alienated it would mean a discrimination against the people of my riding and my city.
Mr. Chairman, may I recall the steps that have been taken-and I want to be clearly understood: the Conservative candidate, Mr. Robert Sauve, asked the minister on June 9, 1958, to give Messrs. Robert and Bernard Goineau the opportunity of operating gas stations and a repair shop on a public site. Moreover, the mayor of the town of St. Johns, who is a friend of the defeated candidate, wrote to the minister on August 25, 1958, telling him that he had been told of such request having been made in favour of Messrs. Goineau. But the mayor of St. Johns never asked the town council to pass a resolution concerning Messrs. Goineau's request. Though the mayor of St. Johns signed the letter himself, no resolution was passed by the council to that effect.
Second, I point out to the minister that he received a petition from the Sorel yacht club in support of the request made by the Goineau brothers. Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say that Mr. Beaudry is unknown to me, that I am not familiar with the Sorel club, and that nobody in St. Johns can know about it, as it is not in our area. Mr. Beaudry, from Sorel, is scarcely welcome to say that it would be interesting to settle Messrs. Goineau on that lot.
Third, Mr. Sauve wrote several letters-for that is all he can do, poor man-and now, the chamber of commerce of St. Johns, in a communication bearing the signature of its secretary, Mr. Jean Frederick, wrote to the minister, telling him that his organization had received a request from the Goineau brothers, and that it had always favoured the installation of gas pumps, the improvement of the government land, when it was a case of providing yachts with an easy access to the river.

There again, Mr. Chairman, I would point out to the minister that there is no official resolution from the chamber of commerce of St. Johns; there is only a letter signed by the secretary, Mr. Jean Frederick.
I would ask the hon. member for Cham-bly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) not to divert the minister's attention and to resume his seat, even though he should want to be appointed parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Johnson:: With pleasure.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I would once again remind the minister-
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: Court clown.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Would the hon. member please repeat what he just said?
(Text):


William Heward Grafftey: I called you the court clown.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: My hon. friend and constituency neighbour refers to me as a clown; allow me to point out to him that, in his own constituency he is referred to as "drafty".
I now continue, Mr. Chairman. On November 13, 1958, the junior board of trade of St. Jean-Iberville sent a letter to the minister under the signature of its secretary, Mr. Jacques McNulty. Well, Mr. Chairman, once again the junior board of trade did not send the minister a copy of an official resolution, duly adopted at a meeting of that association. All this to ask the minister, before he grants a lease to the Goineau brothers (and the minister will certainly not be cross with me if I rise in my seat today before the evil is done, because there is nothing unrepairable, it has not been done yet) to kindly consider the following:
First, it is the only piece of land that the citizens of St. Johns can utilize to get to their yachts or boats.
Second, it is absolutely inconceivable that individuals should be given a piece of land belonging to the public, a piece of land which is being used continually by the public and which, furthermore, is the only piece of land that the public can use to get to the Richelieu.
Third, if individuals should be given exclusive use of that piece of land, I respectfully submit that the minister should ask public tenders in order that the government may get the best offer possible. It should, furthermore, make a serious inquiry in order to know what are those people's plans about that piece of land.
Supp ly-Transport
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully submit that the minister, before he takes a decision, should consider the matter and make a detailed inquiry, so that next year I won't be obliged to rise in my place here to tell him: "You gave to individuals a piece of land which belongs to the public."
The minister cannot hold a grudge against me for having warned him of what is coming, but if the minister gives a piece of land belonging to the public, I must warn him that he shall certainly hear about it in forthcoming sessions.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to look into this matter. I am very appreciative of the hon. member bringing it to my attention. He asked for some details on the proposed lease. I am advised that it is a plot of land 220 feet by 120 feet, of which one-third is under water. The rental rate proposed is 60 cents a square foot for the two-thirds of the land above water and 30 cents a foot for the one-third below the water. I am glad to advise him that representations have come to us along the lines that he has been indicating, and I shall be glad to give the matter the very serious consideration that he has suggested we should give it.


Yvon Dupuis: I thank the minister very much.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words on tolls on the Welland ship canal. I have spoken in the house several times against the imposition of tolls on this canal because I have said it would toll-lock lake Ontario.
The greatest percentage of the industry in Ontario making use of the water-borne traffic is situated around the shores of lake Ontario and along the Welland ship canal. Areas around the shores of lake Ontario are the source of very little raw material, so that most of the raw material has to be brought in through a toll area. In today's Globe and Mail there is an article by Mr. Forgie of the Ontario Paper Company, Thorold, an outstanding economist, and he urges that the Canadian people recognize the importance of the great lakes waterway system. He predicts that otherwise the development of Canada as a trading nation through the advantage of having the seaway can be strangled by the broad application of policies which have not been fitted to serve local and particular needs. He notes that Premier Frost has come out

Supply-Transport
against the imposition of tolls on the canal. With reference to the particular position of the Ontario Paper Company at Thorold he says:
We have built docking facilities to load newsprint, pulp and pulpwood and have built up a fleet of ten ships which transport our raw materials and finished products throughout the great lakes system. We gain no benefit from improved depth facilities on the canal, yet we cannot move a ton of paper or a stick of pulpwood without paying a toll on a facility which has been completely paid for through taxes.
I realize, however, that the Welland canal tolls are just being charged for the cost of the deepening. The article continues:
He said the principle of tolls had been introduced in such a way that a Canadian ship leaving a lake Ontario port is no longer able to proceed freely through the great lakes system.
I might say that the shippers along the canal are at a very great disadvantage now. It is costing them more to bring in pulpwood. It is costing the Steel Company of Hamilton more to bring in iron ore and their ships cannot make as many trips per season as they did in previous years. There is a lot of talk- we have heard it in parliament-about enlarging the Welland ship canal or duplicating a certain number of locks. I think this is particularly bad for our area because the manufacturers in the area think that it will add to the cost of shipping in future years. Also, the plants that are there will not expand because they are afraid of higher shipping costs.
The minister said a few minutes ago that only members of his party speak for the small people. I am trying to speak now for the small people in our area, the men who want to keep their jobs. The Hon. Charles Daley, minister of labour of Ontario, has made many pronouncements against tolls on the Welland ship canal and I know that Premier Frost came out again tolls about a month before they were imposed. According to the press two or three weeks ago, at the time of the christening of a new ship at Port Weller, Mr. Daley and others made protests in the presence of the Minister of Trade and Commerce and according to the press and some people who were there the minister, after listening to the protests, said that he would take up the matter with the cabinet in Ottawa.
I asked him in the house if any protest had been made and his answer was in the negative. I do not know whether or not I worded my question properly. He may have thought that I was asking whether any written protest had been made. But in the presence of a good many people who were present that day protests were certainly made to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and he said they would be taken up with the cabinet

in Ottawa. I should like to ask the minister today if he has been receiving further protests from people about tolls on the Welland canal and if the Minister of Trade and Commerce has conveyed the protests made on that day to the members of the cabinet.


George Harris Hees: Did the hon. member mean to ask whether the matter has been discussed since the Minister of Trade and Commerce returned? I think the hon. member knows that what is discussed in cabinet cannot be spoken of in the house, but I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Trade and Commerce brought it to my attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, yesterday on this item I referred to the St. Lawrence seaway and to what in my opinion are some very important faults in the construction of the seaway and made certain statements resulting from my own personal observations. I asked the minister at that time to consider referring the whole question of the seaway to a standing committee of the house for discussion and examination. I felt that this was necessary not only because of the apparent serious construction faults but also because of answers given to questions asked in the house as to the movement of piers, steps taken to bring about repairs to piers, remedial measures as they were termed, and the very startling revelation in my judgment that the piers of the Cornwall bridge do not go down to bedrock. I take it that the minister is refusing an inquiry by such a committee. I think he is making a very serious mistake.
Almost daily we see further evidence of difficulties of all kinds in the operation of the seaway and this suggests to me that not only with respect to construction but also to operation there are a great many things that require the most thorough and serious examination. There is a report today that it is impossible now for the dominion bureau of statistics to obtain accurate reports of tonnage going through the seaway. I have in my hand an article by Clark Davey in this morning's Globe and Mail which reads in part as follows:
A change in method of reporting ship movements and cargo statistics has left the dominion bureau of statistics without any accurate records for the first weeks of St. Lawrence seaway operations. The seaway authority is expected to issue its own report shortly on the number of ships and total cargoes handled to the end of May.
However, D.B.S. officials said they have been unable to obtain an accurate break-down of commodity figures essential to economic studies of the seaway's impact and of changing traffic patterns.
The article goes on to say that D.B.S. officials have endeavoured to find out the quantity of goods going through the seaway but that the clerks have all been moved to

the seaway office in Cornwall where they receive the forms from the ship owners or agents. The article continues:
The clerks, in turn, transmit the information to the dominion bureau of statistics. In many cases, D.B.S. officials said, the ship owners or agents are simply not filling in the forms. In many other cases the information they provide is incomplete or wrong. They said repeated checks would have to be made and it would be several months, they expected, before the system was operating satisfactorily.
This may not sound too important to the minister but I think it is important that accurate statistics be readily available as to the traffic through the seaway. Surely if we are to know the value of the seaway it is absolutely essential that such statistics be readily available. This is another instance of inefficient operation. As stated by the dominion bureau of statistics, because of the lack of information it is impossible to report accurately the amount of traffic going through the seaway.
I related to the committee yesterday what I had seen so far as the locks near Montreal are concerned, and what I believe to be very serious errors in construction. This morning the minister made a number of statements in the house and referred to certain things that had been said in this debate yesterday. I had asked about the Cornwall bridge. I had asked why the piers did not go down to bedrock. I see no explanation from the minister as to why the peirs did not go down to bedrock. I see no statement by the minister which would suggest that the piers should not have gone down to bedrock.
The minister quotes from information with which he has been supplied to the effect that certain remedial measures were taken. He said that a preliminary report dated January 11, 1958 included the statement that the remedial measures being taken are reasonable ones.


George Harris Hees: I should tell the hon. member, since he asked why the piers were on glacial till and not on rock, that glacial till has practically the same density as rock and is considered by our engineers, the consulting engineers and the United States engineers, to be eminently satisfactory as a foundation for this bridge.


Hazen Robert Argue: I would suggest, with great deference to the minister's knowledge in this field, that there are a great many eminent engineers who would say it was tragic, in this instance, not to have the piers put down through the glacial till another 20 or 24 feet to bedrock.


Mr. Broome:: Could the hon. member give his authority for that statement?
Supply-Transport


Hazen Robert Argue: I am going to come to that. I wonder if the minister would allow such authorities to appear before a parliamentary committee and give this kind of evidence as to whether or not, in their opinion, this is in fact the right type of construction.


George Harris Hees: May I just point out to the hon. member who was not here this morning when I gave my statement in some detail in answer to his question that I said I would be very happy to have him and the hon. member for Vancouver East, who asked these questions and who seemed to be genuinely worried about these matters, meet with our engineers who will answer all these questions; who will tell them how we operate; what our problems are and how we overcome them.


Hazen Robert Argue: I was quite aware of what the minister said this morning. That is no answer to the suggestion that I made, a very serious suggestion that this whole question should be referred for study to a parliamentary committee, where these things could be studied out in the open and where the public would have a chance to learn the evidence and to decide whether or not serious errors, in fact, had been made. I do not believe, in answer to a serious request that such a public inquiry be held, parliament should accept or that I should accept this kind of offer to meet behind closed doors where the public has no access to the information, with officials of the department-


George Harris Hees: If I might just add there-


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor.


George Harris Hees: If you are asking for information, or if you are just talking for publicity, let me know.


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor.


George Harris Hees: If you are asking for information, I will give you some, but if you are making a speech for the press gallery-


Hazen Robert Argue: I have the floor now.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order; it is extremely difficult for the Hansard reporter to take down the remarks of two gentlemen who try to speak simultaneously. The hon. member for Assiniboia.


Hazen Robert Argue: Apparently the minister knows as much about the rules as he does about some of the other things about which he professes to be an authority. I do not accept as a sound offer on behalf of the government that there should be this kind of closed inquiry and that the hon. member for

Supply-Transport
Vancouver East and I should chum up somewhere with the officials of the department so that we can be given a lesson on what took place.


George Harris Hees: You can have every question you want to ask answered.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister is very sensitive about this, he is very edgy on this point. He is unable to contain himself over there. Every time I make a point he jumps up and he makes an interjection.


George Harris Hees: I thought you wanted information.


Hazen Robert Argue: He tries to claim the right to speak when he has no right to speak. I do not mind him being sensitive. I do not wonder that he is sensitive when it is said these things should be looked into in a public way. The minister did not refer, in any statement that he made, to the leaks to which I referred yesterday in the gates; he did not refer to the water spouting up through the concrete; he did not refer to the guards that were to have bolts connecting them, and in certain instances the bolts are missing-


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: So
are some of yours.


Hazen Robert Argue: What was that?


William McLean Hamilton: just said some of your nuts and bolts are missing, too.


Hazen Robert Argue: I knew that for some time about the hon. gentleman with respect to the same thing. After these very helpful and encouraging interruptions, I would say that the offer the minister has made surely cannot be considered a proper reply to the statements I have made concerning the faulty construction. I did not have to get advice from anybody to see the bulges in the walls of the locks. I had expected that the engineers and the construction firms, the people who built the locks, would build walls of a straight character. It is no wonder that with these additional bulges we hear so much about scraping because the walls, even to the naked eye, are badly constructed.
The minister admitted that remedial measures had been taken with reference to the piers. Remedial measures were necessary, I would suggest, because there had been faulty construction, because there had been a movement of the piers. However, when we suggest there is something wrong the minister says, no, there is nothing wrong. If you want to find out, just come along sometime and we will arrange a nice, cosy private meeting with the responsible officials
[Mr. Argue.)
of the seaway authority to discuss the complaints that have been received. I would suggest we have a full scale inquiry, not only as to inefficiency in the construction of the seaway as has been suggested, but also into the apparent inefficient operation of the seaway and as to why we have these jams, delays and bottlenecks about which we have read.
The further statement now that for some reason or another records of goods going through the seaway are not accurate and cannot be obtained in a ready fashion, the statement which the minister has made is, I feel, not one which can be accepted. I do not think that this is an answer at all. It simply by-passes the statement I made yesterday. And I think the minister's reply this morning substantiated the claim that I made that this is a subject about which there should be a full parliamentary inquiry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am now going to make the speech I have always intended making on the estimates of the Department of Transport and I assure the minister that I am going to be speaking for the little people of Newfoundland as indeed I have tried to do on many other subjects besides the minister's estimates in seeking to further the interests of the fishermen, though I have not been able to do much to soften the hard hearts of members of the government in this respect. But the heart of the Minister of Transport is, perhaps, softer than those of his colleagues and I want to start by supporting very warmly the appeal made to the minister yesterday by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the plea I made on behalf of that hon. member a year ago when he was not able to be in the house. The hon. member stated the problem, but I should like to say something about the background to this problem.
At the time the terms of union were negotiated ten years ago it was decided by the then government that the telegraph and telephone service formerly operated by the department of posts and telegraphs of Newfoundland would be taken over by Canadian National Telegraphs but because, for certain historical reasons, telecommunications in Labrador had not been under the administration of the posts and telegraphs of Newfoundland no similar action was taken in that area. Labrador is an integral part of the province of Newfoundland and it does seem to me that the people of Labrador-I am sorry to say I do not represent them though I would love to; they are represented very adequately by my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador-deserve an improved service. I would remind the minister,

as I may say I reminded some of his predecessors-I say this in the presence of one of them today-that the large centres are better served. The minister smiles and I know that he thinks he is doing a lot better than previous ministers. This is one respect in which he can show his interest in the small people about whom he was speaking. I hope he will get up and tell us that it is the intention of the government to reorganize these communications or, alternatively, entrust the whole problem to the C.N.T. As a matter of fact, I think the second course would be better than the first. I can understand that the minister should not want bureaucrats to be running a telegraph service, if I may use the minister's word, but I think the C.N.T. is much better equipped. And I should like to add that despite occasional criticisms that are heard in Newfoundland-and I may be taken to task by some of my constituents for saying this-I think the Canadian National Telegraphs has done a marvellous job in Newfoundland in the last ten years. I think it is really remarkable the way they have increased the efficiency of the service and modernized it under very difficult conditions, and I am informed that they have been somewhat surprised to find that when they had modernized their equipment and improved the service the financial position was improved instead of the reverse.
I would suggest to the minister that no matter how much recovery is made this year, we are going to have seasonal unemployment again next winter in Newfoundland, and if any way can be found to have advanced planning, perhaps on a larger scale, for the modernization of the telephone and telegraph system in order to provide employment, it would be welcome. I know you cannot cut the poles in winter but you can put them up. After all the minister does have to take the over-all financial responsibility for the budget of the C.N.T. even if it is not a direct responsibility, and I think this is another way in which he could help very constructively.
I also want to say a brief word about something which I would not have mentioned today but for one thing, namely, the absence of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador from the city today. I refer to the question of the port of Botwood and the pilotage there. I do feel that this situation at Botwood is a very special one. It is important to keep this port open for the longest period of the year in order to maximize the returns of the pulp and paper industry and to enable them to keep the maximum number of men in employment. There are some special difficulties which I will not discuss now, but I say that I have
Supply-Transport
always found the department exceedingly co-operative in these matters. I know I can say the same for my colleague, the hon. member for that district.
While I am still dealing with the problems of my hon. friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador I do not think he would mind if I also endorsed what he had to say about the hotel at Gander. Gander, after all, is only five miles and a few moose away from my constituency, and it is a place to which I generally go when I am going to my constituency. It is a place in which I have taken a great interest and a place in which the taxpayers of Canada have invested tens of millions and, no doubt, hundreds of millions of dollars. And it is in our view the most important airport in Canada if not in the world.
There is a real danger that unless a little more energy and initiative is put into getting a hotel there as near as possible to the terminal there will be increased pressure on the part of the international air lines to avoid Gander whenever they can, and this very big investment may be lost because of a relatively small matter. I know the department does not want to run a hotel, and I do not blame them, but I think that rather than jeopardize the whole investment in Gander they should consider even that. However, I think there are other ways in which the problem could be taken care of.
I should like the minister to tell us, if he can, and if there is anything to tell, just what it is we read in a mysterious way about the free port on the south coast of Newfoundland. We keep reading items in the papers and see it suggested from time to time that the members from Newfoundland are neglecting their duties because they are not supporting this project which we are told the Minister of Transport is terribly eager to advance. I think the public in Newfoundland would like to know. Certainly I would like to know, and I am sure my friend from St. John's East would also like to know what the score really is, if there is any score.
So as not to leave out any canal in the country I am not going to ask the minister about the canal across the Avalon peninsula, which would shorten the journey to Europe appreciably. The minister can put that down for his long term planning.


George Harris Hees: The late late show.


John Whitney Pickersgill: However, there is that other canal which would shorten the journey from Newfoundland to New York, and whose construction would appeal to a great many people in the Atlantic provinces. I should like to ask the minister how far he is getting in his studies concerning the Chignecto canal. Perhaps the minister would not mind telling

Supply-Transport
us what progress has been made in implementing the promise given in St. John's in the 1957 election of which I will remind him. According to the Globe and Mail which, as the minister realizes, is a very reputable newspaper, the Prime Minister said in St. John's in April, 1957:
Newfoundland's narrow gauge railway should he converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.
I am sure the minister agrees completely with that statement of the Prime Minister, and the people of Newfoundland would be delighted to hear what progress is being made.
Then there is one other thing the minister might tell us. Shortly before we went out of office the government instituted an interdepartmental inquiry in co-operation with the Canadian National Railways on transportation in the Atlantic provinces, and I think we would like to be brought up to date on the progress of that survey, particularly on those concrete things which have been accomplished as a result of it.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has given me quite a few things to answer here. First of all, he mentioned communications in Labrador, and I was very interested to hear what he recommended in that regard and we will certainly take up this matter with Canadian National Telegraphs.
With regard to Botwood, I am very glad to be able to tell him that next winter an icebreaker will be based in Newfoundland, probably at St. John's and this should help very materially in meeting the situation at Botwood and other localities in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister would not consider basing it at Twillingate?


George Harris Hees: I will take it under serious consideration! The next matter he mentioned was the need for a first class hotel at Gander. I agree that it is a very real need which we have appreciated for some time, but as he knows the Department of Transport is not in the hotel business and we would welcome very much any approaches made to us by outside interests who would like to build a hotel there. I must say from what I have seen of it that I think a hotel built there would be a financial success.
The next question he mentioned was the question of a free port. All I can say there is that I would suggest he talk to the editors of the Financial Post; they seem to be the only ones who know very much about it.
[Mr. Pickersgill.I
They have discussed it in quite some detail, but they have not talked to us and I do not know anything about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might interrupt the minister for a moment, the government is not making any serious study of this matter at the present time, then?


George Harris Hees: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Chairman. Then the hon. member mentioned the Newfoundland railway and changes in the gauge of the Newfoundland railway, but I have had no report on that recently from the Canadian National.
Next he mentioned the Chignecto canal, and I would like to read a report made for me on that matter. This was submitted by the economics division of the Department of Transport and it reads as follows:
Estimates of cost have risen greatly since the surveyor commission estimated in 1931 the cost of a smaller project than now being studied at $48 million. The estimates now run from $90 million to $140 million. An alternative plan has been submitted by the Foundation Engineering Company and this too has been referred to engineers for study. The question of hydroelectric power development in connection with a canal has been given consideration, and thus far it would appear that engineering opinion is generally agreed that the two projects could be treated independently; in other words there would be no substantial savings from a joint project.
At the same time the department has undertaken to obtain information on the possible economic value of a Chignecto canal. In view of the comparatively heavy cost of construction this is an important aspect of the question but not one on which it is easy to reach definite conclusions. We know of certain items of traffic that might use a Chignecto canal but whether the canal is capable of attracting sufficient long distance traffic from present routes to justify its construction is still problematical.
Both the engineering and economic studies are continuing and reports should be received some time this summer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if the minister could say who was doing the engineering study and who was doing the economic study?


George Harris Hees: The public works engineers in consultation with our own engineering staff. The economic study is being carried out by the economics division of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Could I ask a supplementary question regarding the canal. I wonder if the minister would say if those who have facts regarding the economics of the canal and possible use of the canal should make them known to this economics division, or should they wait to be called on-


George Harris Hees: We are most anxious to get any information we possibly can about possible users of a canal in that area. We invite most seriously anyone who has any information about possible users of the canal to come forward and either get in touch with me

or get in touch directly with Mr. George Scott, the director of economic policy of the Department of Transport, because it is most important we get that information and without it we cannot get ahead very quickly on the economic study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister leaves the Chignecto canal, I think he gave a lower figure of $90 million and an upper figure of $140 million. Was that the range of cost for one scheme or was that two different schemes?


George Harris Hees: That is the range for two different schemes. The Foundation Engineering have submitted-


Lionel Chevrier: Is it Foundation Company (Maritimes) Limited?


George Harris Hees: It is Fenco Engineering. They have submitted a proposition whereby the canal would have only one lock. The other plan is for two locks. We have had several meetings with this company and discussed the possibilities of using one lock, and those discussions are still going on.
Then the hon. member asked about studies going on in the department, and I would like to give some examples of the main projects which are being studied. First of all there is the Maritime Freight Rates Act. This is a study to decide whether any changes or adjustments in the present level of assistance might be justified. A traffic sample is being analysed to reveal the present distribution of the benefits by areas and commodities. Second, there is the Newfoundland coastal services. This is based on a detailed survey by the Canadian National Railways and direct investigations by departmental staff, and a decision has been taken to provide three new vessels for these services. Third, the Newfoundland-mainland ferry services. A subcommittee comprising departmental and railway officials has been given the assignment of assessing future needs in these services and making recommendations. Fourth, the Prince Edward Island ferry services and the causeway. Traffic analyses and forecasts have been made to serve as guides for future needs of these services. I am advised that out of that study came the new ferry which was announced for Prince Edward Island about a week ago. Fifth, the Nova Scotia-New England ferry services. Traffic analyses have been made of these services to determine whether additional capacity is required at this time. Sixth, the Chignecto canal, and I have just dealt with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has not indicated that there was any consideration being given at any place in this survey to the
Supply-Transport
possibility of the federal government, in order to relieve some of these services which do not pay very well, as we all know, substituting for them assistance for highways which would provide in some cases a better alternative.


George Harris Hees: This has been included in the items which are under study, but no conclusions have been arrived at so far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister expect a definite report to be made, or are these studies all independent of one another?


George Harris Hees: These are all separate studies and are being dealt with as they come forward, and the reports will be made separately at various times.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question the minister did not answer, and I know he just overlooked it. I refer to my suggestion that he should step up the modernization of the Canadian National Telegraphs in Newfoundland. I was hoping he would tell me he would double the budget particularly for the northeast coast.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member missed the part of my remarks in which I dealt with that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister referred to the Labrador in which I have an interest as a citizen but in the northeast coast I have an interest as a member and the minister has told us how important it is for members to represent their constituents.


George Harris Hees: I will certainly be very glad to include the northeast coast in my inquiries to the railway.


Mr. Brunsden:: Mr. Chairman, the profound knowledge, sound or otherwise, exhibited by the last two speakers should hold a backbencher to his chair. I am particularly intrigued by the hon. member for Assiniboia for the reason that like myself he comes from the prairies. He is too young to have driven an ox cart. He knows something about horses. He speaks with authority with respect to deficiency payments. As a matter of fact he is an authority on every subject that arises affecting western Canada.


George Harris Hees: Or eastern Canada.


Edwin William Brunsden: Today the hon. member for Assiniboia blossomed forth as an authority on a highly technical subject, the St. Lawrence seaway. I am chagrined that as a fellow citizen of his on the prairies I know so little of the subjects on which he speaks.
There is a question with respect to transportation in Canada which is probably involved with the St. Lawrence seaway in a

Supply-Transport
minor way. We have heard a lot in this committee with respect to rail and air transportation and today we heard from one who presumes to speak with authority on water transportation. I want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that we in western Canada are relying more and more on air transportation, a statement with which I am sure the hon. member for Assiniboia would agree. We feel that there is a need on the part of the Department of Transport to give reconsideration to air terminal facilities on the prairies.
I did not speak in the debate on the speech from the throne but had I done so I would have talked to the house about my own city of Medicine Hat. It has a population of some 30,000 and is a strategic point with respect to transportation and yet it is a point lacking in proper air terminal facilities. It is my hope that within the next few months the department will reconsider the entire question of air terminal facilities not only across Canada but will consider along with the hotel at Gander the need for proper landing and takeoff facilities in our smaller western centres. We in Medicine Hat are restricted at the moment with respect to the type of plane that may land. We are losing a lot of services we might otherwise have. We require reconsideration of the entire problem of our runways, and our general airport facilities.
The Minister of Transport has many irons in the fire and is confronted with many problems. It is not my wish to press him with this particular one but it is important, as I am sure everyone from western Canada will agree, that we have in the not too distant future a thorough review of the entire air terminal facilities situation in western Canada.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I will just detain the committee a moment. I have three items for the consideration of the minister. He may deal with them when I finish speaking or when the specific items are reached in the estimates.
The first question I wish to raise is the need for the provision of additional facilities at the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland hotel at St. John's. A very good case has been made out for the provision of additional facilities at the hotel in the past few years by many prominent groups in St. John's. I am thinking particularly of representations made to the minister by the Newfoundland board of trade. While I realize this is a matter concerning the internal operation of the railway I would ask the minister to give consideration to this request in the light of representations that have been made over the past few years. As the

minister is probably aware this is the only major hotel in that part of the province. I believe it is one of the few hotels operated by the C.N.R. that operates at a profit. It is not necessary for me to take the time of the committee to point out the necessity for the provision of these additional facilities because, as I said a moment ago, an excellent case has been made out for this by prominent groups in the city of St. John's and I would ask the minister to take this into consideration.
The second point I would ask to be considered is one with which I dealt with briefly last session during consideration of the minister's estimates. I refer to the need for provision of Canadian National express services at Bell island. At that time the minister assured me he would take up this matter with officials of the railway and inform me directly. After studying the question, the railway advised that it was not considered feasible to proceed with this service. I would suggest that the railway should consider the provision of vital services solely on the basis of need and not on the basis of economics. We realize we are here to try and cut down on the expense of the railway to the extent we can but at the same time as members our primary function is to urge the provision of essential services for those parts of the country where they are badly needed. An express service is vitally needed for Bell island. I would ask the minister if consideration could again be given to this question and if the matter could be re-opened with the Canadian National Railways with a view to providing express service to serve the 13,000 citizens on Bell island.
My third point concerns the provision in the estimates of this department for the construction of a new ferry to service Bell island. Perhaps when we reach this item or after I resume my seat the minister could report on the progress to date of the auto ferry for Bell island and advise when it is expected that this boat will be finished. Perhaps it will be possible for him to give an indication as to when this vessel will be placed in service.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, in checking the remarks I made earlier today about the Department of Transport I realized that I insinuated it was the most inefficient department of government and I thought I should take this opportunity of adding one or two comments to support my earlier remarks. One thing that perturbs me is the tendency to have questions directed to this department made orders for return. We just do not have the answers. I think specifically of one that

I am very much interested in namely the lakehead harbour commission appointments. I asked for:
A copy of all correspondence since August 1, 1958. exchanged between the federal government and the municipal authorities in Fort William and Port Arthur, Messrs. Milton Vibert, Arthur Widnall, Norman R. Wilson, and Harold G. Blanchard, concerning the appointment or selection of the lakehead harbour commissioners.
The names that I read off are all good, stalwart Conservatives. I want to get information on how those harbour commissioners were selected. I remember that the minister scored, according to the Canadian Press, in this house back on March 20. The Canadian Press report says:
Transport Minister Hees suggested to a C.C.F. M.P. Thursday night that defeated Conservative candidates are wider awake than successful C.C.F. ones.
He was asked by Douglas Fisher (C.C.F.-Port Arthur) why the names of the new lakehead harbour commission were announced by the defeated Conservative candidate in that area.
"Perhaps it is because the defeated Conservative candidate is more on his toes than the member for Port Arthur," replied Mr. Hees, as government supporters thumped their desks and laughed.
I think the minister knew at the time that I had the information of who the appointees were to be for several months. As a matter of fact, his deputy minister told me several weeks before that, and in this particular case I was just being polite. I feel it is not the business of a member of parliament, government or opposition, to make announcements that should come from the department. I would like to suggest to the minister that the very fact it was the defeated Conservative candidate in Fort William who announced this is an indication of the kind of little game he is trying to play in order to boost his own stock as the crown prince. Since I did not get the information in connection with these local Conservatives, I would ask the minister whether he was aware that the man who has become the chairman of the harbour commission, Mr. Irwin, was a brother-in-law of the provincial member for Fort William?


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: He did not know that. I might say it is, I think, the kind of information he should have known. I would like to ask the minister whether he can tell me anything more about this gentleman, Robert Alexander Cecil Henry, that I have been trying to find out about and still have not had any satisfactory answers?


George Harris Hees: What is it that the hon. member wants to know? Has the hon. gentleman not been answered with respect to Mr. Henry?
Supply-Transport


Douglas Mason Fisher: The question has been passed but no information has been available yet on the orders of the day.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the answer is ready because the deputy minister advises me that it went across his desk several days ago. I will see that it is hurried up.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister think it might be considerate on his part to see that members who are interested in his department receive information such as this before his estimates come up? Does he not think it would be considerate to make a strong effort to clear up all these things so that we would have some information available to us that would be of help to us?


George Harris Hees: Some of the questions that hon. members, particularly hon. members from the group to which the hon. member belongs, ask require a great deal of searching from a number of different agencies. For example, the Department of Transport is spread over 13 different buildings in the city of Ottawa and there are a great many agencies and sections. I can assure the hon. member that there is no intention to hold back information. I think he knows that. We get it as quickly as we can. If we have been slow in this case I am sorry for it. He will get it just as quickly as possible. There has been no intention of holding back information at all at any time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would not like to suggest there was any intention to hold back information. It is just the fact that information has been very slow in coming. I think the point the minister has just made that the Department of Transport is a huge department is true. It is very definitely a growing department, spread out all over Ottawa. This is another point to support something I said before and I will say it again. We need a new look at the administration of this department. I think we need a couple more deputy ministers to look after the various phases of it. It is so difficult for a member to document and lay down his impressions. My impression of this department is that it is not one of the better administered ones of the government and I think one of the reasons is that there is too big a load on the present deputy minister. The channels have not been worked out. This is my personal impression from a great number of contacts with the department. When I compare it with other departments such as the Department of Labour I find that it does not show up very well. From the Department of Labour we get replies very quickly. I know perhaps their problem is simpler but there are a number of government departments which are right on the bit in all their relationships in so far as correspondence, phone calls and

Supply-Transport
that sort of thing is concerned. That is not the way with the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not apologize at this time for bringing up another matter. The only reason I bring it up now is that it concerns at least two if not three of the divisions of the Department of Transport and I feel I should take it up at this time. I refer to the Dorval airport outside of Montreal.
As the minister knows, there is a great deal of dissatisfaction in Montreal at this time about the progress made in connection with the airport. That dissatisfaction has been engendered not only from groups and associations which are particularly interested in the airport but from others as well. I know of no newspaper in Montreal, in either the French or the English language, which has not severely criticized the Department of Transport on the progress made in recent years. I propose to criticize the department on this score, and it may be that the minister will find that I am responsible to some extent for some of this. If he so finds I will accept it; but none the less, the fact is that for the last two years the government has been in office and there has been little or no progress made.
I refer first to an article which appeared in La Presse of Montreal on June 3, 1959, entitled:
Une "strategic sinistre"?
There can be no doubt about the feeling of those who read this article that there is a differentiation in the department between what is happening in Montreal and what is happening elsewhere. I will not go any farther at the moment.
Then there is the very serious complaint that appeared in the Montreal Gazette and the Montreal Star and in the statement made by the Montreal tourist and convention bureau. I may tell the minister at once that I was wholly dissatisfied with the answer he gave me on the orders of the day in which he indicated that far more progress had been made under his administration than under the former administration. I have no objection if he wants to say that and repeat it ad infinitum, but that does not derogate from the responsibility which rests on the government to get on with the airport in Montreal.
I am in the airport in Montreal at least once a week and sometimes more often, and I agree with the statement of the Montreal tourist bureau that it is a shame as to what has happened. I know that the position is, well, we will not do anything with the old airport until the new one is ready. That, of course, is a very tempting conclusion to come to and perhaps the natural one in all the circumstances; but if the new airport was

coming along I think people would be able to put up with the difficulties in the old one, but the new airport does not seem to be moving at all. As a matter of fact, it is growing at a snail's pace.
What did the Montreal tourist bureau have to say? I will not deal in personalities; I will deal objectively. They state that the first view given travellers entering the country through the local airport is simply disgusting. Why would the Montreal tourist bureau want to make a statement like that unless there was some foundation for it? There is some foundation for it. All hon. members have to do is to go there and see. Particularly when various flights come in simultaneously, you just cannot get through the general area in the airport building, let alone all the other difficulties that take place. La Presse, in an editorial in the June 3 issue, said this:
(Translation):
Since the actual beginning of the works at Dorval, which was about five years ago-
(Text):
Listen to this carefully because I know the minister understands quite well. (Translation):
-there has been time to start and complete the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway, to dot Montreal with skyscrapers, to build a number of airports in other cities, to make improvements to the Toronto airport on two separate occasions and to draw plans for a new air terminal in the Queen city that will likely be ready before that of Montreal. And when the Minister of Transport is questioned about it in parliament, he is satisfied to give a politician's reply and say that the present government is progressing more rapidly than the previous one. Unfortunately, the facts far from confirm such a breezy answer.
(Text):
I may add that I go to Malton airport from time to time and I am delighted with the progress that has been made there. There is a real attempt to expand the airport and divide the various areas so that with a little bit of common sense travellers know where to go quickly and can move to and from the building with dispatch. But why should not that be done in the city of Montreal?
I raise this in conjunction with another matter and I am sure the minister will not blame me if I bring it up. I refer to the air agreements. There are some of us who are beginning to have apprehensions about what is likely to happen to the international airport at Montreal. The minister announced the other day an amendment to the United Kingdom air transport agreement and one of the bargains made in the agreement was that in exchange for certain rights which T.C.A. was to get in the United Kingdom and onward B.O.A.C. would get additional landing rights elsewhere, namely at Toronto.

Nobody is going to find fault with this but what I do become apprehensive about is that in the Financial Post of June 6, 1959 there is a statement to the effect that six transAtlantic carriers now landing at Montreal are seeking similar rights to go on to Toronto. If this is going to be the case, if the minister, the department and the government in their negotiation of air agreements make the situation such that the importance of Montreal from an air standpoint is going to be far less than it has been in the past, then I think that is a serious matter. I do not charge the minister with anything personal in this regard. I know that he has in mind the general development of aviation in Canada, as have his officers. On the oher hand, I do know that when you start negotiating across the table for changes in an air agreement you have to bargain here and bargain there. Where you give in here you must get something elsewhere, and if in the bargaining it is Dorval airport that is going to be left holding the bag then I am afraid that the situation will certainly be a serious one.
I protest as strongly as I can about the delays at the Montreal airport. I am not the only one protesting. Anyone who knows what is going on is doing the same thing. The press is very apprehensive about the matter and so are those people who are air minded. So are the air lines which have to rely on facilities in order to move travellers from one airport to another with dispatch and efficiency. I should like to get some information about the airport and ask the minister a few questions. In the first place, I believe it was in 1953 that I made the announcement in the house concerning the new Dorval airport and the estimate of costs. Then, in 1954, I believe, my successor, the Hon. Mr. Marler, announced additional plans and stated that partial plans only were ready at the time, that no general plans were made and that the department felt that that was the best procedure. I think he also gave an estimate of the costs at that time.
In 1956 and 1957 real progress was made. Things moved pretty fast and from nothing but a foundation we began to see indications of what the building would look like. I believe that in 1957 the deputy minister thought that the work would be completed in 1958 but that the installation of electronic equipment and getting the premises ready for the air lines would occupy several months in 1959, clearly leaving the impression that the airport building would be ready for business and for operations in 1959. The other day, in answer to a question which I asked the minister, and I will leave out the personalities, he announced that the building should 66968-9-292
Supply-Transport
be finished in 1960. In my opinion this is not satisfactory. I should like to know why it is that there are so few men employed. I may be wrong in the statement I am making but this is the information I have and the minister will correct me if I am in error.
I am informed that as of June the Foundation Company of Canada indicated that they only had 47 men on the job and all the other subcontractors had less than 50. Anyone knows that a building of that size and type would require at least 300 to 400 men at the present time. If these facts are so, I do not know why this is the case but I think the house is entitled to an explanation.
I am also disturbed about the effect that the air agreement is having on the position of T.C.A. As the minister knows, T.C.A. has its head office in Montreal. Both the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific have their head offices there. IATA and ICAO have their head offices there. It is really the headquarters of aviation in Canada. It has been stated in a committee of the House of Commons that one decision of the government, without going into it in detail and therefore making the matter contentious, will have the effect in 1959 of reducing T.C.A.'s profit position by about $1J million and in a full year by approximately $3 million. If that is the case, then the decision which was made concerning the amendment of the air agreement with the United Kingdom will, I am afraid, enhance the deficit position of T.C.A. that much more.
I have perhaps been too long on this, but I wondered whether the minister would not be good enough to summarize the position in so far as Dorval is concerned. What was the first estimate? What was the next estimate? What was the first estimate made in 1953? What was the estimate made in 1954? Were there any additional estimates made from that time until now? How many contracts have been awarded, and what are those contracts? I know the last question is not fair, in so far as supplying the information today is concerned, but perhaps the minister might table it at a later date. What are the various subcontracts that have been given? What is the present progress on all these subcontracts? What has happened to the representations which were made from both sides of the house for the airconditioning of the airport? It may be that has a bearing on the whole subject.
What progress has been made with regard to the installation of these facilities? Can the committee take it now, as an assumed fact, that the new airport will be ready for operation in 1960 as the minister indicated earlier? I would appreciate it if I could get answers to these questions.

Supp ly-Transport


George Harris Hees: Yes, I am glad to be able to say we feel confident the airport will be ready for operation next year. I am glad to assure the hon. member that the work is going ahead. As he has said, there has been a temporary slowdown lately and this was caused by certain holdups at treasury board. They have all been overcome and the contracts have been passed. The work is going ahead.
I might give some information on the details. The terminal building itself is in an advanced state, with the office floors and the basement virtually completed, the remaining work being related to the finishing off of the public waiting room and airline operating space on the main and mezzanine floors. This work is now proceeding. In addition, there remains completion of the main power plant installation in the building, the construction of the fingers and aeroquays, the installation of the hydrant refuelling system, the construction of the new main heating plant which will serve the building and the whole airport, and the paving of the apron in front of the building. The first stage of tender calls in connection with hydrant refuelling work and the heating plant is under way, and the final stage of tender calls will go out shortly. The plans for the fingers and aeroquays are at present being modified. Initial plans for this purpose, while satisfactory in concept, had to be studied in detail from the point of view of cost of construction in relation to the overall cost and revenue position of the terminal as a whole. It was found that the cost of the structures would be rather high and would make it difficult to maintain our objective of self-sufficiency of operation and decision was taken, without varying the concept, to try to modify the plans as regards construction costs. This planning should be completed during the summer, so that construction work may commence thereafter in time to permit the opening of the building, as I previously stated, sometime next year.
With regard to the new air agreement giving B.O.A.C. the right to go into Malton, I might say that we did not seek to enter into any new air agreement with the British. We have been under considerable pressure, ever since I came into office over the past two years, to do so. Talks finally took place just last spring and, as I say, we were under great pressure. I think the minister understands these matters very well. It would have been impossible for us not to conclude the agreement which he has mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: Thanks for the compliment.


George Harris Hees: It shows the esteem in which I hold the hon. member. What Canada has received as her part of the agreement was simply an attempt to balance up the granting of landing rights at Malton to Great Britain. The fact that certain airlines will be flying into Malton instead of into Dorval, I can assure the hon. member is no responsibility of the government. It is the result of decisions of the airlines themselves as to what airports they make their flights.
I can assure the hon. member we look upon Dorval as a very important airport. We are in no way trying to undermine it. I regret at the present time the people who use Dorval airport are inconvenienced because of a lack of space. The reason that we enlarged the temporary building in Toronto is that the new airport there will not be ready for some four years. I am advised we have also enlarged the trans-Atlantic terminal in Montreal. Perhaps we should have taken steps a year or so ago to enlarge the present air terminal building in Montreal. I am advised that the domestic space at Dorval has been enlarged also.
I do agree with the hon. member for Laurier that there is considerable congestion there. I use the airport a great deal myself, and I know the conditions. I am very sorry it is so, and I can assure him we are pressing on just as hard and as fast as we can to complete the new air terminal building. It will be a good one, and I feel that satisfactory progress will be made in the near future. There has been a slowdown but, as I say, that has been overcome and we feel confident that the new air terminal will be opened next year.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could follow that up with just one or two questions. What is the present estimate of the cost of the building?


George Harris Hees: The estimate of the cost of the building itself is the same as I gave last year, between $15 million and $16 million. All the other facilities I have mentioned will bring the total to somewhere between $25 million and $30 million.


Lionel Chevrier: What was the original estimate of the cost of the building in 1953?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there were no plans drawn in 1953. I am unaware of the original estimate, so I will see if I can get it.


Lionel Chevrier: I understood there was an estimate made and announced in 1953, and another in 1954 by your immediate predecessor.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the first figure after the completion of the plans was $12 million plus.


Lionel Chevrier: What year was that?


George Harris Hees: There was an earlier estimate that was lower, but that was the first estimate after the first set of plans was completed, and that would be, I think, 1955.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask just one or two other questions? Why was it found preferable to give the contract in various parts rather than one whole contract?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that this was an attempt by the previous administration to get the work started sooner.


Lionel Chevrier: How many contracts were given? Perhaps I should not press for that because that is demanding too much information, but perhaps the minister could-


George Harris Hees: I think we have got it here.


Lionel Chevrier: All right.


George Harris Hees: The contracts which have been allotted to date are as follows:
Excavation, piling and foundation: Canamont Construction Co.-August, 1955-$1,126,496.
Structural steel: Dominion Bridge Co.-May, 1956 -$1,134,035.
Curtain wall:	Williams & Williams (Eastern)
Ltd.-September, 1956-$1,700,000.
Flooring, steel decking etc.: Canamont Construction Co.-June, 1957-$1,136,000.
Cut stone (supply only):-Deschambault Quarry Corp.-$171,000.
Granite (supply only) : Adru Granite Inc.-$68,829.
General (finishing) contract: The Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd.-$8,508,079.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has said that this was the plan followed by the previous administration and I believe this is the case. How many of these contracts were given by the present administration?


George Harris Hees: Only the general finishing contracts.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister mean that all the other subcontracts were given before he came into office?


George Harris Hees: As far as I can see from these figures before me.


Lionel Chevrier: Is this policy of dividing up contracts for one building into several contracts followed in other cases in the Department of Transport, say in the case of Uplands?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that this is not the case in the smaller contracts, but at Malton we did separate excavation and steel from the other parts.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a fact, is it not, that that is a better method of procedure because
66968-9-292J
Supply-Transport
it should allow one to get on faster with the work rather than wait until all the plans are ready and get out one contract.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: I was somewhat nonplussed at the statement made by the minister that delays occurred because of the treasury board. Could the minister say how long these lasted and why these hold-ups took place at the treasury board?


George Harris Hees: Because the treasury board now requires to be given detailed economic studies at the time any additional expenditures are recommended so that the board can get a comprehensive idea of the whole picture.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that mean that every submission, even for a progress payment, must be accompanied by one of these economic studies?


George Harris Hees: Not for progress payments but for authorization of additional funds.


Lionel Chevrier: Am I right in assuming that when a subcontract is completed and a final payment is due, say in the case of the cut stone or curtain walls-I have forgotten the figures given by the minister, but supposing the amount was $1,500,000-would the treasury board in connection with each one of those subcontracts make an economic study of the situation before authorizing payment?


George Harris Hees: No. Tha items the treasury board required to be held up for a complete study were finishing the ground floor, the construction of the corners at the fingers, the power plant installation and certain extras such as additional loud speaker and electrical equipment.


Lionel Chevrier: Why were those studied and not the others?


George Harris Hees: This is a new procedure which has recently been introduced.


Lionel Chevrier: A final question. I cannot agree with the minister's statement that amendments to air agreements are not the responsibility of the government but are the responsibility of the air lines.


George Harris Hees: If I conveyed that impression I conveyed the wrong one. What I intended to say was that if the air lines such as the air lines which are presently using Dorval only, intend to use Malton as well and split their flights between the two, that is a matter for their decision.


Lionel Chevrier: I realize that these airlines should make representations to the minister suggesting an amendment or opposing it, but surely a decision having been taken to negotiate the agreement, whether with the

Supp ly-Transport
United Kingdom or Australia or some other country, when that agreement is enacted and signed it becomes the responsibility of the government.


George Harris Hees: There is no question about our accepting that responsibility. We do of course.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Harris Hees: Before we proceed to the next item might I temporarily revert to the first item to give these answers which I promised to supply?


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Has
the minister permission to do this?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


George Harris Hees: I was asked by the Leader of the Opposition several questions about Mr. Clare, the evaluator employed at Malton. Mr. Clare made twelve evaluations for the department. He was paid a total of $3,001.43 by the department.
I have here also a list of the appraisals which Mr. Clare made. I was asked to supply this information, but instead of taking the time of the committee by reading it, I ask permission to have it included in the record.


Frank Charles McGee: Has
the minister permission to include this material in today's edition of Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
(Editor's note:	The list referred to
follows):
Property Owner	Description of Property	R. A. Davis	E. A. Lepage	H. S. Hare	Mr. Janossy	E. Clare	Departmental Final Offer$	$	$	$	$	$Gilbert White	... Pt. Lot 5, Con. 7 Twp. of Toronto..	-	4,600.00	5,660.00	-	11,400.00	7,850.00Fred Hale	... Lot 12, R.P. 360	14,000.00	15,100.00	-	-	21,804.25	19,400.00V. Salovaara	... Lot 33, R.P. 360	11,825.00	12,900.00	-	-	17,066.50	15,175.00J. Spence	... Lot 35, R.P. 360	12,710.00	12,700.00	-	-	18,700.00	16,185.00J. S. Whittington	... Lot 32, R.P. 360	11,775.00	13,000.00	-	-	17,376.50	15,580.00E. Whitley	... Lot 38, R.P. 360	15,375.00	17,100.00	-	-	24,442.00	20,890.00R. Stuart	... Lot 10, R.P. 360	16,000.00	14,000.00	-	-	26,600.00	20,492.50F. Murray	... Lot 9, R.P. 360	16,355.00	18,200.00	-	-	25,725.00	23,266.00Ruth Smith	... Pt. Lot 3, Con. 7	-	-	-	-	33,730.00	24,300.00*G. Hatton	... Lots 40 and 41, R.P. 360	24,577.00	-	-	-	32,500.00	30,935.00*Mrs. A. Wales	... Lot 1, R. P.360	11,800.00	-	-	-	22,225.00	17,600.00Mrs. A. Drew	.. Pt. Lot 5, Con. 7	9,100.00	-	-	7,500.00	17,330.00	11,200.00
Settled at this amount.
o>
o
Supply-Transport

Supply-Transport
393.	The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $61,500.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what is the present position of the St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers? As the minister knows, the board was appointed by the government to supervise the plans and specifications, and this work has been carried on over the last four years. I presume that its duties have now come to an end or are about to come to an end. What will happen to the members of the board and what will their future duties be, if any? Is the board to be wound up?


George Harris Hees: They will remain until all power works have been completed, which will be in 1960 or in 1961 and they are carrying on with a reduced staff.


Lionel Chevrier: Meanwhile what is happening to the other body, the St. Lawrence river board of control? It was appointed by the international joint commission and falls under the jurisdiction of the minister and it carries on the work of the joint board of engineers after the seaway has been constructed.


George Harris Hees: It is still in existence but it has no staff of its own as a main body.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canal services-
394.	Administration, $128,500.
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, since I have heard the hon. member for Richelieu-Verche-res inviting the Prime Minister to visit the Richelieu river in connection with the canalization of the Richelieu river, I would like to state here that I have already invited the Prime Minister to visit the Chambly canal and I expect a favourable answer. I would also like to invite the Minister of Transport to visit the Chambly canal. He would then be greeted royally and entertained as only the people of my riding can entertain.
Speaking of the Richelieu canal, I would like to refer the hon. Minister of Transport to the brief from the city of Sorel to the federal government for the modernization of the Richelieu-Champlain canal presented by a delegation presided over by Dr. Robert Fiset, mayor of Sorel, accompanied by many mayors from communities along the Richelieu banks in my constituency. This brief was supported by a delegation consisting of representatives of a number of United States and Canadian chambers of commerce, municipalities, service clubs and other interested groups and all of which are situated in the area to be served by the proposed improved Richelieu-Champlain canal. May I mention here a study made by Clayton Sinclair in the Montreal Gazette of Saturday, May 31, 1958,
IThe Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee).]
on page 4 of that issue. Mr. Sinclair gives a fair resume of the situation on the Champlain canal. He says:
Like a cute youngster, the Richelieu canal has never been able to prove to its elders that it's growing up.
Industry is springing up along its shores but the function of the 409-mile water route, linking Canada's St. Lawrence river ports with New York city, is still basically the same as it was when it got its start 113 years ago.
One of the oldest canals in Canada, the Richelieu has stood by while other inland waterways took their turn at modernization.
Now, its boosters think it's about time that some serious thought is given the Richelieu system. In the past, they say, it's been a matter of governments preferring to leave traffic patterns as they were instead of destroying the beauty of the Richelieu setting.
Once, this was sufficient. But now, with industry spreading out from Montreal and above everything else, the development of Quebec's north shore gulf area, the Richelieu's potentialities are challenging.
May I add here that a recent announcement has been made that an important steel plant is being built at Contrecoeur near Sorel. These developments, together with more development either on the Quebec north shore or this part of the south shore from Sorel to Varennes would amply justify the government in undertaking and examining the possibility of developing the Richelieu seaway from Sorel to St. Johns, via the Chambly canal. Speaking of the Chambly canal, may I add a little information which would justify the government in looking to see if it is possible to widen the Chambly canal at the seaway between Chambly and St. Johns.
In the same study by Clayton Sinclair we read:
Chief among these-
That is, those who are using the Richelieu river.
-is the north shore gulf region, where iron ore for Pennsylvania smelters, newsprint for New York printing houses, and aluminum, would originate.
Eastern paper mills produce one million tons of newsprint annually for the New York area, of which only 26,000 tons now move by the short Richelieu route.
Added to this are the huge annual shipments of iron ore from Seven Islands and other ore ports in the gulf.
Closer to home, Sorel, at the mouth of the Richelieu, each year ships 250,000 tons of titanium slag and pure iron to American Atlantic ports.
Mr. Chairman, the Richelieu lies about 43 miles down river from Montreal. It is a quiet river which occasionally floods its banks in the spring, but it is serene for what is the remainder of a seven-month navigation season from the latter days of April to early November. This justifies my contention that we should look forward to the development of this seaway canal along the Richelieu river.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):
Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, while we are dealing with the canal services item, I wish to point out to the minister a problem we are faced with in my constituency and which is related to the problem discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis).
Along the Chambly canal, which runs between Chambly and St. Johns, there are many pieces of land that are of practically no use to the federal government at the present time. Under the circumstances, it would be fair and normal for the Department of Transport to rent this land for a certain consideration, not a nominal rent, but a reasonable amount.
We have parcels of land at Chambly that serve absolutely no purpose to the federal government, and perhaps I should recommend to the minister to have the matter looked into so as to determine whether it might be possible, as is done in St. Johns, to rent this land to private individuals, who might use it to build a club house and operate a boating club, or a repair shop, a restaurant or some other services which would be of use to people interested in various water sports.
That is more or less what was done at St. Jean, in the case referred to this afternoon. Those people are ready to sign a lease with the federal government, involving quite a large amount. Thus the federal government will be getting an income from this land, which so far has not been in use and has brought no income to the government or the Department of Transport.
It so happened, in the case referred to this afternoon by the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, that enterprising people decided to invest money to build a club house, an equipment store, a pleasure yacht and outboard motor repair shop, a restaurant, thus making various services available to yachtsmen, and particularly to those who own yachts on which they can live and which constitute some sort of a house.
That is being done in order to serve the people of the locality, that is the town of St. Johns-and that is what could be duplicated at Chambly. What have they done in St. Johns? They have reserved, or rather they intend to reserve, out of the land that belongs to the federal government, a parcel to be used as a "slip" which would allow those who are not members of the proposed yacht club to go down to the river iand moor their craft.
Supply-Transport
This takes on a quite particular aspect in our region. We are very close to the United States border; many of our merchants do a brisk business with American tourists. Many tourists take the Richelieu to-
(Text):
Mr. Chairman, I should like to hear myself speaking not because I like the sound of my own voice but because I should like to hear whether or not I am in fact talking. Some hon. members in the chamber are speaking more loudly than I am. I understand that to many this may be just another case, but to my constituents who number about 25,000 it is a most interesting and important problem.
(Translation):
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, those tourists coming into our area contribute to its prosperity. They moor their craft at Sorel or elsewhere along the Richelieu river, more particularly at Beloeil, where the yachting club has a very beautiful site. They also tie up at Chambly and like to stop at St. Johns, as it is still nearer home for them.
As far as the town of St. Johns is concerned, some protests appeared in the American press, with regard to the way tourists coming with their yachts were being given the cold shoulder. That is what was printed in an American paper. Now, a group of efficient businessmen in St. Johns want to remedy those conditions. They are on their way to obtain from the government, which is to be commended for it, the permission to operate that yachting club.
When the season is favourable to swimming, the yachting club of St. Johns moves the yachts from their wharves or from their reserved moorings, thus allowing the children to bathe more conveniently without any danger of accidents and particularly without being exposed to refuse resulting from people living on the yachts.
Moreover, that same yachting club allows boats with outboard motors to put down buoys quite near to the spot where children, and even grown-ups are bathing.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville should have considered it necessary to imply-perhaps he did not do it on purpose, but he gave us that impression-that the people he named this afternoon, i.e. the Goineau brothers, proposed to build a boating club for purely selfish reasons, namely to make a few dollars at the expense of the people of St. Johns. Having asked for in-

Supply-Transport
formation, I found that, far from having concocted such a deal with the help of the Conservative candidate, Mr. Robert Sauve, those people had undertaken the negotiations with the support of various local personalities and a number of people interested in yachting.
Those people also claimed that the Goineau brothers had taken steps in 1949, and that they had, at the time, the support of the Hon. Alcide Cote, former postmaster general, as well as that of a former member, Mr. Armand Menard, both of whom also took steps in that direction.
I even learned that in 1956 a delegation of the junior board of trade, formed of about six representatives headed by one Mr. Lemaire, had come to meet the authorities of the Department of Transport to discuss that problem and that my good friend, the hon. member for Dollard (Mr. Rouleau), had considered it his duty to encourage those people, together with the then member for St. Johns, Mr. Armand Menard.
I mention those circumstances in order to re-establish the facts, since I had some knowledge of them, to a certain extent, and because I am surprised that a member should, in this way, level charges in the house against persons who are not here to defend themselves, but who are doing their best to conclude an honest matter in the general interest of the population of St. Johns, and who have been openly taking steps for the last ten years. If those persons have at last succeeded, so much the better: it is all to the credit of the government, it is all to their credit to have persisted, as it is to the credit of the former minister Cote, who took personal steps in that direction. Moreover, it is all to the credit of former member Menard, and of the member for Dollard, who was not afraid to commit himself with that delegation. However, it is less to the credit of one person who, for fear of losing the political merit of such action, has accused someone who is not here in this house, a Conservative candidate who as a good citizen of St. Johns made representations and endeavoured to reach a fair, equitable and especially profitable solution, since the federal government is now renting lands which previously yielded nearly nothing. (Text):


Mr. Marlineau:: Mr. Chairman, while we are on this item of canals, I should like to refer the minister to a project of considerable interest and importance to the residents of the city of Ottawa and also of the Ottawa

valley generally. I refer to the project to make the city of Ottawa an ocean port. I believe that a few weeks ago the minister received a delegation which was representative of a large section of the Ottawa valley and included officials from the city of Ottawa, the city of Hull, the eastern Ontario development association, the federation of chambers of commerce of western Quebec, the county officials of the counties of Pontiac and Renfrew, officials of the Ottawa river development association and many others.
I know that this project is linked with a far larger project in magnitude, namely the making of the Ottawa river, lake Nipissing and the French river a seaway. In such a case the seaway would be the strong right arm of the present St. Lawrence seaway. It may not be a project that is ripe at the present time and at this particular moment I do not want to enter into all of the technical aspects of the question. Suffice it to tell the committee that this matter has been explored and looked into by engineers of the Department of Transport and also by other competent authorities since as far back as 1885. Even at that time, without the technical means at their disposal that we have today, it was found that the project was certainly feasible and possible.
What prompts me to bring this matter to the attention of the committee at the present time is that the province of Quebec at the present time is contemplating harnessing the rapids at Carillon. The province of Quebec expects to spend a sum perhaps as high as $200 million on that project within the next few years. There are locks at Carillon but they have a draft of only about 8J feet. They will have to be replaced, and if they are to be replaced I submit that the department should investigate seriously the possibility of replacing them with a draft of sufficient depth to accommodate commercial navigation and also deep-sea navigation. By so doing there will be a direct connecting link between the capital city and the present seaway, and that would certainly add greatly to the advantage of the industrial development of the Ottawa valley and would also accommodate industries which exist today.
I refer to one case especially, namely the Hilton mines, which at the present time are shipping iron ore by railway to Toronto and to parts of the United States. With the deepening of the Ottawa river channel from Ottawa to Montreal the ore could be shipped by water, thereby effecting a considerable saving and bringing about other advantages. That is the reason why the numerous associations I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks interviewed the minister a few weeks ago. They think the time is now ripe

to take the first step, the relatively simple Step, of deepening the Ottawa channel for a distance of 119 miles. It is estimated that the cost will amount to between $15 million and $20 million. The first step that can be recommended now is the replacement of the locks at the Carillon dam.
I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the minister look into the possibility of appointing some engineers to investigate this matter and to report to him, and he in turn could report to the committee and to the house. I think in so doing we shall be taking the first step toward the improved development of the Ottawa valley and indeed of the entire country because, as appears now, in a few years the present St. Lawrence seaway facilities may become inadequate. If that should happen, the ultimate route would normally be the Ottawa river, lake Nipissing and the French river which, after all, were the first water courses over which the pioneers and the developers of this country passed, and which were in days gone by the great navigational streams of our country. By looking forward in such a way we shall be planning in a logical way for the future development of our country.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I want to take up two or three matters under item 394. Actually, they now come under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The Department of Transport reached an agreement with the municipalities of St. Catharines, Merritton and Thorold concerning the clean-up of the old Welland canal which runs through these three municipalities. One contract was completed earlier this spring above the municipalities, but I had expected, since the agreement was reached some time last fall, that the work within the municipalities would be under way early this spring.
The minister announced in the house that this work was being taken over by the St. Lawrence seaway authority and I was wondering whether that was the cause of the delay. Conditions in that area are particularly bad at this time. The canal carries raw sewage as well as waste products from the mills, with very little dilution. The sewage collects in pondages along the canal, and I must say that the odour is certainly very disagreeable in this warm weather. I do not think I could use adjectives strong enough to describe it but the canal certainly smells to high heaven. There is one saving grace, however. In humans the sense of smell soon tires. I think that probably is a good thing as far as the Department of Transport is concerned. Otherwise a lot of people would be down here complaining to the department. I do not 66968-9-293
Sup p ly-Transport
think it is a healthy condition for the area. Children play near the canal and sometimes they even fall in. I have been told of cases lately where that has occurred. It seems to me that this work should be under way. I should like the Minister of Transport to tell me how soon the contracts will be let and if any of the municipalities have been holding up the work.
There is one other question I should like to ask with respect to Welland ship canal employees who were formerly employees of the Department of Transport but are now employees of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Do they retain their full employment, seniority and pension rights under their new employer?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. First of all, with regard to the second Welland canal clean-up, I am pleased to be able to report that tenders for the construction of concrete conduits and miscellaneous grading in the towns of Thorold and Merritton were sought early in June. The closing date for bids is June 23. This represents the second stage of the work. It is expected that tenders will be called in the fall for the third stage which will cover landscaping. The answer regarding personnel of the Welland canal now taken over by the St. Lawrence seaway authority is that they retain all rights formerly held under our canals branch.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask one or two questions about canals? What is the future of the Soulanges canal?


George Harris Hees: We have not yet determined that. It is under study at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: During the navigation season there will be no employees on the Soulanges canal other than I presume, watchmen.


George Harris Hees: Just watchmen and the maintenance staff.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the position with respect to the Lachine canal?


George Harris Hees: It is being operated by the seaway authority at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: I want to say a word about the Lachine canal and I understand the position is the same on that part of the Cornwall canal which remains in operation. My understanding is that industry is to be serviced on the Lachine and Cornwall canals as long as 14-foot draft ships desire to go into these canals. But I am also informed that instead of having the usual lockmen on the canals the lockmen are staggered and that where there were three or four or five groups of lockmen there is only one group now because of the changed position. I am informed that

Supply-Transport
on the Lachine canal, for instance, there are three lockmen on duty and that when a ship comes through the lockmen jump in a motor car, rush up to the next lock, lock the ship through and then continue to do likewise until the ship has passed through all the locks. Let me tell the minister that is not the proper way for the government of a country such as Canada to operate a canal. I think there should be the same service as there was before on the Lachine canal and other canals that are in operation. I do not mean that you should have the same number of lockmen. That would not be a logical thing to do but I think that there should be the requisite number of lockmen and I do not think the lockmen should be staggered in the way in which it is being done now. I know there are protests in my area about it.


George Harris Hees: In answer to that question, as the hon. member knows the traffic is greatly reduced. I am advised that this method is working satisfactorily and that there is no hold-up of ships going through the canal.


Lionel Chevrier: I know there is no hold-up but there are protests from the men. Protests from the lockmen have been brought to my attention with respect to both canals. I would ask the minister to take another look at the situation with a view to seeing if something better cannot be done.


George Harris Hees: I am always glad to take
another look.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
397.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,934,815.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister explain
this vote?


George Harris Hees: We carry the funds in this vote for the operating deficit and capital requirements of the Lachine, Sault Ste. Marie and Cornwall canals.


Lionel Chevrier: Does this mean that from now on there will be a vote in the Department of Transport estimates that will look after canals which are under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority or that have been assigned to the St. Lawrence seaway authority and which are not provided for under the St. Lawrence seaway authority vote?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Marine services-
398.	Marine services administration including agencies, $849,800.
Maurice Bourget: The minister will recall that during the month of April I put a question on the order paper regarding the case of Octave Bujold of Chandler, Quebec, an employee of the Department of Transport who was dismissed. The question was divided into six parts and was as follows:
1.	Was one Octave Bujold of Chandler, Quebec, employed by the Department of Transport?
The answer was "yes".
2.	If so, in what position and for what length of time?
The answer was:
As wharfinger, Chandler wharf, Quebec, from August 13, 1937 to October 31, 1958.
The third question was:
3.	Was he dismissed from this employment?
The answer was "yes."
4.	If so, on what grounds and on whose complaint?
The answer was:
(a) Participation in politics; (b) the hon. member for Gaspe.
The fifth question was:
Was an investigation conducted into the circum-tances surrounding the dismissal?
The answer was "yes".
6. Was the employee given an opportunity to be heard?
I should like the minister to bear this question and answer in mind. The answer was "yes". A little later I put a notice of motion for production of papers on the order paper asking for a copy of all letters, notices, declarations, affidavits and other communications leading to the dismissal of Octave Bujold of Chandler, Quebec. This motion was passed by the house on April 27 but so far no documents have been tabled. After the answers were given to my first questions, as found at page 2924 of Hansard for April 21, I got a letter from Mr. Octave Bujold saying that he had never been informed of an inquiry being conducted and had never been asked to appear before a board of inquiry or before anyone in charge of such an inquiry. After receiving the answer from the minister that the employee concerned was given an opportunity to be heard I find it strange that this is denied in a letter and affidavit I have received from this man. I read the affidavit in French: (Translation):
I was never questioned by any investigator and was never given the opportunity to be heard on the matter.
I am absolutely unaware of the accusations that have been levelled against me, nor do I know the names of those who would have made such accusations.
I have never participated in any political activity, neither in the 1957 election nor in that of 1958.

(Text):
I do not want to accuse the minister because I know he is not the only person responsible. Nevertheless, I find it strange that this man, who was accused of taking part in political activities, did not have a chance to appear before a board to defend himself, particularly after the minister stated that he was given that opportunity. Surely, the minister must have some comments to make.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in making that reply I was acting on the advice that this man had been given an opportunity, which is the procedure I require in these cases. I shall be glad to look into this case for the hon. member and find out just what did happen. I shall be in touch with him then, as soon as I have that looked up. I appreciate his having drawn this to my attention.


Maurice Bourget: I would also bring to the attention of the minister that Mr. Bujold, in March I think it was, wrote a letter to the minister. I should like the minister to inform the house if he has answered that letter.


George Harris Hees: I am afraid I do not know offhand, Mr. Chairman. I write and sign anywhere from 100 to 150 letters very day, but I shall be glad to check that up and let the hon. member know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service steamers-
399.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $15,957,187.
Lionel Chevrier: How many steamers are there now in existence, and how many are being constructed?


George Harris Hees: We have in the department 200 ships of all kinds, including Arctic landing craft, and approximately 33 seagoing vessels.


Lionel Chevrier: How many of those are under construction?


George Harris Hees: Those are in operation, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that there are some new ones.


George Harris Hees: We have 17 under construction, including ferry vessels.


Lionel Chevrier: How many of the 17 are in the Montreal and Quebec districts?


George Harris Hees: Six, Mr. Chairman; four in Quebec; one at Sorel; and one in Montreal.


Lionel Chevrier: These are new ships?


George Harris Hees: New ships, yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I could add a word in connection with another matter. Where is the Labrador, which was taken over from the department of defence, and what are its duties at the moment?
66968-9-293i
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: She is leaving Halifax in the near future for Arctic patrol and convoy duty.


Lionel Chevrier: Does she do duty in the far north with the Howe and the d'Iberville?


George Harris Hees: No, she is operating separately. She is going to Thule, in Greenland, to Foxe basin and to Baffin land. Part of this work is for the United States air force.


Lionel Chevrier: This is the vote, of course,
which covers the icebreakers. I wonder whether the minister would not, briefly, give the committee some indication of the icebreaking operations upstream from the city of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The pattern that we have followed in icebreaking between Quebec and Montreal is related primarily to the prevention of flood dangers in the Montreal area and helping local river ports. As I indicated, the river from lake St. Peter to Montreal does not remain open unless the icebreaker fleet is capable of keeping the channel open. It has been normal for us to use three icebreakers from Quebec up to maintain a position from which the channel could be opened in time to prevent serious flooding that could otherwise occur.
In mild winters this can be done by keeping the channel open to Montreal for the greater portion of the way. In some severe winters the main objective is to work up from lake St. Peter to Sorel continuously and, in the latter part of January, drive up to Montreal in time to reach it before the flooding danger occurs.


Lionel Chevrier: How did the operation work out this winter, for instance? I understand the icebreaking operation began this year much earlier than is the custom. I should like to know what the progress was upstream from Three Rivers, for instance?


George Harris Hees: Icebreaking this year was very heavy in the early part of the season because of the early, severe freeze-up, but much better later on. Because of the heavy ice in the early part of the season we had one extra icebreaker up in that area.


Lionel Chevrier: Which one was that?


George Harris Hees: The Montcalm.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention of the minister to increase the fleet of icebreakers now that the St. Lawrence seaway is in operation? As the minister knows, there was a great deal of confusion at the opening of navigation as a result of ice conditions and as I indicated, the lack of co-ordination between the various branches of the Depart-

Supply-Transport
ment of Transport. I think I am safe in saying that there was not the co-ordination that should have existed between the ship Channel branch, the national harbours board and the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I can understand how that could arise.
I am wondering if, in order to avoid that next year, it is not possible to have some sort of liaison between the three branches so that there will be harmony in the operations. There is no doubt that during the course of the spring, prior to the opening of navigation, there were ships all over the place. There were ships that came up expecting to enter the seaway at a fixed date which were not able to do so. There were ships at Montreal; there were ships at La-noraie; there were ships at Three Rivers; there were ships anchored all through lake St. Peter. It seems to me if these ships coming in to use the seaway are not given some indication as to when navigation is likely to open, and there is no co-ordination between Montreal harbour, the ship channel and the national harbours board, then there is likely to be confusion.
I can understand how, at the beginning of a new project, it is difficult to have everything working as smoothly as one would expect. But I hope that, as a reult of what has happened during the course of this season and the opening of navigation, experience has been gained. I come back to my original question. Is it the intention of the minister to augment the fleet of icebreakers from Quebec to Montreal?


George Harris Hees: No. Our general icebreaking fleet will be increased this year but it is not planned to increase the number of icebreakers used from Quebec up. I may say that the hon. member's suggestion with regard to better co-ordination is a good one and we will look into the matter very carefully indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go a step further? The minister was probably not here when the estimates of the Department of Public Works were passed and the Minister of Public Works gave some indication of the port facilities on the north shore and the establishment of a new station in lieu of Pointe au Pere. The question that arises now is this. Are icebreaking operations required to keep some of these ports open all year around. For instance, I am thinking of Rimouski and the ports along the north shore such as Baie Comeau and Seven Islands. I understand that there are one or two new ports to which consideration is being given by the Department of Public Works. I presume these ports are serviced by the Department of Transport

in so far as the movement of traffic is concerned and that when traffic is required to be moved out or when traffic is on the point of coming in during the winter months it is the Department of Transport that is called in to help. What I am asking now is this. What are these points where icebreaking operations are required and what are the vessels assigned to this work?


George Harris Hees: One of our new icebreakers is going to be assigned to work all winter in that area.


Lionel Chevrier: Which one is that?


George Harris Hees: It has not been decided yet, but it will be one of the new ones. It probably will be the Montcalm. I am advised that the ports remain fairly well open and we are usually called upon to provide only convoy assistance. We shall be providing more assistance than we have been providing in the past because of this icebreaker that will be stationed there all the time. We anticipate being able to look after the needs of that important area.


Maurice Bourget: How many icebreakers will be assigned to help winter navigation between Quebec and the lower St. Lawrence?


George Harris Hees: There was one in operation in that area this year and we will be adding one during the next year, that is to say during the coming winter. That will make two of them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
400.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $13,575,000.
Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to a press dispatch appearing in the Journal of Commerce under dateline of Victoria, B.C., reading as follows:
Canada's status as a shipbuilding nation is "disintegrating" and faces an uncertain future after completion of present contracts, according to Harold Husband, president of the Canadian shipbuilding and ship repair association and of Victoria Machinery Depot Ltd.
Attending the trial run of the recently completed R.C.N. destroyer escort Terra Nova, Mr. Husband saw an-
And this is in quotation marks.
-"especially dark future for the west coast shipbuilding industry". Out of 13 vessels under construction for the Department of Transport only 2 are being built on the west coast, he said.
We are all alive to the necessity of maintaining ship repair facilities on both coasts. It is impossible to maintain these repair facilities on the basis of repairs only. They must be supported by new construction. The Department of National Defence realizes the national importance of maintaining such

facilities on both coasts and naval vessels are distributed in a fair proportion between east and west. What I am asking is that the minister take into consideration the requirement of maintaining these services on the west coast. Although it is well recognized that costs are higher on the west coast, yet the advantages to be gained make it almost imperative that within reason these higher costs be disregarded and that a portion of the ships be set out for west coast building. I do not like to remind the minister, but I will do so-that the higher wage rates on the west coast came about through wage controls during wartime when, under directives from Ottawa, wages: were arbitrarily increased to higher levels on the west coast than on the east coast. I should like to point out that the officials of the Department of National Defence assert that ships built on the west coast are well worth the premium.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries I should like to say that I was pleased indeed by the minister's announcement this afternoon that an icebreaker was going to be stationed in St. John's. Is this one of the new icebreakers?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
401.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $5,945,892.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should just like to make a few brief remarks on this item on aids to navigation because they are of growing importance in the constituency which I represent. I am referring particularly to the Columbia river, the upper and lower Arrow lakes, the Kootenay river, Kootenay lake and Slocan lake because of the considerable increase in the number of tugs and the increase in the number of small water craft, particularly those coming up the Columbia river from the United States. As I have said before this session, some may come from as far south as Portland being portaged around the dams in the United States south of the international border. Some come down the Kootenay river into Kootenay lake. Some come in by road from the various ports and then are launched at suitable launching places and other points on the Kootenay lake or on the river or on the Columbia river or the upper and lower Arrow lakes and Slocan lake.
There is an increasing need for better marking, and provision of more marking, particularly with respect to lights in the rivers and buoys and in some cases markers. I want to
Supply-Transport
say that the people of the districts are pleased, particularly those interested in boating, that the department has marked the river between Castlegar and the international boundary. It was a most dangerous part of the river to leave unmarked. There were many craft coming up the river without much knowledge of the channel, the hazards and so on. They appreciate that improvement.
However I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that it is necessary to have river marking between Arrowhead and Revel-stoke. I might say the same applies to the marking of isolated rocks and things of that sort on the lakes. The local people locate these hazards and sand bars and so on and then press the department to do it. I think that is largely occasioned by the fact that the department uses employees of the Department of Public Works as agents and they are extremely busy indeed.
This matter of the marking of these lakes and rivers and looking after the lights is becoming increasingly important and requires constant attention. As I have said, I think it was five years ago I went down the Columbia and one of the captains told me there were 11 buoys out, a most dangerous situation. I was told they had been out for three months and there was nobody to replace them because the person who was paid to do it never went near the place. That was just because the persons who supervise this work are too busy with other work to check frequently. I am of the opinion that, particularly with respect to the southern interior lakes, possibly the time is coming when somebody should be especially appointed to have jurisdiction over aids to navigation. I think of high water on the Columbia, when a good many of these buoys are washed out. No one notices it for two or three months. A tug comes along or particularly a small craft from the United States, and the first thing you know it is on a sand bar. I think it might be in the interests of the public generally as well as for better administration if someone were given particular charge of watching these buoys, blinker lights and things like that on the interior lakes.
I am not blaming anyone for this situation, as years ago there was just the occasional blinker light or buoy, and so on, because the captains knew the routes. Intensive marking was not required as is required today to make the rivers and lakes safe for watercraft. I do hope consideration will be given to marking the river from Arrowhead to Revelstoke. For instance, last year about 85 small craft came up from the United States and 12 of them went to Revelstoke. I see them all if I am at home because they pass my ranch and many come in to see me. But out of the 12 which

Supply-Transport
went to Revelstoke, I heard four had their propellers badly damaged because there are no markers on the river. It is the type of river which needs checking every spring because buoys are washed out during high water and floods. Last year if the river had been marked at least 50 of the small craft would have gone on to Revelstoke, but most of them did not proceed beyond the head of the lake because they did not have the courage to face the journey ahead of them on a somewhat swift and unmarked river. I would urge the minister to have this matter checked. I have mentioned it to the officials in Victoria, as have the Revelstoke chamber of commerce and all the chambers of commerce down the lake to Trail. I have brought the matter up before, but at that time there was a shortage of funds and nothing could be done. But it is a most important matter for those using the river.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this is an important point which the hon. member has brought up, and I will advise him that in Kootenay lake last year we put in 16 new beacons and we are putting in more this year. We are handicapped to a certain extent in this area because of a lack of hydrographic charts, and we put in new beacons when we received requests from local residents. As the responsibility for maintaining these beacons is that of the contractor who puts them in, we would appreciate it very much if the hon. member would let us know of any complaints where beacons go out of commission or disappear or are not maintained. We will be very glad to bring that matter immediately to the attention of the contractor and have the situation righted. Therefore we would appreciate any advice the hon. member can give us from any of the local residents if these beacons are not maintained properly.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for the information he has given us, but when he says that the beacons are maintained by the contractor who puts them in, who is the contractor engaged to do that, because it must be local people?


George Harris Hees: I am sorry, I made a mistake. It is the buoys which are maintained by the contractor. We put in the beacons and maintain them ourselves.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Has the minister information as to who is responsible for maintaining the buoys in the narrows between the upper and lower Arrow lakes at the present time?


George Harris Hees: I will have to get the name for the hon. member and I will give it to him.


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a word on this item about an area of the country which you, sir, as chairman, and my other colleague member for Halifax, and I 
both know well, and that is the generally overlooked island of Sable island. I do this because it is part of the federal constituency of Halifax, and there are a few short questions I would like to ask. On page 504, the details page of this item, I notice that the position of superintendent at Sable island is not to be included in the present year's estimates, and I wonder if the minister is in a position this evening to provide the committee with a brief description of the change in the administration which has taken place. I have in mind particularly the request that the committee be advised as to the continuation of the two lights. I do not wish to pursue the matter; I simply wish to be advised as to the status of the lights. There are two lights on the island, and I want to know the status of those lights.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the marine life saving establishment is being discontinued, but the meteorological establishment is being continued and the lights are being maintained.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Are the lights manned or unmanned?


George Harris Hees: They are manned.


Edmund Leverett Morris: Both lights?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what the position is with reference to aids in navigation along the seaway? I know there was some discussion about this. The United States authorities wanted to handle them and I know we felt that the Department of Transport should do it. Who is doing it, where are the aids to navigation, and under what district does it fall?


George Harris Hees: The Department of Transport puts them in and maintains them, with the exception of the canal section, in which the seaway puts them and maintains them.


Lionel Chevrier: Where do you put the buoys?


George Harris Hees: At the Prescott agency.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister be good enough to tell us what international organizations are concerned in item 401?


George Harris Hees: Did the hon. member say "international organizations"?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. The vote says:
-fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates-
But I am not able to find them on page 504, and I wondered what they were and what contributions Canada was making to them.


George Harris Hees: The first is the permanent navigational association of international congresses, $200. The contribution to the international association of lighthouse authorities is $462, and that is all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
402.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,132,100.
Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister give a general idea of what this $5 million vote is for?


George Harris Hees: This is the construction connected with marine agencies, that is the agencies themselves, lighthouses and houses connected with lighthouses. I have the breakdown here of the agencies if the hon. member would like it. The St. John's Newfoundland agency, $453,600; the Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island agency, $348,100; the Halifax, Nova Scotia agency, $654,500; the Saint John, New Brunswick agency, $1,124,500; the Quebec city agency, $1,505,200; the Sorel, Quebec agency, $171,500; the Prescott, Ontario agency, $535,350; the Parry Sound, Ontario agency, $191,000; the Selkirk, Manitoba sub-agency, $4,300; the Kenora, Ontario sub-agency, $5,600; the Victoria, British Columbia agency, $431,460; the Prince Rupert, British Columbia agency, $238,100 and the Fort Smith, Northwest Territories agency, $68,700.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is an item here I am unable to understand. Perhaps the minister could explain it to us. It seems to be different in 1959-60 than it was when I was the minister. At page 507 of the details there is a division as between the construction item of buildings and the construction of equipment; it totals $5,732,100. Then these words appear:
Less estimated amount by which actual expenditure on all projects may fall short of the total of amounts that may be required for each, $600,000.
How can you estimate in advance the amount by which an expenditure will fall short?


George Harris Hees: This is a request made by the treasury board to estimate in advance the unspent amount that we expect to have this year. I am advised it is a technique which was first developed in the estimates of the Department of National Defence.


Lionel Chevrier: Does it mean you cannot spend the $600,000?


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: Then the vote, strictly speaking, is a vote of $5,132,100 less $600,000?


George Harris Hees: This is something which the treasury board insists that we do.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I appreciate that, but what is happening then is that parliament is voting $5,132,100 but you are not getting a vote of that amount?


George Harris Hees: They are in effect this year giving us a program of $5,732,100 but saying we can spend only $5,132,100.


Maurice Bourget: Can the minister inform the committee if there has been some discussion between himself and the Minister of Public Works regarding the transfer of the construction of buildings from his department to the Department of Public Works? The minister will recall that when the Minister of Public Works was sitting on this side of the house he was a great advocate of such a move. I am asking the minister if there have been talks about the transfer of the construction of public buildings to the Department of Public Works.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Department of Public Works does our main marine agency construction at the present time. That department also constructs our wharves for us and some of our northern housing.


Maurice Bourget: I am not particularly interested in wharves but as far as buildings are concerned I was wondering if the minister had discussed the question of transfer with the Minister of Public Works. I have always agreed with the Minister of Public Works that all buildings should be constructed by the Department of Public Works. It would be more in their line and I think the Minister of Transport would agree with me that it would also relieve his department of that kind of work.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister not answer? I know there is a reason why it should not be done.


George Harris Hees: I did not quite get the portent of the hon. member's question and I would ask him to repeat it if he would be so kind.


Maurice Bourget: The minister will recall that when the Minister of Public Works was on this side of the house he advocated each year that all government construction should come under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works. I am asking the minister if some progress has been made to that end?


George Harris Hees: I think the acting minister of public works feels that way now. We are very happy to have public works build for us structures about which we think they have the most knowledge. In the construction of air terminal buildings, lighthouses, radar stations and other structures of that kind, we feel we know more about it than they do and we like to do that ourselves.

Supply-Transport


Maurice Bourget: Surely there could be no objection to transferring from the Department of Transport to the Department of Public Works knowledgeable employees who could take charge of that kind of construction.


Lionel Chevrier: Did the minister make a lapsus linguae a moment ago when he mentioned the acting minister of public works? Who is he?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Public Works today is the acting minister of public works because he is the Secretary of State for External Affairs as well as the acting minister of public works.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I come back to the question raised by my friend the hon. member for Levis? Why will not the minister say that the reason is that the Department of Transport wants to keep its own construction work, as perhaps it should, and I presume that is the attitude in all other departments that do construction work. While the Department of Public Works has an efficient staff and I am sure can do much of this work, is it not a fact that the Department of Transport has now grown to such an extent that its construction work is even greater than that of the Department of Public Works and it would not want to give up lightly its jurisdiction over a matter of that kind?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I would think that the hon. member for Laurier has summed up the situation very well indeed. While I am on my feet, Mr. Chairman, I might be able to pass on some information that might be of some interest to the committee. It does not actually relate to this vote but I might be pardoned for doing so. I have just been advised that in the Ontario election the Conservatives are leading, an elected 50; the Liberals, an elected 14 and the C.C.F. an elected 7.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. The Chairman had anticipated that there might be an attempt to smuggle some such information into the committee in this fashion. Is it the wish of the committee to receive this information?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
403.	Nautical services, including Canada's share of the cost of the north Atlantic ice patrol: grants and contribution as detailed in the estimates: rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidy to a salvage company: and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act. $557,221.
Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I presume that this is the vote under which we could ask
the Minister of Transport a most important question and that is is he now in a position to express his views or those of the government on the establishment of a coastguard service for Canada? I ask that question because I and so many others well remember the long and oft repeated demands of the Conservatives when they sat on this side of the chamber to the effect that the government should undertake the establishment of a coastguard service in Canada. We would all like to know whether the Conservatives in changing sides have changed their position with regard to the establishment of a coastguard service. What are the views of the minister on this matter?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman first of all I think we must not be hypnotized by the word "coastguard". That is the word used to describe the service provided in the United States. Here in Canada although we have not such an ear-catching word the same kind of service is provided by various government departments. The Department of National Defence provides search and rescue service. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police provide coastal patrol. The Department of Transport, the Department of Fisheries and the navy provide ships which undertake sea rescue. With these various services combining, we believe the same service is provided as is provided by the United States coastguard.
There are very few services of any kind that cannot be improved, and I have been giving this matter considerable thought during the past few weeks and so has my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. We are actively studying it at this moment and so are our departments. It seems to me that improvements can be made in better co-ordination of the services and specialized training and equipment of those who will be actually performing the sea rescue task. I can assure the hon. member, and all the hon. members, that this matter is being very seriously studied right at this moment. During the next few weeks we hope to work out something that will be an improvement over the services that have been provided in the past, although I think those services have been pretty good. But, as I say, there are no services that cannot be improved, and we intend to improve this service just as much as we possibly can.


Harold Edward Winch: I certainly welcome the words of the minister. I must say-I cannot help saying it-that the tune has changed in a period of three years because the answer we have just been given by the minister was the self-same answer we received from the Liberals to which the Conservatives in opposition objected so strenuously and so much.

However, we certainly welcome the fact that the minister has such a great interest in it and that there will be improvements, as all the things he told us about just now were identical with those things we were told by the previous minister of a different party.
Can there be a speed-up in the matter of complete co-ordination of all services so that we do not have ever again the situation which developed only recently in the harbour of Vancouver where a ship caught fire after an explosion, sent out an S.O.S. and it was an hour and a half before any assistance got there. It is quite obvious that some arrangements must be made so that a situation of that kind cannot occur again.


George Harris Hees: As I say, we are working very hard at the present time along those lines.


Mr. McPhillips:: On item 403, I see that the
details on page 509 show a salvage subsidy payable, presumably, to Foundation Maritime Limited of Montreal, Quebec. The subsidy amounts to $75,000. Will the minister indicate where the salvage vessel is stationed and why it is necessary to pay this subsidy?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that on the west coast there are a number of tugs and barges which can perform this kind of work. On the east coast there are not nearly the same number and it has been found necessary to provide this subsidy in order to make sure that this type of work will be performed on the east coast as it is on the west coast.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Chairman, I want to know where the vessel is stationed.


George Harris Hees: At Halifax.


Albert DeBurgo McPhillips: Mr. Chairman, it seems a little odd to me that, with the amount of shipping on the Atlantic coast, an organization that could have a salvage vessel would find it necessary to receive a subsidy when equivalent equipment on the west coast, although it could do with a subsidy, does not receive one. We have had some of those anomalies before between the east and west coasts. The fact remains, Mr. Chairman- and it is a very serious fact-that Canada is a maritime nation, and all maritime nations should make it a first principle that their shores have some type of protection for vessels coming to those shores, and goodness knows we want them to come, we want their trade.
Mention has been made of air-sea rescue. While that has been very effective in regard to what I would term small rescues, an airman down and perhaps floating around in a rubber boat, or some fishermen floating around in a dory, it is absolutely a joke when it comes to a big ocean-going vessel in distress, it can do nothing whatsoever. It
Supply-Transport
is true an aircraft can spot a vessel and can hover over it and can send out messages, but there is no equipment at all unless reliance is placed upon commercial organizations that have the equipment and are willing to take virtually a gamble. Our shores are protected in that way, and yet year after year they may lose money on those vessels. It is not good enough, I submit, Mr. Chairman, that on the Atlantic coast there should be a subsidy paid for this purpose and not a subsidy paid on the west coast.
I would like to give an instance that occurred within the last while. Quite a sizable vessel got into difficulty off Carmanagh point which is adjacent to the area we term the graveyard of the Pacific where there have been a great many wrecks. This ship called air-sea rescue and an aircraft from Comox air base spotted her position and hovered around. All it could do was to call up the United States coastguard at Neah bay in the state of Washington and ask them to do what they could. The United States coastguard sent a cutter over and there were very high seas running. She got a line on to Malina-that is the name of the vessel-and got all the men off except two. They were then so close in to the rocky shore, and the combers were so huge that the United States coastguard cutter could not stand by any longer and got out; she had not enough power. What did she do? There was no Canadian government agency; no navy equipment or anything to call, so she called up the Island Tug and Barge Company of Victoria and asked them to send out their big tug Sudbury, and the Sudbury went out. She is a huge, powerful salvage tug. She was able to stand in close enough. She got a line aboard and saved the lives of the two men who were there. The next day the Sudbury pulled off the grounded ship and brought her to Victoria where she was repaired.
There is the situation. We are a maritime nation. These big vessels sometimes get into difficulty, and on the Pacific coast we have absolutely nothing to rely upon but these commercial concerns, which, as I say, are taking a gamble. They may make money one year and lose money for three years.
I am not a believer in a coastguard service; I think it is a lot of rot. The United States coastguard service is a misnomer. They deal in all kinds of things, smuggling and fisheries protection. We do not need that kind of thing. We do know, however, that Canada must have its own salvage vessels stationed at crucial points on our coasts or else the government of Canada should be willing to subsidize. I notice this is only $75,000. If another $75,000 was paid to the
4620	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Supply-Transport
west coast it would be a total of only $150,000, proceeding with the bill now on the order a drop in the bucket compared with what paper and that we can forget about it for a coastguard service would cost. I suggest this session. If an agreement is reached I that the department should consider this take it that at the next session of parlia-matter and that at least we should have ment a bill will be brought forward dealing equality in the matter of safety at sea on with the pilotage aspects of the problem both coasts.	only.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
404.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $1,177,065.
Lionel Chevrier: As the minister knows, the question of pilotage is, of course, one that is extremely important. A number of questions were asked on the orders of the day in connection with this matter and the minister went to Washington in order to see if agreement could be reached. Would the minister bring us up to date on the present position of negotiations with the Americans?


George Harris Hees: The passage of Bill No. S-3 through the House of Commons was suspended to enable me to undertake consultations with United States government with a view to ensuring, as far as practicable, that there would be effective co-ordination between Canada and the United States in regard to pilotage on the great lakes. Following my visit to Washington consultations have continued at the official level and at the present time both sides are giving consideration to the problems that would be involved in the establishment of a joint pilotage commission. Because of the many interests involved this problem requires more careful study and while some progress has been made no definite conclusions have yet been reached. If an agreement should be reached with the United States regarding the establishment of such a commission the amendments before the house would probably have to be revised and indeed might not be necessary. For this reason and particularly because of the importance of securing, if at all possible, a joint approach to this problem, I do not intend to proceed with these amendments during the present session.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that statement on two counts. The first is that he has just stated that he thinks it is possible to work out a common agreement on pilotage. I commend him and his officers for what they have done in that direction and I hope they will be successful. I am glad the minister has come to the conclusion that that is the only way in which we can operate pilotage facilities on the St. Lawrence seaway. I am also very happy to learn that this means that the minister will not be


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is correct.


Lionel Chevrier: May I go a step further and ask the minister if I can also conclude that since the bill which was before the house dealt with two things, pilotage on the great lakes and the Montreal, Quebec and Kingston pilotage districts, the new bill which the minister now envisages will deal only with the pilotage agreement with the United States and will not affect the pilots in the Montreal, Quebec and Kingston districts?


George Harris Hees: Not necessarily because the pilotage districts on the lower St. Lawrence are involved in some of the requests which the Americans have made to us, but it may not be necessary.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to delay the vote unduly but I do want to bring this particular point to the minister's attention. As the minister knows, the intention was to curtail and affect rather seriously the positions of the Quebec and Montreal pilots. When the matter came up for discussion I had not reached the point in my remarks of registering my protest and dealing with the problem as I would have liked to. But I do want to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that I think it would be a serious mistake if these men, whose ancestors have been pilots in these districts for over 200 years and in the case of many of whom the trade has been handed down from father to son, were affected in the way which was contemplated in the bill. I hope the minister will find it possible not to affect the present position of the Montreal and Quebec pilots.


George Harris Hees: If Bill No. S-3 had been proceeded with during this session we had planned an amendment to the clause to which the hon. member refers which I feel sure would have had his concurrence as a very desirable move in the direction he has mentioned and which would certainly be made effective if that clause has to be reintroduced.


Lionel Chevrier: I hope I had some little influence in convincing the minister.


George Harris Hees: Yes, as always the hon. member has a great deal of influence on my thinking in these matters.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to ask the minister if any final decision has been reached regarding the relocation of the pilotage station now at Father Point?


George Harris Hees: Not yet, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ship channel service-St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers-
407. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,521,804.
Lionel Chevrier: What is the present width of the ship channel?


George Harris Hees: Five hundred in some sections and up to 800 in others.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention to widen it eventually to 800 throughout the whole length?


George Harris Hees: A committee is examining the whole matter to determine what should be done during the next three-year contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hailway and steamship services-
409.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department. $59,800.
James Aloysius McGrath: On the general item I made reference to the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland hotel and the necessity, in the light of representations, for enlargement to provide extra facilities. I also made reference to consideration being given to the provision of Canadian National Express service on Bell island in St. John's East. Would the minister comment?


George Harris Hees: I will be very glad to take up that matter with Canadian National Railways.


Maurice Bourget: I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter involving some employees of the C.N.R. in the Levis division. I was informed this afternoon by telegram, and I suppose the minister has also received the same telegram, that it is the intention of the C.N.R. management to close the division office in Levis and that from the first of August the Levis, Riviere du Loup and Charny-Monk sections will become part of the maritime or Atlantic region. If the information I have received is well founded it will mean that many employees with their families will have to move to Moncton and it will probably also mean the laying off of other employees.
I feel sure that the minister realizes that this change will also affect the economy of the district concerned and cause a lot of inconvenience to the people involved. I should also like to point out, and I think this is a
Supp ly-Transport
very important point, that most of the people living in that area are French speaking, and if the sections I have mentioned are transferred to the Atlantic regions these people will have to deal with the officers at Moncton. I hope the minister realizes the very disadvantageous position in which the people of these areas will be placed. I would ask the minister to convey to the management of the C.N.R. that if a change has to be made it would be more logical to extend the limits of the Quebec district and Levis division to the border of the province of New Brunswick instead of transferring the sections I have mentioned to the Atlantic region.
I hope that the minister, with his usual sympathy for the Canadian National employees, will draw this to the attention of the management. I recall that when he was sitting on this side he was always blaming the government whenever one Canadian National employee was dismissed. I would, therefore, ask him to convince the Canadian National management to have another look at this special question because this would provide time for public bodies to make the representations that they intend to make on that subject.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to draw the matter to the attention of the management of the Canadian National.


Mr. Nielsen:: I understand that at this point in the estimates I can discuss the operation of Canadian National Telegraphs which is, by arrangement, operating the northern communications system along the Alaska highway into the Yukon.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
item under discussion is for repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department.


Erik Nielsen: I understand that under item 409, railway and steamship services generally may be discussed. If it is not in order for me to discuss the Canadian National Telegraphs operation of the northern communications system under this item, I wonder if the chairman could indicate to me under what item in the estimates I can discuss this matter which comes under the direct jurisdiction of the minister's department?


Robert Jardine McCleave: am advised that item 430 would be the appropriate item. It deals with telecommunications.


Erik Nielsen: Under the air services branch?

Supply-Transport


Robert Jardine McCleave: the hon. member will refer to page 76, item 430, I think he will find himself in order when that item is called.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
410.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminal, $1,741,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: What is the decrease?


George Harris Hees: Approximately $220,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Oh, I can read, but why is there the decrease?


George Harris Hees: A small saving on operating expenses and a fair increase in operating revenues.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I would again unfortunately for him, call the minister's attention to a particular problem concerning commuters who, by the hundreds, use the national railways to go to their daily work in Montreal, from St. Hilaire, Otterburn, Beloeil, McMasterville, St. Basile, St. Bruno, St. Hubert, to mention only the people in my own riding.
(Text):


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order; I believe the hon. member is speaking on the next item. Shall item 410 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
411.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $4,738,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the
minister if his department is completely satisfied now with the operation of the William Carson, and if the terminal at Port aux Basques is satisfactory?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it appears to be working satisfactorily, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the result of the operation been that there is a very small backlog of freight at North Sydney?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of the nature of the backlog of freight, but any time I have asked I have been advised by the management of Canadian National that the operation of this ferry is satisfactory.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister will note that there is a very considerable increase for this year. I am not complaining about that, but I just wondered what the reason was?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I revert to item 409?


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are in the middle of a discussion; wait until we finish.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Apparently the hon. member wishes to speak on another item. We will complete the discussion of item 411 to keep the committee

procedure orderly, then the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville may make his request of the Chair.


George Harris Hees: The answer to the hon. member's question is that there has been quite an increase in operating expenses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No corresponding increase in revenues?


George Harris Hees: Not as much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Robert Jardine McCleave: If the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville will state his case-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I have to take exception to the use of the words "state his case", because I would have to incriminate a few of my friends around me. Because of private conversations, I did not have a chance-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we decide about the hon. member's request, is it clearly understood that the same consideration will be given to every member of the opposition as is given to a supporter of the government in reverting to items?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
Chair is not going to anticipate what the request is. Perhaps we should have the request first.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: May I carry on with
my request?


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
Chair wishes to know what the hon. member's request is.


Mr. Drysdale:: He wants to go back to item 409.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The
hon. member asks the consent of the committee to revert to item 409 which has been passed by the committee. Is it the pleasure of the committee to grant the hon. member this right?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
409. Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $59,800.
(Translation) :


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that the rates established for the transportation of those passengers are high enough today without those people being saddled with a further increase.
At this time, the rate increases are in abeyance, thanks to the timely intervention of this government, until the transport commissioners can consider the situation and reach a decision. But while waiting for their decision, I take the opportunity offered by the consideration of the minister's estimates to ask the Minister of Transport to give

favourable consideration to requests from commuters who are opposed to any raise in railway rates.
In order to shorten this debate, I shall, at this point, support the remarks made this morning by the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, when he raised the problem facing the commuters.
I shall draw the minister's attention to a problem which is of interest to those who travel daily from Granby to Montreal via Marieville, Chambly, Brookline, Croydon and East Greenfield. Every morning a train leaves Granby and runs through Marieville and the other places I mentioned, i.e. Chambly, Brookline, Croydon and East Greenfield, at a time which would be convenient to daily commuters in the area, but the national railways, for some unknown reason, have this train running from Granby to Montreal through all those points, but picking up passengers only at Granby and Marieville.
I want to draw the minister's attention to the matter, and ask him whether it would not be possible to point out the situation to the relevant Canadian National Railways authorities, because it is of great importance for people travelling from the points I mentioned.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Yes. I shall be glad to draw that to the attention of the management.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
413.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sidney, Nova Scotia, $14,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to ask the minister. There is no question about retaining North Sydney as the port for the ferry, is there? There has been some discussion about that matter.


George Harris Hees: There is no question about it at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
415. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects. $1,130,000.
James Aloysius McGrath: Is it possible to get an indication as to when the Bell island ferry will be completed? When is it expected to go into service?


George Harris Hees: Next summer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I make an appeal to the minister to consider naming the Bell island ferry the Point Pelee because it was my discovery that the government of Canada
Supply-Transport
was subsidizing a ferry between Pelee island and Point Pelee that forced the minister to provide this ferry for Bell island.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why not call it the J. W.
Pickersgill?


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: I should like to know when the hon. gentleman made that discovery?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can tell the minister that very well. It was a very sad day for me because it was at the last treasury board that I attended and it was unfortunately after June 10, 1957.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
417. Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1959, $131,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give an idea of how this ferry service is operating? By that I mean how profitably is it operating?


George Harris Hees: For this year revenues are estimated at $1,115,000 and total expenses are estimated at $1,246,000, for a net deficit of $131,000. That is a slight improvement over last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
420.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to Canadian National Railway company a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding $7,450,000, towards the construction of the line of railway referred to in chapter 49 of the Statutes of Canada, 1953-54, as branch line number 1 (described approximately as a line of railway from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville in the province of Quebec); such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1959-60, $1,000,000.
Harold Edward Winch: Although item 420 deals with a specific subsidy for the construction of a railway, may I take the opportunity afforded by this vote to ask the minister whether any moneys have been paid or whether consideration is being given to the payment of a similar subsidy on a very expensive construction undertaken by British Columbia in extending the Pacific Great Eastern railway from Prince George to Fort St. John?


George Harris Hees: There is nothing current at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask whether the government of British Columbia has made any request for that subsidy?


George Harris Hees: Yes, a request was made.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask whether it is being considered?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: And favourably I hope.

Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: No; that matter has not been Mr. Hees: The western section is com-finally disposed of.	pleted. The eastern section is not completed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Since the hon. gentleman made a request that was slightly out of order, Mr. Chairman, may I also make one? Is any consideration being given to the application of the government of Manitoba for the extension of the railway north from Gypsumville to the Hudson Bay railway?


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of such a request.


Harold Edward Winch: I am now asking for information. After a railway has been constructed, is in operation, and has been in operation for some time how long does it take, as general rule, before a decision is reached as to whether a subsidy is going to be paid?


George Harris Hees: It all depends on the complexity of the issue. I understood that Mr. Bennett made some statements in the past-I think it was perhaps about the time of the last election out there-to the effect that this was a very successful operation, that it was paying its way and things of that kind.


Harold Edward Winch: You know Mr. Bennett. The taxpayers of British Columbia and the other people in Canada, with respect to railway construction, are entitled to a grant from the federal government. Not on behalf of Mr. Bennett but on behalf of the taxpayers of British Columbia we ask that favourable consideration be given to according us the same treatment as is accorded to everyone else.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the remaining
amount to be paid for the construction of this half of the Chibougamau railway?


George Harris Hees: If we spend the full amount of $1,000,000 this year it will bring it very near to completion.


Lionel Chevrier: My recollection is that the line was to cost in the neighborhood of $37 million, about $17 million or $18 million or thereabouts for each half of the line. Is this the last million dollars that is going to be voted?


George Harris Hees: Yes. There will probably be a wind-up item next year but it will not be a big one.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the present position of the eastern half of the line?


George Harris Hees: Does the hon. member mean whether that section of the line is operational?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Yes. The eastern section is in service now.


Lionel Chevrier: Then is the whole line in service? The western section was built first.


Lionel Chevrier: That is what I thought. When will the eastern section be completed?


George Harris Hees: If the C.N.R. are able to spend this money this year they expect to have it completed by the end of this year. There seems to be some doubt that they can spend all this money, but if they can they will.


Ernest James Broome: I wish to say a word with regard to the question posed by the hon. member for Vancouver East. I am rather interested in that point. I wonder whether the minister can tell us whether-I did not get this point quite clear

submissions had been received from the British Columbia government with regard to a subsidy? I thought a subsidy had been paid or offered to the British Columbia government and that it has been accepted. I was wondering whether the minister could bring the committee up to date on that matter.


George Harris Hees: That was in relation only to the forty miles extension directly north of Prince George and that was paid about a year and a half ago. Premier Bennett spoke to me about the possibility of a further subsidy and, as I have said, the matter is still under consideration.


Harold Edward Winch: The point on which I want to be extremely careful is this. It is my understanding that a subsidy was paid by the federal government on some phase of the construction from north Vancouver to Squa-mish and from Quesnel to Prince George but that on account of the expense involved the government were anticipating that they would receive a larger subsidy on that section of construction. I am not questioning at this time whether or not you have under consideration-although I hope you have-the granting of a greater subsidy on the heavy cost of construction from north Vancouver to Squamish and from Quesnel to Prince George. Basically my question was this. Is any consideration being given to the second phase of construction which was from the city of Prince George up to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John in the Peace river area of British Columbia? As I said before, I think the people are entitled to it. The expenditure was great. The cost has been met by the people of British Columbia. The railway opens up all that vast area in the north and the federal government is going to reap the benefit through the development of that country through the medium of this railway extension. I hope that not only is consideration being given to an additional

subsidy on the first two sections but also to a continuation of subsidies on the northern section.


Ernest James Broome: It also links up five points.


Harold Edward Winch: Premier Bennett boasts too much and keeps too many differing financial books.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the hon. member's question is that in 1949 a subsidy was paid for the section from Quesnel to Prince George. Also there has been, as I have said, a subsidy paid on 40 miles north from Prince George but nothing on any other section.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, it seems logical having paid a subsidy on 40 miles north that they should also give consideration to extending it to Dawson Creek and Fort St. John.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions and other benefits-
421.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Arthur Baquet; Adelard Delisle; Raoul Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
Lionel Chevrier: One word on pensions generally. What is the position of the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways? The minister will remember how that matter was always discussed in the house, and I wonder if he would bring the committee up to date on the position of pensions concerning the retired employees of the Canadian National Railways, not only those who are now receiving the basic pension but others as well.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this is quite a complicated matter. I have studied the memorandum which the C.N.R. sent to me, and-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. I think this question should properly be asked under item 422.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
422.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1959 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $9,400.
George Harris Hees: The C.N.R. have just brought in a new pension plan. As I say, it is quite a complicated one and deals with employees under certain categories going back quite a number of years. I would be very glad to let the hon. member have the memorandum, but I am afraid it is too lengthy and complicated to deal with here.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want the memorandum; I just want the answers to two
Supply-Transport
questions. First, I understand the new plan which the minister speaks of does not cover those who are entitled to the basic pension only, and I understand further that it does not cover a certain group of retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. Can the minister tell me what happens to the basic pension? Does it remain the same?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member will permit, I would like to get that information for him and answer these two questions tomorrow.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the minister, as he apparently has some interest in the retirement pensions of the old time employees of the C.N.R., if he has any authority or influence over the C.P.R., because I have a stack of files galore from old time pensioners of the C.P.R. They cannot make any headway with that outfit whatsoever in getting these old timers a square deal. Has the minister any information on that, or any influence or power there at all?


George Harris Hees: No, I am afraid not. As the hon. member knows that is a private company and I have no influence over it at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the minister draw to the attention of the C.P.R. the fact that there is a good deal of interest in this matter? One former member of parliament -I will not name him here-has himself drawn this to my attention. Probably the hon. member and I have the same gentleman in mind.


George Harris Hees: Yes; I would be very glad to draw it to the attention of the president of the C.P.R.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
423.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways. $56,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: One word on this item. I had a good deal to do with this, and I am certainly not going to ask the minister to explain it because it is about the most complicated thing I have ever had to deal with, but is it working out satisfactorily?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer is yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
AIR SERVICES Administrative branch-
425. Construction services administration, $2,809,785.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Does this item cover all construction of every kind?

Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: It is the administrative item for the construction branch which looks after air services as a whole.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, this is just overhead, is it?


George Harris Hees: Salaries, offices, and that sort of thing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a pretty large item for overhead, is it not?


George Harris Hees: It is salaries, office expenses, and so on.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is nearly $3 million.


Oscar William Weichel: Mr. Chairman, it is not my intention to delay the Department of Transport estimates, but on behalf of the Waterloo-Wellington airport commission, my colleagues from Waterloo South, Wellington South and myself, may I extend to the Minister of Transport and his department our sincere thanks for the fine co-operation received in the authorizing of repairs to the taxi strip and the installation of a medium intensity lighting system in order to permit night flying from this airport. This is a move in the right direction. These improvements will assure the public that in this growing developing area of Canada these increased facilities are required, and will materially help the growth and development of the area which this airport serves.
Mr. Chairman, in connection with the air facilities program, first may I mention that the development of aviation in Canada is rapid and the government is doing what it can to facilitate the construction and provision of facilities in the way of runways, navigational aids, etc., that will permit a healthy aviation industry in Canada. Second, it is recognized that the government cannot in any one year finance the total assistance requested. Third, assistance is being given within the limitations of money available in some areas where improved services are most urgently required. Fourth, while all requests cannot be met during the present fiscal year, we hope that it will be the continuing policy of the government to assist and encourage various developing areas of Canada to improve their airport facilities in order that improved transportation so essential to development may be achieved.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with the hon. member for Waterloo North in congratulating the minister on being present at the opening of what I think is the finest air terminal in Canada and the most modern and up to date, and one which I had a good deal of pleasure in having something
to do with as a member of the former government. I refer to the terminal at St. John's, which I am sure the minister will agree is the finest one of its size and kind in Canada.


Edwin William Brunsden: Mr. Chairman, may I redirect the attention of the minister, in view of the preceding remarks, to my own remarks this afternoon with respect to the deplorable situation at Medicine Hat.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I call it ten o'clock?
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the house leader what the business of the house will be for tomorrow, and perhaps I could ask him to be so good as to project his mind into next week as far as he can.


Howard Charles Green: Tomorrow we shall continue with the transport estimates and then take those of the Department of Justice. On Monday we intend to take the different items standing in the name of the Minister of Finance. I cannot give the order in which they will be considered. We will also take the item in the name of the Minister of National Defence, and then a very non-contentious item, No. 2 on today's order paper, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Harold Edward Winch: Stop right there.


Howard Charles Green: On Tuesday, hon. members should be prepared to consider the resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works concerning the Prime Minister's Residence Act, and any of the items in the name of the Minister of Justice, with the exception of the act to amend the Combines Investigation Act. I am including the act to amend the Criminal Code but not the one concerning the Combines Investigation Act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the house adjourns I wonder if I can make an appeal to the minister to appeal in turn to his colleagues to bring forward the legislation having to do with the implementation of the terms of union.


Howard Charles Green: Well, Mr. Speaker, I am hoping that practically all of the legislation will be on the order paper within the next few days.


Lionel Chevrier: Within when?


Howard Charles Green: Within the next few days.


[Stage Direction]
It being three minutes after 10 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
392.	Departmental administration, $2,587,500.
393.	The St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers-Canadian section, $61,500.
Canal services-
394.	Administration, $128,500.
395.	Operation and maintenance, $2,577,184.
396.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $1,195,520.
397.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $2,934,815.
Marine services-
398.	Marine services administration including agencies, $849,800.
Marine service steamers-
399.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $15,975,187.
400.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $13,575,000.
Aids to navigation-
401.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $5,945,892.
402.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,132,100.
403.	Nautical services, including Canada's share of the cost of the north Atlantic ice patrol; grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidy to a salvage company; and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act. $557,221.
404.	Pilotage service, including authority for temporary recoverable advances not exceeding $20,000, $1,177,065.
405.	Steamship inspection service, including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,033,575.
406.	Marine reporting service, $146,136.
Ship channel service-St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers
[Stage Direction]
407.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,521,804.
408.	Contract dredging, including acquisition of land for ship channel improvements, $4,094,000.
Railways and steamship services-
409.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $59,800.
Payments to the Canadian National Railway company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport, made by the company to the Minister of
Supply-Items Passed
Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1959-
410.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $1,741,000.
411.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals. $4,738,000.
412. Strait of Canso-causeway maintenance,
[Stage Direction]
413.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $14,000.
414.	Construction of new dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, $36,000.
415.	Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $1,130,000.
416.	Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment, and harbour facilities, $3,090,000.
417.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbour, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1959, $131,000.
418.	Degaussing Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to retransfer to Canadian registry under special intergovernmental arrangement, $255,000.
419.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1959, $14,100,000.
420.	To authorize the governor in council to grant to Canadian National Railway Company a subsidy of $25,000 per mile, but not exceeding $7,450,000, towards the construction of the line of railway referred to in chapter 49 of the statutes of Canada, 1953-54, as branch line number 1 (described approximately as a line of railway from St. Felicien to Chibougamau and from Chibougamau to Beattyville in the province of Quebec); such grant of subsidy to be made in such manner and in such amounts and subject to such conditions, if any, as the governor in council deems expedient; estimated requirement for the fiscal year 1959-60. $1,000,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
421.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate of $300 per annum to former pilots: Arthur Baquet; Adelard Delisle; Raoul Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; Auguste Santerre, $1,800.
422.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1959 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $9,400.
423.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunication services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $56,000.
Air services-
Administrative branch-
424.	Air services administration, $1,342,652.
[Stage Direction]
Malton Airport Land Appropriation


[Stage Direction]
(Copy)
5168-648 July 19, 1957.
John Pallett, Esq., M.P.,

[Stage Direction]
Erindale, Ont.
Dear John:
I have now obtained further information on the veterans' properties near Malton which have been expropriated. You are, of course, more familiar with these cases than I, but I find that the main complaints are:
(1)	Delay in approaching land owners after expropriation;
(2)	Opinion of the land owners that departmental offers are inadequate;
(3)	Loss by the land owners of the "conditional grants" under the Veterans' Land Act.
There certainly were some delays in approaching land owners after expropriation in 1954. Our small real estate staff in Toronto had a great number of cases to deal in Ontario with during that period and fell behind in their approaches to many people because the volume of work was too great. As regards the second complaint that our offers are not high enough, we not only had appraisals made by our own staff, but we employed an independent appraiser with particular reference to the Hatton test case which is now before the exchequer court, and we consulted fully with officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs who concurred in the view that our offers were fair and reasonable.
It is, of course, by no means abnormal to find a wide gap between an offer which we consider fair and reasonable and the value which may be placed upon property by the land owner. Where a gap is too great it is usually desirable to allow the matter to be settled by the court, and frequently one test case in an area gives the basis for direct settlement of others without court intervention.
As for the conditional grants, after reviewing the facts I do not see how we could take account of this in our offers. This conclusion has been reached after full consultation with the Department of Veterans Affairs, which I understand is in agreement with our view. The conditional grant is an extra credit which may be earned by the veteran if he stays in continuous residence for 10 years, but is related to other benefits which he gives up when he obtains this and which are reestablished if he loses the conditional grant.
In order to qualify for the conditional grant, I understand that the veteran must surrender his right to a re-establishment credit which is part of the war gratuity he is entitled to; but if he loses his right to the conditional grant, his right to the re-establishment credit is restored; or, alternatively, if he relocates under the V.L.A. his right to the conditional grant continues without a break. I think you will appreciate from this why we feel that this is a matter which must be handled within the orbit of the Department of Veterans Affairs because of these related factors which exist. This is the strong advice of our real estate and legal officials in consultation with D.V.A.
However, we recognize that this is a complicated matter and it is because of this fact, as well as because of the very high valuation placed upon their property by the veterans themselves, that we thought it would be fair to all concerned if the Hatton case could be settled by the exchequer court and establish a precedent which could be followed in the other settlements. Otherwise the veterans might feel that they had been unfairly treated; or, alternatively, the Department could be accused of being wasteful of the taxpayers' money by giving in to unreasonable demands.
I am anxious to help, and if it is the case that the veterans have retained the services of an independent appraiser and have obtained advice which differs materially from that available to us, we would be glad to arrange a further meeting to discuss the matter with all concerned, including officials of the V.L.A. I would not like to commit myself at this stage to arbitration in the sense of appointing an independent appraiser acceptable to both the veterans and ourselves until after this meeting takes place. However, I would certainly be prepared to consider this possibility further if the veterans were prepared to agree by contract in advance the report of such an independent appraiser was final and binding on them.
Perhaps you would let me have your views as to what further steps might usefully be taken. Meanwhile, since we have some preference for seeing the Hatton case decided as a means of establishing a basis for settlement of the other cases, we will ask the Department of Justice to request the exchequer court to give earnest consideration to setting an early hearing of the Hatton case.
Yours sincerely,
George Hees.

(Copy)

[Stage Direction]
July 24th, 1957.
The Honourable George Hees,
Minister of Transport,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear George:
Re: Malton Airport Expropriation I have had a meeting with the home owners who are being expropriated in the Malton area and they have agreed to the matter being arbitrated by a single arbitrator to be agreed upon between yourself and themselves.
I told them that I thought that the arbitrator in all probability could hear their individual cases in September. I believe there are a number of people who live in the county of Peel who could be qualified as arbitrator and if you wish, I would be pleased to submit a name for your consideration.
Kindest personal regards.
Yours sincerely, John
John Pallett, M.P.
(Copy)
July 26th, 1957.
John Pallett, Esq. M.P.,
R. R. Number 1,
Erindale, Ontario.
Dear John:
Re: Malton Airport Expropriation Thank you for your letter of July 24th, regarding the appointment of an arbitrator in this matter.
However, I would like to discuss the question further with my deputy minister, and I'll get in touch with you again as soon as possible.
Yours sincerely,
George Hees.
(Copy)
House of Commons Canada
July 31st, 1957.
The Honourable George Hees,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear George:
Thank you for your recent long letter. Your interest is appreciated.
I had the advantage, however, of having on the spot information. I am sure that none
Malton Airport Land Appropriation of the residents will feel bound by the Hatton decision, and from the mood of the residents, there will be a number of exchequer court cases. This will of necessity be expensive to the department and to the residents.
An arbitration would satisfy the economy's requirement and would give the matter more expedition. I believe your officials will confirm that no additional cases can be heard in the exchequer court this year.
The previous administration failed to recognize the human element in many of its dealings and that is the reason for the sharp vote against it.
The number of individuals involved in this matter cannot all be wrong. It may be that there was some early misunderstanding between the evaluators and this group, which I am firmly convinced will not be improved by the arbitrary attitude at the present time to follow out previous methods.
A proper arbitration will not only save the government considerable legal cost, but will restore the much-needed confidence in the administration generally.
Kindest personal regards.
Yours sincerely,
John.
(Copy)
House of Commons Canada
August 27, 1957.
Mr. C. S. Booth,
Assistant Deputy Minister,
Department of Transport,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Booth:
Further to my telephone conversation with you yesterday, I am pleased to enclose herewith a copy of the names of the people who are interested and agreeable in having an arbitrator or a new valuator, whose finding shall be binding upon both parties. In addition to this, I understand that some of the larger land holders will also consent to something of this nature in order to finalize it.
You will note that the total difference in the prices asked and the prices offered amounts to some $138,000. If each of these went to the exchequer court as individual cases, it would not take long to eat up the $138,000 (at least at the rate of cost in the recent Bagwell case).
I look forward to seeing you at the convention next week, and hope that something can be worked out so that these people will not have to wait any longer for their just entitlement.
Yours sincerely,
John Pallett, M.P.
4630	HOUSE OF COMMONS		
Malton Airport Land Appropriation Re: Malton Airport Expropriations			
Name	Location	Value to Owner	D.O.T. Offer
		$	$
Mr. Victor Drew 6th Line, R.R. 4 Malton, Ont.	Con. 7, Part of Lot 5	26,785.00	10,350.00Mr. Jack Wales Cooksville, P.O.	Lot 1, Plan 360 Airport Road	25,000.00	16,500.00Mr. J. Thomas 6th Line, R.R. 4	Lot 13, Skyway Subdivision	10,500.00	8,500.00Mr. G. Fulton 6th Line, R.R. 4	Con. 7, Part of Lot 3	53,900.00	38,500.00Mr. Bert Smith 6th Line, R.R. 4	Con. 7, Part of Lot 3	39,675.00	21,000.00Mr. G. White 6th Line, R.R. 4	Con. 7, Part of Lot 5	16,500.00	7,000.00Mr. Fred Murray Culham Drive	VLALotO	30,405.00	21,270.00Mr. Ted Whitley Culham Drive	VLA Lot 38	28,525.00	19,100.00Mr. J. Whittington Culham Drive	VLA Lot 32	21,000.00	14,253.00Mr. V. Salovaara Culham Drive	VLA Lot 33	21,000.00	13,843.00Mr. Fred Hale Culham Drive	VLA Lot 12	24,938.00	17,938.00Mr. J. Spence Culham Drive	VLA Lot 35	22,328.00	14,800.00Mr. Fred Hatton Culham Drive	VLA Lot 40	45,000.00 decreased	26.325.00 22.650.00Mr. Ross Stuart Culham Drive	VLA Lot 10	18,000.00
In addition to the above, there should be interest from the date of filing and allowance for compulsory taking.
It would be contrary to the intention of the Expropriation Act for the government to agree in advance to be bound by the decision of an arbitrator in the manner suggested by you.
If arbitration were adopted in this case it would establish a precedent which could have extremely serious and dangerous consequences for the future.
As I indicated to you in our conversation I have discussed this question briefly with the deputy minister of justice who sees many practical difficulties which would arise and feels that if a "proper arbitration" were undertaken the formulation of the necessary procedures, safeguards, etc. together with the preparation of the several cases and representation before the arbitration tribunal would involve very considerable expense.
It is pointed out that while some of the other owners might not be willing to be bound by the decision of the exchequer court in the Hatton case the fact is that the court is
(Copy)
August 29, 1957.
John Pallett, Esq., M.P.,
34 Lakeshore Road,
Port Credit, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Pallett:
This is further to our telephone conversation of a couple of days ago relating to the matter of settlement of the claims of certain soldier settlers and some others in respect of expropriations for the airport at Malton.
Since talking to you, I have discussed with Mr. R. G. MacNeill of the treasury board staff your proposal for the disposition of these matters by arbitration. Mr. MacNeill feels that this course would be impracticable for a number of reasons including the following:
The Expropriation Act makes provision for dealing with expropriations and these claims must be dealt with in accordance with the act.
[Stage Direction]
better qualified than any arbitrator could be to come to a sound decision and that even if the others insisted as is their right to take their cases to the court it is extremely unlikely, assuming that the circumstances in most if not all of the other cases are very similar, if not identical, with the Hatton case that they would improve their position by doing so. On the other hand, if arbitration were adopted then each one of them would have to come forward with an expert valuation of his property and this inevitably would involve considerable expense to each of them both for the services of a valuator and also for counsel.
The foregoing is not intended to be exhaustive and I will be pleased to discuss this aspect of the matter with you in Banff.
Dealing with the suggestion I made to you regarding a further attempt to reach agreement, I respect that we would welcome an opportunity to meet with the owners in question for the purpose of discussing their valuations and the valuations which have already been made as indicated to you in the minister's letter of July 19. For such a meeting to be fruitful I think it would be necessary for the owners to be prepared to present their own valuations in detail, supported by such expert opinion as they see fit to secure. As I have already said I would arrange to attend such a meeting myself.
It is fully recognized that there are a number of unfortunate aspects to this matter which are extremely regrettable. These include the rather serious delays which have taken place; the fact that under the Expropriation Act we are bound by valuations as of the date of expropriation notwithstanding the fact that in some, if not all, cases the value of properties in the Malton area have risen considerably since that time; and also the fact that, apparently it would not be legally possible to take into account in fixing compensation the "conditional grants" under the V.L.A.
As I also mentioned to you, while we have received, I think in each case, a statement of the total sum which each owner would accept we have had no breakdown of these figures and it would be extremely helpful for our purposes if these could be provided.
We would appreciate receiving, in due course, the names of all the individuals on whose behalf you are intervening in this matter. I understand that you will be sending these to me.
Many thanks for your letter of August 27, just received with this information.
Yours very truly,
C. S. Booth.
11, 1959
Malton Airport Land Appropriation (Copy)
5168-648 1st October, 1957.
John Pallett, Esq., M.P.,
34 Lakeshore Road,
Port Credit, Ontario.
Dear John;
This is further to our discussion of a couple of weeks ago regarding the settlement of the claims, as listed in your letter of August 27, to Mr. Booth, of certain soldier settlers and others at Malton.
My understanding of your proposal was that if new appraisals were made by a valuator acceptable to you, the owners in question would agree to be bound by his valuation.
Your proposal for a valuator was Mr. Earl Claire of Port Credit and I am happy to be able to tell you that we have now arranged for Mr. Claire to undertake this work. He has been in hospital but I understand he will begin his appraisals next week.
I would appreciate receiving from you, as soon as conveniently posible, the written undertakings of the owners to be bound by Mr. Claire's valuations. When these valuations are received, I will proceed along the lines indicated to you in our discussion.
Yours sincerely,
George Hees.
(Copy)

[Stage Direction]
October 3rd, 1957. The Honourable George Hees,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear George:
Re: Malton Airport Expropriations
I received your letter today, and would point out that the valuator's name is James Earl Scott Clare, and I am pleased that he is satisfactory to the members of your department.
This evening the forms are being delivered to the owners to obtain their signatures. In the forms that are to be signed, there is a provision that the vendors agree only to be bound by the valuation if the amount is paid within two months after the valuation is made. This latter provision is to help speed things along a little bit.
Kindest personal regards.
Yours very truly,
John Pallett, M.P.
[Stage Direction]
Malton Airport Land Appropriation (Copy)
October 7, 1957. John C. Pallett, Esq., M.P.,
Messrs. Pallett and Pallett,
Solicitors,
Port Credit, Ontario.
Dear John:
Thank you for your letter of October 3rd relating to the Malton expropriations.
As mentioned by Mr. Booth in his telephone conversation with you this morning the time limit of two months may be cutting it rather fine and we would much prefer to have two months after the owners have signed their respective options at the valuations in question.
However, I understand that some have already signed and it would be difficult for you to go back to them now. I also understand that the documents they have signed provide for payment within two months after the valuations have been submitted to me.
I have been advised that barring unforeseen difficulties we shall be able to complete the formalities within this time limit and under the circumstances I agree to proceeding in the manner you have arranged.
Yours sincerely,
George Hees.
HOUSE OF COMMONS PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
Ottawa, October 24, 1957. The Hon. George Hees,
Minister of Transport,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear George:
Re: Malton Airport Expropriations
I hate to bother you with such things, but I have had a telephone call and a telegram; Bill Beach has had telephone calls; and apparently Speers, the land agent in Toronto, has made the statement that he-and not the minister-is running the department in Toronto.
I have had a talk with Earl Clare, whom you appointed for the purpose of evaluating small holdings, and he tells me that Speers was in Ottawa today, apparently with some proposal to the deputy minister or assistant deputy minister that Clare be taken off the job.
Clare has already promoted the public relations of the Department of Transport more than the land agents have done in the last three and a half years. He has taken the time to examine each house and sit down and talk over the valuations which the owners want, with each owner. Needless to say, he will come to his own valuation.
I have known Clare for many many years and he is not going to be influenced by Speers
[Stage Direction]
or any home owners. You may or may not hear of this through your deputies but, if so, I suggest that they be told in no uncertain terms that Speers is to get off Clare's back and let him do the valuations in his own way; if not, it defeats the purpose of appointing him.
No answer is expected and this, I suggest, might be ripped up and thrown away. Yours sincerely,
John,
John Pallett, M.P.
(Copy)
October 30, 1957.
John Pallett, Esq., M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear John:
Thanks for your letter of October 24th, regarding Malton airport. I have noted carefully what you have said about Mr. Clare.
With very best regards.
Yours sincerely,
George Hees.
(Copy)
(By Hand)
HOUSE OF COMMONS Canada
Ottawa, December 9, 1957.
Mr. Mel Jack,
Executive Assistant to the Minister of Transport,
Ottawa.
Re: Malton Airport
Dear Mel:
I am forwarding to you herewith a letter addressed to Mr. Hees and valuations regarding the above. Copies of these valuations have been sent to Mr. Speers, the Toronto agent of the Department.
Yours sincerely,
John Pallett, M.P. (Copy)
December 16, 1957. Mr. John Pallett, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Dear Mr. Pallett:
This will acknowledge your letter of December 9th, with which you forwarded the valuations relating to the Malton airport, and which have been placed before the minister. Yours very truly,
M. R. Jack, Executive Assistant.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 12, 1959

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