1959-06-12

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in English and in French of a further report which I have received from the chairman of the tariff board relating to reference No. 125 on textiles. I am tabling also a transcript of the evidence presented to the board at its public hearings. This report relates to silk and its products and to man-made fibres and their products. As hon. members know, real silk has long since been reduced to a minor role as compared with synthetic fibres.
Two of the most important of the manmade fibres-viscose and acetate-are derivatives of wood pulp. Most of the others are true synthetics, based on petrochemicals or other hydrocarbons. The tariff board report traces the development of these man-made fibres and describes the increasingly important place which they have come to occupy in the textile industry. It finds that the share of the Canadian market filled by these fibres expanded very rapidly and without any serious interruption from the time of their introduction in the early 20's until 1951. It notes, however, that in the last seven or eight years the adoption of new processes and improved finishes in the cotton industry, coupled with a decline in the price of cotton and wool from the levels which prevailed in 1950, have tended to check the gains being made by synthetic fibres. The board also notes that new technological developments have been taking place at such a rapid pace within the synthetics industry that it may be described as one which is "constantly devouring its own young". The new "miracle fibre" of one day is superseded in public esteem and consumer acceptance by the newer one of tomorrow. This continuity of eclipse, born of invention and discovery, may have left some sections of the industry with excess or obsolescent capacity.
In this report the board has brought together a great deal of valuable information regarding the man-made fibre industry in Canada; its size, its location, its importance in the economy and the state of its financial health. The picture which emerges is one
of diversity rather than uniformity. For this reason the board found it difficult to make unqualified generalizations about the industry. In the report, however, it points out that the industry faces much the same problems as were referred to at length in the report on cotton textiles which I tabled in this house on February 11 of this year, and it emphasizes the following features of the situation:
(1)	There is evidence of world-wide overcapacity for the production and processing of man-made fibres; in the board's view, certain units within the Canadian industry are, by any realistic standard, overexpanded.
(2)	The industry serves a highly selective market, which demands a wide variety in type, construction and finish of products. The efforts of Canadian mills to meet this demand result in shorter runs and higher unit costs than are typical in the United States, their main source of competition.
(3)	In general, the Canadian tariff affords a higher level of protection to the synthetic textile industry than is accorded to the producers of corresponding forms of cotton or wool products. However, this protection varies widely from product to product.
(4)	In recent years, at least, important sections of the industry have not been very profitable.
(5)	None the less, the Canadian man-made fibre industry and the branch of the weaving industry based upon man-made fibres hold a larger share of the domestic market than does either the Canadian cotton industry or the Canadian wool industry.
The board after much deliberation has concluded that anything in the nature of a general increase in customs duties on man-made fibres and products thereof could not be justified. What recommendations it is prepared to make relate largely to proposed adjustments within the existing framework of tariff protection. The recommendations represent an attempt to achieve a more equitable distribution of the protection available within the present general level of duties, and to remove certain anomalies which now exist. The recommendations also provide for the introduction of a simpler and more logical arrangement of the tariff items.
I should now like to say a word about the main changes. One of these relates to acetate filament yarns. The board finds that the special situation which led to the introduction


be negotiated. Accordingly the way is now clear for us to proceed with these negotiations. They may be expected, however, to occupy some time, since no fewer than 15 countries are involved. I shall, of course, be reporting to the house when the negotiations have been concluded.



REFERENCE OF REPORTS OF WHEAT BOARD AND GRAIN COMMISSION TO AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE

Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, if I have unanimous consent I move:
That the annual report of the Canadian wheat board for the crop year ended July 31, 1958, which was tabled on February 6, and the report of the board of grain commissioners for 1958, which was tabled on March 23, and the supplementary report of the Canadian wheat board on the 1957-58 pool accounts for wheat, oats and barley, tabled today, be referred to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister could inform the house if there is likely to be any adjustment in parliamentary business on June 25 and June 26 to permit members to attend the opening of the seaway?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, while I had no notice of this question, I was thinking of bringing this matter up myself. I feel that if the house should feel constrained to do so, and as I suggested earlier, we might adjourn either for both those days or for a portion of those days, depending upon the wishes of hon. members opposite. I do not want to suggest anything which might in any way be construed by them as an interference with the business of the house, but if there is general consent in that regard then I would certainly feel, under all the circumstances, that there could be no complaint on the part of anyone if the members of the house agreed on the need for an adjournment in order to permit them to participate as they would desire to do.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, if I may make a brief comment, if it is the wish of the Prime Minister to introduce such a motion the members of the C.C.F. party in this house will support the motion. However, we feel that in so far as is possible the house

Inquiries of the Ministry
should devote itself to the public business the problem of the appointment of a secretary which is before us, and so our suggestion is of state for external affairs, would he inform that the adjournment be for the minimum the house when we might expect to hear time necessary to allow members to attend about the appointment of parliamentary the seaway celebrations.	assistants?


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that invitations have been sent to some 4,000 or 5,000 persons for the opening on, I believe, June 26. While I do not want to do other than indicate what is in my mind at present, for what it is worth, it would seem to me that on that day at least perhaps parliament might rise and take part in these ceremonies wherever they may be. I understand some of them will be in Montreal and others elsewhere. Then again there is, as Your Honour knows, the Canadian-United States interparliamentary group which will be here for at least three days, one of those days being June 26, and so far as we on this side of the house are concerned it would seem that if the government feel that two days should be taken, that will be a matter for the government to determine. But it would strike me that at least the day on which Her Majesty the Queen and the President of the United States will be in Canada to inaugurate the seaway might well be an occasion for the adjournment of the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it would not be a question of what the government would desire, but in view of what has been stated by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia I take it the general feeling is that the adjournment should be for only one day. The government will be only too pleased to make the necessary motion. As a matter of fact, if I can take it the suggestion will be accepted, it might not be necessary to have the formality of a motion. I would simply refer to it on Monday, and with unanimous consent of the house, sir, the adjournment could be restricted to one day, the 26th. After all, we do not want to be placed in a position-and when I say "we" I mean the members of the house as a whole -of adjourning beyond that period which is absolutely necessary under all the circumstances.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Perhaps the Prime Minister, in the last few minutes, has been considering another matter about which I should like to ask him a question. Now that he has solved 66968-9-294


John George Diefenbaker: It is interesting to hear my hon. friend ask that question, because it was he who suggested there should be no appointments made at this session. However, when the government is in a position to make an announcement the house will be made fully aware, not only of the appointments but of the identity of the appointees.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
the Prime Minister, if no appointments are made before the end of the session, will the appointment of parliamentary assistants be made long ahead of the next session?


John George Diefenbaker: There will be no appointments made of parliamentary assistants. The position is parliamentary secretary.
LLater:]


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if parliamentary secretaries are not appointed before the end of this session will they be appointed well ahead of the next session or near it or during the beginning of the next session of parliament?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I suggest that the hon. member might ask this question on the last day of the session. At the present time it is hypothetical.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easi):: Mr. Speaker, with great respect I do not believe it is hypothetical. The House of Commons has dealt with the matter; it has been dealt with elsewhere. All it requires now is assent, and we want to know whether the hon. gentlemen who are anxiously awaiting appointments are to be satisfied before the end of this session.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you waiting for?


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the hon. member's point of order and I still think it is hypothetical.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The appointments are hypothetical.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I
direct a question to the Prime Minister. May I ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to table the judgment of Mr. Justice Thorson in the Drew case?

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have not got it here.
I think yesterday the hon. gentleman had it, or the Leader of the Opposition had it, and I would have no objection whatever to either of them tabling a copy of the judgment, since it is a public document.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask this supplementary question. The Prime Minister did undertake to table it-


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and I will.


Lionel Chevrier: While it is true that I had a copy, it is not an original. I think for the purposes of the house the original judgment should be tabled.


John George Diefenbaker: I shall be glad to do that. I cannot table the copy I have because I have marked it up, but on Monday I shall do so.



POLYMER CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: In the absence of the Minister of Labour I wonder if I could direct question to the Acting Minister of Labour. I wonder if the minister would care to comment on press reports that the long drawn out strike at Sarnia, at the Polymer Corporation, is approaching a settlement and that progress has been made in these negotiations?


Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Acting Minister of Labour):: I do not think I should comment on that report. If the hon. member will wait until the Minister of Labour returns I am sure he is in possession of all the facts relevant to the matter.



HEALTH INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. Is the minister in a position to report on what progress is being made toward providing British Columbia residents with either outpatient or chronic hospital care, as allowed for under the national health insurance act?


Hon. J. W. Monteifh (Minister of National Healih and Welfare):: I should like to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question. The British Columbia hospital insurance regulations provide for qualified persons to receive emergency services within 24 hours of being accidentally injured, or to receive minor
[Mr. Chevrier.)
surgery, both on an outpatient basis. A charge of $2 is made to such person in each instance. Provision is made for extending the 24 hour period relating to emergency outpatient services by the deputy minister of hospital insurance if he is satisfied that emergency services could not be obtained within 24 hours of the accident taking place.
British Columbia makes available insured benefits for the active treatment of chronic illness or disability when, in the opinion of the deputy minister of hospital insurance, the inpatient facilities of a general hospital are required. No proposals have been received from British Columbia to extend outpatient or chronic hospital care benefits.


Erhart Regier: I wonder if I might ask another question. Is our contention correct that hospital care on a general basis is not available to patients with chronic diseases in British Columbia because of reticence on the part of the federal government?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, I do not think that contention is correct at all.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Norihumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister anything further to add in reply to the question I asked him the other day with regard to the signing of an agreement between New Brunswick and the federal government concerning the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. The news this morning carries the story that there are difficulties arising in connection with the Montreal-Kingston pilots who, because of unsatisfactory conditions, are threatening to strike. I wonder if the minister has any comment to make on that report.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. A number of points relating to pilotage in the Montreal harbour and between Montreal and Kingston have been brought forward for consideration and were in fact the subject of a special meeting with the pilots' representative yesterday.

Involved are such matters as facilities for waiting pilots at St. Lambert's lock; improved dispatching arrangements with regard to the canal itself; new rate schedules which have been approved by the pilotage authority and put into effect on a preliminary basis, but which have not yet been ratified by the governor in council; apprentice pilots in the Kingston district, and similar matters.
These are all being followed up by the pilotage officials, and while some may require continuing study the more important ones should be possible of rapid solution.



INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. H. Phillips (Prince):: In view of the fact that a week has passed since I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he would consider tabling correspondence between Premier Matheson of Prince Edward Island and his department with regard to the province's proposed hospital insurance plan, is the minister now in a position to make this correspondence available?


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, Mr. Speaker. Immediately following the request made by the hon. member a week ago today I wired the premier of Prince Edward Island, as is customary under the circumstances, asking permission to table the correspondence. As of this date I have received no reply.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twil-lingate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if he is in a position today to comply with the order of the house made on March 25, in view of the fact that his estimates are coming up and that what was asked for is likely to be desired for reference purposes during consideration of his estimates.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt if I can do it today. I know that progress has been made with the copying. I expect to be able to do it very shortly, and will endeavour to comply before my estimates are completed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the correspondence that voluminous?


Edmund Davie Fulton: The correspondence is quite voluminous. As I told my hon. friend, correspondence both in support of the course taken and against has been received and in view of my hon. friend's careful selection of the correspondence it was necessary to go through quite a sorting process.
66968-9-294 J
12, 1959	4637
Inquiries of the Ministry HARBOURS



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. Payne (Coast-Capilano):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, a copy of which has been forwarded to him. During the budget debate I brought to the minister's attention the urgent need for future planning in connection with Vancouver harbour. Since then I have had many discussions with the minister regarding this matter. Is the minister now in a position to say anything as to present and future planning to meet the needs of Canada's greatest year-round port?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, who has taken such a keen and continuing interest in this subject, will be happy to learn that I have approved in principle recommendations made by the national harbours board for a study of the present and future needs of Vancouver harbour. In general the study, which it is tentatively planned will be on an interdepartmental basis, will relate to review of harbour facilities, matters of channel dredging, the building of foreshore areas in the municipalities bordering the harbour, and the selection of new industrial sites. The matter of a terminal railway servicing the greater Vancouver industrial area and the problem of developing adequate approach roads to the main waterfront will also be studied.
I should like to add that such studies with regard to long range future development are in line with national harbours board policy in relation to the various harbours under the board's jurisdiction.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister; I was unable to send him notice. Can the Prime Minister say whether any study has been made of the report that the Ford Motor Company of the United States has made an offer to purchase up to 75 per cent of the equity stock of the Ford Motor Company of Canada? Has any study been given to the effect of this further control of Canadian industry by an outside corporation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is asking a question about a matter

Inquiries of the Ministry which is beyond the administrative responsibility of the government. Surely this is a private transaction.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker some time ago the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Argue) inquired about a newspaper report to the effect that there had been a delay in assigning a Canadian co-operative expert to India under the Colombo plan.
The newspaper report is not entirely accurate. The request was for an expert to produce a series of films on co-operative activities in India. It was also suggested that we supply film equipment valued at $50,000, which would be required for the project. The suggestion is receiving the attention of our Colombo plan officials.
At no stage in our discussions with the Indian authorities has there been any reluctance about helping the co-operative movement, nor any question about the importance of co-operatives in India. Encouraging progress along co-operative lines is recognized as a reasonable objective of the Colombo plan program, and considerable assistance in this field has already been extended by Canada to a number of Colombo plan countries, including India. An expert on co-operatives was sent to advise the government of India from 1956 to 1958. A group of co-operative officers from seven countries, including India, is now visiting Canada under the Colombo plan to study the work being done in this country.


RUSH-BAGOT TREATY    TABLING OF EXCHANGE OF NOTES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the request made yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition I am tabling the exchange of notes which took place earlier this year between Canada and the United States, indicating that a United States proposal to carry out a good-will cruise with 28 United States naval vessels in the great lakes is not inconsistent with the spirit of the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 as applied and interpreted by an exchange of notes in 1946.
In requesting that these notes be tabled the Leader of the Opposition suggested that this exchange of notes modified in some way the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 concerning naval forces on the great lakes. I should like

to make it quite clear that this is not the case. An agreed application and interpretation of the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 formed the subject of an exchange of notes between Canada and the United States in 1946. This exchange is to be found in the Canadian treaty series of 1946, No. 40. As a matter of fact, each year Canada and the United States indicate to each other their respective intentions to carry out naval training exercises in the great lakes.
Perhaps the house would wish that these notes be printed in Hansard. If so there would be no objection to that being done.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house that the exchange of notes be printed in Hansard as suggested?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[For text of notes referred to above, see appendix.1


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask a supplementary question. I thank the minister for the information he has given. Is it the case that this exchange of notes in 1946, with which I was familiar, permits the introduction into the great lakes of any number of United States warships in any circumstances?


Howard Charles Green: Oh, no, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, it does not go that far; but there is a very significant phrase in the note from Canada in 1946 with which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would heartily agree. The note reads in part as follows:
It has been recognized by both our governments that the detailed provisions of the Rush-Bagot agreement are not applicable to present day conditions, but that as a symbol of friendly relations extending over a period of nearly 130 years the agreement possesses great historic importance. It is thus the spirit of the agreement rather than its detailed provisions which serves to guide our governments in matters relating to naval forces on the great lakes.
I think that is an outstanding statement, and it is in that spirit that the exchange of notes earlier this year took place.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to ask the minister a question. Has the government of the United States agreed to the request made by the seaway authority or the minister, I am not sure which, that these ships proceed through the seaway at the rate of two a day?


Howard Charles Green: Discussions are still going on between the two governments with respect to that question.


BOX CARS-INQUIRY AS TO ACTION ON REPORT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Can the minister say whether the government is prepared to take any action on the royal commission recommendation with regard to box cars; in particular, has the minister received representations from the three prairie wheat pools in this regard?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under active consideration and I-


Lionel Chevrier: And has been for months.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And has been for months. Of course this is a problem which is beyond the understanding of my hon. friend from Laurier, but it is very important to the people out in western Canada.


Mr. Mcllrailh:: Grow up.


Lionel Chevrier: It took a year for the report; it is not beyond anybody else's understanding.


Gordon Minto Churchill: If the hon. member wants to make a speech I will sit down and let him carry on.


Lionel Chevrier: Sure I will.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He is quite vocal today, but he does not know very much about western Canada, and he has no representatives from there with him in this house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It will not be long before we will have them.


Jay Waldo Monteith: The hon. member for Essex East is the agricultural representative.


Lionel Chevrier: You are a little embarrassed about box cars.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt whether the hon. member knows one end of a box car from another. Mr. Speaker, this matter is under consideration and before the house rises this summer I expect to have an announcement of interest not only to the house but to the farmers of western Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has been saying that for some months.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No; I was going to ask a supplementary question.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether the government is considering any action in this regard which would affect the supply and distribution of box cars in the present crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt very much whether any action in this regard will affect the distribution of box cars before July 31, but the box car situation is not a pressing one at the present time at all.


Hazen Robert Argue: Does the minister not feel that action in this regard is necessary in order that quotas shall be equalized by the end of July?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Assiniboia, who argues from a persistent haze, has tried to indicate that there is something wrong with the quota system out in western Canada and has been very critical of the wheat board in charge of that quota system. But last year, before the conclusion of the crop year, all stations were on a 6 or 7-bushel quota. We are ahead this year in the quota situation, and I think before July 31 the same situation will prevail.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the minister say whether the quotas will be equalized?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There again it is up to the Canadian wheat board to give us that information. I have not the information here, nor has the hon. member. The quotas were brought up to 6 and 7 bushels last year, and that was as close as they could come to exact equalization. I appreciate the fact that my hon. friend wants everybody to be exactly the same, no matter what the situation is.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the minister can tell the house precisely what is the difference between one end of a box car and another?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I expected a question like that from my prairie schooner friend.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker,
I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister advise the house of the situation in southern Saskatchewan in regard to pasture and hay? Has the government given consideration to instituting, in co-operation with the province, a scheme similar to that in operation last year to provide assistance in the movement of hay into dry areas and cattle out of them?

Supply-Transport


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minisier of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as I think most members of the house are aware, conditions have been very dry in southern Saskatchewan this year. Fortunately there have been some rains. I think about three days ago, on June 9, there were rains ranging down from something like two-thirds of an inch in Regina which has carried the situation forward for the next few days. However, it is apparent that there will be an extremely short hay crop even if we get good rains from now on. If there is reasonable moisture, of course, that deficiency can be made up by the planting of green feed, and thus I think it is a little early as yet to say what we should do in the way of an assistance program such as we had last year.
The minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan has been in touch with me in connection with this matter and I have told him that if the situation becomes worse we, of course, shall be prepared to go ahead on much the same basis as we did last year in assisting in the movement of hay into the dry areas and cattle out of those areas.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Sevigny in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air services-
425.	Construction services administration, $2,809,785.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I had asked the minister a question last night about the component elements of this vote, and then there were some eulogistic statements made and the minister did not have a chance to answer me. Perhaps he will do so now.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I do not remember the question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be very glad to assist the minister by repeating my question. This vote is for practically $3 million. The minister suggested that it was for overhead. It struck me as rather high from that point of view, and I wondered whether a little more thorough explanation should not be given.


George Harris Hees: The explanation of the vote is that it is for the salaries of 506 positions on the engineering, technical and clerical staff and the other office and field expenses of the air services construction branch, Ottawa headquarters and in six air services regions. This organization supervises the construction of and major repairs to various types of installations and equipment required in the maintenance of airways and is engaged from time to time in certain activities related to the housing
of employees of the telecommunications and meteorological branches. This organization also supervises the construction of landing strips and facilities on behalf of the Department of National Defence. Treasury board in December, 1958 approved the absorption by transport of the salary costs of 100 positions formerly shown as recoverable from national defence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: So, to put it very briefly, it is in fact purely overhead. No costs of construction as such are included.


George Harris Hees: We call it supervision, administration and engineering.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is a businessman and in business that is what would be called overhead.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telecommunications branch-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
426.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $16,628,508.
Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw the minister's attention to one or two factors concerning the operation of Canadian National Telegraphs and their management of the northern communications system in the Yukon and British Columbia.
The Department of Transport and Canadian National Telegraphs constitute the second largest federal government employer in the Yukon, and questions relating to the welfare of personnel are very important. Certain unintentional, I am sure, discriminations exist in the northern allowance regulations in various sectors of the operations of Canadian National Telegraphs. I quite realize that Canadian National Telegraphs is a crown corporation and that any regulations concerning northern allowances must be arrived at as a result of discussion and agreement between Canadian National Railways and the telegraphers' union, and that any change in allowances can only be made as the result of negotiations between the management of the company and the union.
However, perhaps it might be suggested to the management of Canadian National that they take the initiative in bringing this matter to a head. C.N.T. employees in the north are required to live under the same conditions as other government employees, yet they are not given the same treatment extended to employees of the Department of Transport. Northern allowances are a factor which could be improved so far as employees of Canadian National Telegraphs in the Yukon are concerned.

Another matter which would bear some investigation is the question of housing for C.N.T. employees, particularly the standard of housing, the rents charged and the facilities offered in relation to the housing supplied to other federal government employees in the area. As I have said, I realize that Canadian National Telegraphs is a crown corporation and a separate entity, but again I urge the minister to consider action to place C.N.T. employees on a plane equal to that of other government employees in the area. This applies not only to housing and northern allowances but to all other benefits. As I view the matter, Mr. Chairman, the only way any effective action can be taken is for the minister to suggest to the management of the C.N.R. that they take the initiative in bringing about these improvements.
The other matter I wish to raise under this item is the question of communications between White Horse and north central and northern Yukon. I am referring now specifically to the implementation of land lines communications between these points.
Several years ago, under the previous administration, the capital of the Yukon was moved from Dawson City down to Whitehorse. The excuse given was that Dawson City lacked the communications necessary to support the capital, and the people there still remember this. Their argument was, why were the communications not brought up to that area? I have been urging for about two years now that the department implement land lines communications to Dawson City and the Mayo area, including Elsa, Calumet and Keno.
Apart from the essential services that communications themselves provide the people in those areas, it is of advantage from this point of view; that C.B.C. radio is possible on an economic basis only if land line facilities are available. Low power repeater transmitters can be installed to give coverage to these areas if land lines are established, but not otherwise. Favourable consideration of this submission in the near future could well result in favourable consideration by the C.B.C. of the application for extension of their radio service to this area.
Now, should the Canadian National decide to go ahead with the construction of land line facilities, I have one further point to make. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that Canadian National Telegraphs should not be undertaking the construction of new facilities in competition with private enterprise. I do not believe there would be any quarrel in so far as the maintenance of existing facilities of the crown corporation are concerned.
Supply-Transport
However, when it comes to new construction I feel that a line should be drawn and the government should not enter into open competition with private enterprise. I refer now to the construction of the pole lines.
Should the minister and the Canadian National management feel that the construction of additional communication facilities is justified, I submit these new pole lines should be constructed by private enterprise under tender. The same remarks apply to the construction of new buildings. For many years the Canadian National has been constructing new buildings and has been contracting all the subtrades on a day labour basis. I feel that this is wrong. I feel that this type of construction should be done by public tender.
This would eliminate the undesirable practice which has existed for so long in the past of the government competing with private contractors. This is doubly important in a frontier area such as the Yukon where small contractors are struggling for existence and trying to build themselves up to a point where they can handle anything that comes along. The growth of small, independent contractors should be fostered and developed by wise government policies. I would suggest that one of these government policies should be the cessation of competition which is now being undertaken by government agencies, such as Canadian National Telegraphs, with private enterprise.
There are three questions I desire to ask, Mr. Chairman, but I do not suggest that the information could be supplied today. I should like to know the landed cost of poles used by Canadian National Telegraphs at Watson lake, at Whitehorse and at mile 1202. It is my belief that local timber and local labour could be used to supply these poles for construction work now being carried on in the Yukon, rather than the utilization of poles from outside sources. When I say "outside" I mean British Columbia or Alberta.
The other specific question, Mr. Chairman, refers to the profits of the northwest communications system during the last fiscal year. I should like to know what those profits were. In this connection I am wondering whether it is the intention of Canadian National Telegraphs to publish an annual report somewhat similar to that published by the Northern Transportation Company, Polymer and other crown corporations. It may be of advantage to have that information. These are the specific questions I have, Mr. Chairman, but as I say it is not essential that I have the information immediately. If it is supplied to me later on I will be quite happy.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: This is a very large vote, as the minister knows. I wonder whether he would not give the committee some breakdown. We all agree that radio aids to air and marine navigation are extremely important to the telecommunications branch of the department, but vote 426 as well as the next one are extremely important. These votes together amount to almost $30 million, and I think in fairness to the committee we should not let these two items, which are so substantial, go through without a more detailed explanation from the minister. I wonder if he would not deal first with item 426?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. This appropriation provides for the administration, operation and maintenance of radio aids to air and marine navigation. Radio aids servicing aircraft extend from Newfoundland to the Yukon Territory along routes used by T.C.A., C.P.A., Maritime Central Airways, Pacific Western and other Canadian air lines as well as foreign air lines flying over Canadian territory, and Canadian and United States military aircraft.
Facilities comprise 136 air radio stations, including 97 LF radio ranges, 6 YHF radio ranges, 50 beacons, 10 fan markers, 28 ILS systems with 31 associated beacons, 7 messing establishments for employees at remote locations and 6 shops for servicing radio in departmental aircraft. The radio aids serving vessels may be divided into four groups; on the west coast, on the great lakes, and on the east coast; gulf of St. Lawrence, Hudson bay and straits, serving vessels of Canadian and foreign registry. The facilities comprise 95 marine radio stations including 34 coast stations, 56 beacons, 11 coast stations which also provide a direction finding service, 6 Loran stations, 174 lighthouse radiotelephone installation, 8 messing establishments for employees at remote locations, and facilities to maintain the radio equipment on 56 government vessels.


Lionel Chevrier: I wonder if I could inquire just what the position is with reference to new aids on additional routes. Has the department established new beams and new aids on additional routes in the far north or in the eastern Arctic?


George Harris Hees: There is a steady expansion
right across the country and into the eastern Arctic as well. If the hon. member would like more details I will get them.


Lionel Chevrier: What I should like to know is this. There is an increase of $2,500,000 in this vote. First I should like to know whether instrument landing systems have been established at all the large airports or IMr. Nielsen.]
whether ground countrol is being substituted for them. Where are ground control approaches installed? Is the one at Gander operating satisfactorily?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. That is the only one where ground control approach has been established.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention to substitute ground control approach for the I.L.S. at other main airports of Canada?


George Harris Hees: Not to substitute them but to
add them.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some
indication as to where the ground control approaches, which I understand are superior to the I.L.S., will be installed?


George Harris Hees: No. This program is under
study at the present time. There is nothing new in this year's estimates for it.


Lionel Chevrier: I note that in the minister's
statement some mention is made of the Loran stations. I take it that these are stations which have been taken over from the United States in Newfoundland and perhaps in other parts of Canada where the United States was operating.	Can the minister give us
the location of these stations and what is the cost incidental to their operation?


George Harris Hees: Yes. Those are United States
marine stations that date back to world war II. The locations are Newfoundland, Labrador and British Columbia.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the northwest
staging route?	Is provision for the air
services for that route as well as the eastern passage contained in this vote?


George Harris Hees: Yes; all radio aids for airways
are included in this vote.


The Chairman:: Shall vote 426 carry?


Mr. Fisher:: I wanted to raise one matter
just to try to get a bit more information. It all revolves around the several tragic accidents that took place in connection with oil drilling rigs. Specifically, an accident took place in lake Erie in November, 1958 in which a number of lives were lost. The inquest did not make specifically clear where the blame lay. Subsequently there was some discussion as to the radio facilities that were available to the men on the rig and as to their adequacy.
I have checked with the officials of the department and they have satisfied me that in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned, there was no great responsibility; but the attorney general of Ontario had undertaken in the provincial legislative assembly -I have forgotten the date but I think it

was February 3, 1959-to have an investigation into the matter. I just wondered whether the minister can inform me whether the case has been reopened in any way or whether further checks have been made to discover whether all reasonable precautions were taken in this particular case in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned. Can he give some idea as to whether, from the point of view of the Department of Transport, things have been tightened up for the future? There are more oil rigs out in the lake at the present time, and we would hate to see a repetition of that particular disaster.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that they had their own radio installation which was properly licensed, but that there is upon them no requirement to have a radio installation of this kind. They had one, however, and it was properly licensed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The story was that it was quite inadequate for the job and was not able to contact anyone in time or could not do so. As a matter of fact, according to one of the stories at the inquest it was not operating at the time. Since the lives of these men in such a position are in constant jeopardy in a lake such as this, I was just wondering whether the Department of Transport could not make a closer check or work more closely with the Canada labour relations board or whatever the authority is which has the responsibility from the point of view of safety.


George Harris Hees: I do not believe we have any jurisdiction in a case of this kind to require the company to operate any differently from the way in which they choose to operate. It is their responsibility.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, as I understand the matter neither the provincial government nor the federal government has accepted responsibility in this particular case, or at least it had not been defined. That was, in effect, the admission of the attorney general. Here you have a complicated situation where a provincial department of labour is involved and perhaps the federal Department of Labour. You have the whole question of something operating out in marine channels, a matter which surely comes under the Department of Transport. You have the question of the use of radio facilities, a matter which surely comes under the Department of Transport.
It would be a pity if we had a repetition of this kind of tragedy merely because somebody said, "It is not our responsibility to take the initiative". All I should like to know is whether you are showing any initiative in trying to make sure that this type of accident does not occur again. It does not 66968-9-295
Supply-Transport
seem to me that it is enough to say, "This is not our jurisdiction" inasmuch as it is partially your jurisdiction.


George Harris Hees: In view of what the hon. member has said, Mr. Chairman, and in view of the importance of this matter we shall be glad to look into it and see what can be done. We will give the hon. member a report later on.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Shall vote 426 carry?


Mr. Stewari:: Mr. Chairman, I had a few observations to make with respect to radiotelephone equipment used by fishermen, but possibly that matter comes under item 428.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
427.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,044,100.
Lionel Chevrier: This vote, which is again a very large one, has to do with the construction of works relative to the telecommunications branch. Will the minister not give the committee some idea of what is included in it.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to do so, Mr. Chairman. The breakdown is as follows: the visual omni-range program, $582,000; instrument landing systems, $867,000; radar, $692,000; low and high frequency aids, $3,795,250; communications, $5,470,845; living accommodation, $1,913,500; miscellaneous aids to navigation, $2,012,650; construction or acquisition of equipment, $778,150.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that mean that we are still continuing to install I.L.S. stations at certain airports?


George Harris Hees: Yes, and we are expanding the system.


Lionel Chevrier: How do you find the I.L.S.
working as opposed to the ground control approach system?


George Harris Hees: It is an improved international system which works well. The ground approach is a supplement.


Lionel Chevrier: I would think it is the other way around. I would think the I.L.S. is a good system but that it is gradually becoming obsolete and is being supplanted in international air service by the ground control approach which, of course, is far more expensive than the other systems. While I.I. S. is good up to a certain point, I wonder why more money is being spent on I.L.S. if, ns I believe-and I may be wrong-the I.L.S. is becoming obsolete and will become obsolete in the not too distant future.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that I.L.S. is still the basic requirement and it is approved and recognized as such by the international civil aviation organization.

Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: Why is it necessary to spend practically $4 million on low and high frequency facilities? Where would they be installed?


George Harris Hees: Airway beacons, marine beacons and a large variety of other installations. Does the hon. member want all the locations? I have them here.


Lionel Chevrier: No, but I would like an explanation as to why it is necessary to spend this substantial sum of money on high and low frequencies. Is it because there has been an increase in the services required?


George Harris Hees: Because these are still basic requirements for navigation, and this service is being steadily increased in the north and in other parts of the country.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give some explanation of the visual omni-range facilities which are included in this vote?


George Harris Hees: This is a new system, Mr. Chairman, which covers a 360 degree range instead of the previous 4-track.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Order. The hon. member for Port Arthur wishes to ask a question on item 428 but he has to be absent from the house for a few minutes. Is the committee agreeable to pass on to item 429 and then come back to item 428?


Mr. Stewart:: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak on item 428.


Joseph Pierre Albert Sévigny: Then we will proceed with 428.
Radio Act and regulations-
428.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,645,708.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the fishermen of my constituency who are great users of radiotelephone equipment, which equipment is most essential to the operation of the fleet, I would like at this time to thank the Minister of Transport and his officials for the consideration and understanding they have shown to the fishermen over the past year and a half. I realize, and I think they realize now, that certain regulations are necessary and certain restrictions must be imposed in order that the use of this equipment will not interfere with commercial or other uses. All I am asking on their behalf is that the department exercise a little leniency and consideration in the changing or evolving of regulations which they deem necessary so that hardship will not be imposed on these fishermen. Many of

the fishermen have purchased this equipment at considerable expense and sacrifice, and if they were asked in a quick changeover to purchase new equipment it would cause some considerable hardship. I am asking for this matter to be taken into account in consideration of this problem.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before the minister answers, if I understood correctly what the hon. member was saying I would like to join him in his appeal, because I do think this is an important matter. I understand why the department wants to do these things, and I am very sympathetic and I have found the department very sympathetic, I must say; but perhaps even a little more sympathy would be helpful.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman; I am very glad to accede to the very reasonable request of the two hon. members who have just spoken.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I have been inclined to get my feet tangled between the Department of Transport and the C.B.C. when it comes to television and radio stations, but I understand I have now landed in the right spot in making my remarks on this particular item, 428. The minister knows that the southern interior of British Columbia has not enjoyed Canadian television to date and has been looking forward to it very much. There is some piped-in United States television in one or two of the smaller cities, but early last year their hopes were raised by the announcement of the C.B.C. that C.B.C. television was going to be provided to the Ross-land-Trail area. I would like to quote briefly from an editorial in the Trail Times of June 28 in this respect, which reads in part as follows:
The opportunity to view Canadian television will be welcomed by west Kootenay citizens. The stuff they have been accustomed to viewing from U.S. T.V. stations is pretty low grade entertainment, and in any event has no Canadian tradition or viewpoint, particularly news-wise.
I might say, Mr Chairman, that the Trail Times on this occasion expresses the viewpoint of the large majority of the people in the constituency I have the honour to represent. However, nothing happened. Then the Trail chamber of commerce 'got somewhat concerned about the matter and wrote the C.B.C. as to the delay. Of course there are always local rumours about sites being obtained and engineering studies being made, but nothing very concrete. Then Mr. J. A. Ouimet wrote to this effect to the president of the Trail chamber of commerce:
Firstly, we have not yet been able to obtain a site to our satisfaction; secondly the estimate of time to establish network connection to such a station by

the telephone company is 12 to 18 months; and in the third place, since the new legislation came into effect last November, it is necessary for us to make application to the Department of Transport for authority to establish the station.
Then he went on to say:
We expect that this application will be considered by the new board of broadcast governors at its March meeting. Consequently there is no chance of this station being established before the royal visit; in fact it would look as if it could not be in operation until about mid-1960-
I might point out here, Mr. Chairman, that the original announcement was that it was expected to be in operation by mid-1959. Now, Mr. Chairman, the people of the district are very anxious to have these facilities at the earliest possible date. I have answered various letters and made various inquiries, but I would appreciate it if the minister would inform the house as to the reasons for the delay and say when the people of the district can expect television service to be provided.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am not clear as to the application that has been delayed. Is it an application to bring in C.B.C. television?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes.


George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid the hon. member will have to take that up with the minister who answers for the C.B.C. in the house, the Minister of National Revenue. He deals with all C.B.C. matters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: But Mr. Chairman, I am always getting involved between these two departments. Is not the minister's department responsible for the construction of the facilities and responsible for dealing with the telephone company which provides them?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I am wrong again. Does the same apply to the low power relay stations?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, I would like to get this cleared up once and for all. I have been wandering in a fog for years with respect to television.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. member sure it is not the minister?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister inform the house what are the responsibilities of his department with respect to the provision of television and radio facilities in Canada? What part of these projects does his department undertake? I made a special inquiry 66968-9-295J
Supply-Transport
about this and I was told I was right on the dot this morning, and I find once again I am off the beam.


George Harris Hees: We perform three functions. We allocate frequencies, we approve the technical plans of a company making an application, making sure they conform with engineering specifications, and we also issue licences on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In this correspondance the C.B.C. write to the chamber of commerce and say, giving one reason for the delay, that it is necessary for them to make application to the Department of Transport for authority to establish a station. Has the Department of Transport given the C.B.C. authority to establish this station?


George Harris Hees: My officials are not aware of any application having been received. We will check that.


Lionel Chevrier: If I may just interpose here, may I say that I am interested, in what the hon. member for Kootenay West has brought to the committee's attention. My understanding of the whole matter is that when an application is made for either radio or television facilities it is made to the Department of Transport, and it is this department, referring the matter to its technical officers, which determines first of all whether there is an area in which a station can be established. Having determined whether that area, that frequency, exists or not, it is then up to the Minister of National Revenue, who is responsible for the C.B.C. to bring an application before the board of governors to determine whether or not the submission of the private individual or public body should be approved. If the answer is in the affirmative, the matter goes back to the Department of Transport which issues the licence.
The construction, if I understand this rightly, is to be done by the applicant, and I do not think either of the departments is concerned with it, save that it must be carried out in accordance with the specifications of the Department of Transport.
I think it is important that we have that procedure clearly established, because I agree with the hon. member for Kootenay West that there is a lack of clarity about the duties of the two ministers. One has to do with the operations of the broadcasting corporation and the other with radio facilities. Perhaps the minister would supplement what I have said; I think that might be helpful.


George Harris Hees: No, I think the hon. member for Laurier is quite correct and that what he has stated is, in essence, what I said earlier. One might summarize the functions of the

Supply-Transport
two departments as follows. The Department of National Revenue, through the board of broadcast governors, deals with economic matters, and the Department of Transport deals with technical matters.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, that has been cleared up to some extent, thanks to the hon. member for Laurier, who I think has helped us out considerably.
Now I come to another question which fogs me up and I know it fogs up other members, too. That is the question of piped-in television. There is piped-in television in the cities of Nelson and Trail. Apparently it is possible for local companies to get licences from the Department of Transport, but the department does not exercise any control with respect to the prices charged. When you go to the public utilities commission in Victoria they say, "We exercise no control over this; it is licensed by the Department of Transport". There has been considerable complaint in this respect, and I should like to ask the minister if something could not be done in consultation with the appropriate provincial authorities in order that proper responsibility may be accepted.
It seems to me that the department which issues the licences, should have some control over the tariff and fees charged by the licensee.
I do not want to have the minister getting up too frequently and tiring himself out too soon, so my second question is this. I have received correspondence from people who want to establish what they call reflector stations. We have one or two co-operative groups in my constituency, and I understand they want to put a reflector on top of a mountain and reflect signals from the United States down to their patrons in the valleys below. I understand that permission to do this has been refused, because it is against a regulation, or against the law, or something of that kind.
Would the minister mind explaining to the committee the difference in the regulations in so far as they concern these two types of television and second, would he tell us whether something cannot be done with respect to continuity between licensing and the various charges which are being imposed by the organizers of piped-in television, charges which in some cases are exorbitant. A man pays $150 to have the installation in his house. Then he leaves and a new tenant comes in, and this new tenant is required to pay all the installation charges all over again. Then, third, I should like the minister to tell us what is the distinction between piped-in television and reflected television. I understood some time ago that the department

intended to investigate this system of reflected television and see what was to be done about it, but I am still as foggy as ever.


George Harris Hees: I tried as best I could to follow what the hon. member was saying. In the first place, we do not have any control over the tariffs which a company operating a piped-in television service can charge. That is a free enterprise operation and it is up to the municipality which will be served to decide whether or not the prices charger are fair and reasonable. If they are not, there is no obligation on anyone to subscribe to the service.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I am glad the minister mentioned that. Does he know of any municipalities which regulate the charges with respect to piped-in television?


George Harris Hees: When I said "municipality" I had in mind the people in the municipality Who are receiving the service. If they think the charge is too high they do not have to pay for it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Like the telephone; there is no regulation. What about the other question concerning this reflected television? Companies and small groups have made application for the right to instal what they call a reflector television station; they put reflectors on top of a mountain and reflect the program into the surrounding valleys. Rather that is what they would like to do, but they are not permitted to do it.


George Harris Hees: We issue licences for both piped-in television and reflector television, but we do not issue licences just to bring in United States programs of either type if a Canadian program is available. I think in the areas of which the hon. member is speaking there is a piped-in service from Lethbridge available and, as I understand it, he wants us to license a reflector system which would bring in United States programs. Is that correct?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, there is
piped-in television in the cities of Nelson and Trail, but there are vast expanses of my constituency where there is no television and where there will not be any television even when the C.B.C. transmitter is installed on the summit near Rossland. These people want the right to have some form of television. They got together and collected a certain amount of capital, and they have asked to be allowed to instal reflector equipment. I do not understand the mechanics of it.


George Harris Hees: I am advised we have received no application in respect of a United States program to serve areas to which Canadian television is not available. I do not know whether or not a licence would be issued-

that would be a matter for the board of broadcast governors-but I suggest to the hon. member that he might propose to the company or group concerned with this reflector system in areas to which Canadian television is not available that they put in an application. I think there is a good chance that it would be approved, though of course that is a matter for the board.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to inform the minister that an application has been made by one co-operative in my constituency to the Department of Transport, the appropriate department, and the application has been rejected twice.


George Harris Hees: To help me, will the hon. member identify the application and supply us with the company's name?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It is the Crescent valley or Slocan valley community co-operative.


Mr. Hicks:: I have exactly the same
situation-


George Harris Hees: Could I just follow that up? Well, Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member says the application is here it must be here, but my officials tell me they do not have any knowledge of it. However, they will certainly check on it right away and get in touch with the hon. member about it as soon as possible.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Thank you.


William Harold Hicks: I have a case exactly the same as my hon. friend's; and it has to do with Boston Bar in the Fraser valley. They cannot get any television at all in their area and they have been talking of a proposition to put a reflector up on the mountain. They are very keen to get television in Boston Bar. I should like to know first where the authority lies and what action one must take to get television?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, my answer to the hon. member is that if an application is received and there is no other Canadian television service available, it would certainly receive, I believe, favourable consideration from the board of broadcast governors. I must remind my hon. friend and the hon. member for Kootenay West that that decision is up to the board of broadcast governors to make, and not my department. But I would suggest that those co-operatives or companies get their applications in right away. If the hon. member for Kootenay West says the application is in we will check on it right away.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The matter was taken up, I think, two or three years ago. During the
Supply-Transport
lunch hour I will look up the correspondence and let the minister have it so he will understand what I am talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the item carries, I think my question is one which properly comes under the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell us whether a site has been found and approved for a television transmitter, either a relay station or an independent transmitter, in the Gander-Grand Falls area which would serve the northern part of my riding? The question as to whether this would be done by the C.B.C. or by a private station I know is not within the minister's competence, but the question of whether one can be there at all, whether there is a channel and whether there is a site, is. I would like to know what progress has been made?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that an application was in but that it has been withdrawn.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An application for what, precisely?


George Harris Hees: For television at Grand Falls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not made my position clear. What I wanted to know was whether the department had approved a site and a channel. I am not interested at this stage in the application, because that would go before the board of broadcast governors.


George Harris Hees: Yes, we did approve a site in this area.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And a channel?


George Harris Hees: Yes, but the application was withdrawn.


Mr. McQuillan:: I should like the minister to tell us whether the regulations permitting the erection of a reflector television station are under the jurisdiction of his department or under the jurisdiction of the C.B.C.?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, this is government policy designed to protect existing channels for Canadian broadcasting.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: It seems rather strange that in the city of Vancouver they have the privilege of turning the dial and tuning in a United States station, while 100 miles up the coast we cannot get a reflector licence for a United States station. I do not know whether they are trying to keep that part of the country pure Canadian or what.


George Harris Hees: I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would speak to my officials about this particular case we will give it consideration.


Mr. Regnier:: I should like to ask the minister whether the Department of Transport

Supply-Transport
has jurisdiction over the allocation of channels, and whether the board of broadcast governors made recommendations in connection with satellite television stations.


George Harris Hees: The Department of Transport has jurisdiction over the allocation of channels, but before any licence would be issued the board of broadcast governors would have to pass on the application and then pass it back to us for signature.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: If the application is passed by the board of broadcast governors, is that final?


George Harris Hees: No; final authority is vested in the government, which means the Minister of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do those licences not have to be approved by the governor in council?


George Harris Hees: Yes, they do. They come to the Minister of Transport and he signs them; then they go forward to the governor in council for final approval.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought, because of the way the minister put it, he rather suggested the governor in council was a rubber stamp. Some of us feel that under the present administration, he is.


George Harris Hees: No. I was going to say that in so far as the past government was concerned it might be true, but with respect to this government it is far from being true.


Mr. McFarlane:: I certainly support the
previous members and also the contentions they have raised relative to the reception of television programs. I may be able to add a little light to what the hon. member for Kootenay West had to say on this matter. I have had this matter under consideration with the Department of Transport and also with the board of broadcast governors. A firm in our area has already piped in television programs, but with the use of a multiplexor-these are rather technical terms- they have requested permission to add channel 4 at Spokane to improve our reception from a point on the microwave system to Moyie mountain.
They also presented a brief on the matter. It is not their intention to use any more frequencies or bands than they are now using, but it would definitely give us much better reception of United States programs. In view of the fact that a good many of our C.B.C. programs originate in the United States and that we have this complex microwave system going across Canada only a few miles away from our own area, this should be made available to us. The companies concerned are not asking the government to spend terrific sums of money to instal this 
multiplexor, but at the same time I feel we should have some consideration from the department so that we can get better television in our area.
We are situated right in the rocky mountains, and it is practically impossible for us to receive programs from Vancouver or from the east, although we do get fair reception from the Lethbridge station. Our programs are piped in by a private company. We have the support of all the chambers of commerce and the various public organizations in the east and also in the west Koot-enays. I understand that the department have included the east and west Kootenay in a study as to the installation of a station, but at the same time I can see that it is going to be quite some time before this becomes a fact. Also there is the present system which does not include television or radio reception to remote areas. In our large district it is practically impossible to get reception that would be of benefit to all of east Kootenay. I should like to ask the minister whether he would give our request to let us tie in with our present microwave system some consideration.
Incidentally, I have a letter on my desk from the department saying that they do not see eye to eye with me. I may say this is not the first time we have not seen eye to eye, but I am going to look into some other angles of the question. At the present time we are within a very short distance of the microwave system, and in my opinion the policy originally laid down for radio and television is now obsolete and I think we should take a long look at it.
I would request the minister to reconsider his stand on the matter because I can see it will be some time before we get a television booster station. By allowing us to connect with the present microwave system we will be able to have better reception of Spokane and other United States programs which are available to many others parts of British Columbia situated to better advantage than we are in Kootenay East, where we are right in the centre of the Rocky mountains.


George Harris Hees: In view of what the hon. member has said I will be very glad to give further consideration to his representations.


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not had an opportunity to check the facts and I should like the minister to correct me if I am wrong with respect to the situation as to the use of radiotelephones. I have a tremendous number of fishermen in my area, and I have been receiving complaints on the basis that the Department of Transport requires a $50 deposit which I believe is to ensure the payment of charges

lor radiotelephone calls. This is the same amount that is required for deep sea vessels which range around the world. If the facts as I have stated them are correct, I would ask the minister to give consideration to having the deposit reduced to $10 or $15.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the $50 is to cover the charges that are incurred during the year's operations, and the reason it is the same for big and small vessels is that the charges are the same irrespective of the size of the vessel. The charge is made for the service.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Could the minister indicate what type of charge the $50 covers?


George Harris Hees: It is for long distance telephone calls that the people who operate these radiotelephones put through our system.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I am glad to see my facts are correct, because that is the point these people are trying to make. All these long distance calls are billed to the fishermen's home. I think the situation is entirely different where you have deep sea vessels ranging around the world and you want to make sure that the calls are paid for. When the charge is made directly to the fishermen's home 1 do not see how that difficulty could arise, and because of that difference I would suggest that a charge of $10 or $15 would be reasonable.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that we are quite willing to let a group get together and make a community deposit. It is not our intention to require a deposit for any more than we think will be required to cover the charges made for the use of the service through our system.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yesterday I asked a question with regard to whether a person who is not a citizen can have a radiotelephone. The minister's answer is on page 4576 of Hansard, and is not too clear. To bring the matter a little more closely to his attention I will read this extract from Pierre Berton's column in the Toronto Star of March 4, 1959. He says:
Oddly enough, the same day a young Danish immigrant, Mr. Earl Fieh from Stouffville came to see me. He has a business which requires a telephone in his car. But he can't get a telephone in his car because he is not a British subject or a Canadian citizen. He could get one by forming a company but that would cost at least $250 in legal fees.
I called the Department of Transport about this and was told that the law dated back before 1936 and had something to do with security-a word used these days to excuse any kind of foolishness. D.O.T. added, in defence of itself, that nobody had made a presentation urging the law be changed. Is it really necessary for Mr. Fich to send a lobby to Ottawa to get rid of an inane and outdated law?
Supply-Transport
Would the minister comment on that?


George Harris Hees: The Radio Act requires that the holder of a licence for a radiotelephone be a British subject, but a landed immigrant can be authorized to operate a radiotelephone.


Douglas Mason Fisher: But he cannot own one in his own business.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just take this case, for example. I cannot see why this particular chap could not produce some sort of bona fide to prove that he was a good security risk. Is it because of security that the licence will not be issued?


George Harris Hees: It is simply a matter of what the law says. The law requires that the holder of a radiotelephone licence shall be a British subject. It is not a question of our making regulations to make it easier for this particular person.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let us look at the anomaly here. A young man or young woman comes to this country and cannot become a citizen for five years. They establish themselves very quickly and they may get into a business where they can use a radiotelephone, but they have to circumnavigate the law. In his answer the minister has pointed out that they can circumnavigate it. It seems to me that the law should be changed. I would ask, as Mr. Berton has asked, whether it is necessary to send a lobby here in order to change the law.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact the hon. gentleman is a member of parliament like the rest of us, and he can introduce a bill to change the law. So can the minister, and I think it would be a good thing if the minister would do so, because it would have more chance of getting through. This law was passed in 1936 when 1 am sure radiotelephones in motor cars were not contemplated at all. It really applied to broadcasting stations and things of that sort. As the hon. member has said, it is an absolutely silly thing to apply it to radiotelephones in motor cars. I would suggest that the hon. member might appeal to the minister to bring in an amendment to the law during the next session. I do not think I would appeal to him to do it at this session.


George Harris Hees: We will be very glad to look into the matter further and see if anything can be done in this regard under the regulations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have one other point. I also asked the minister a question about model apparatus, and his answer was to the effect that new radio regulations were promulgated on April 1, 1958 and are continuously under

Supply-Transport
review, with simplification being the prime objective. I also have a letter from the minister dated May 12 stating in part as follows:
My officials are making a revision in the technical requirements for model control apparatus, which I feel sure will meet with the approval of the model enthusiasts.
I was hoping to have something a little more definite, and just to spur the minister on I should like to read a letter sent to me by a Mr. Moore, one of my constituents, which he received from Babcock Models, Inc., of Costa Mesa, California, one of the largest manufacturers in this field. It reads as follows:
Thank you, Mr. Moore, for your kind letter in reference to Babcock products. Since you used the term "too tough" in reference to the Canadian Department of Transport, I shall go along the same lines. Application for approval for all our new equipment has been made some time ago. We are now sitting tight and waiting for results. It must be remembered-
I should like the minister to listen to this.
-that when we did get approval of our old R/C equipment, the approval arrived approximately one year after we had discontinued these units.
It is from examples like this that the minister can see why I feel that maybe his department is not the best department, by any means. I should like to know why you have this situation across Canada. Someone could say that these people are faddists, but there are hundreds of people with these models who like to use radio controls. Surely we could follow the United States system of licensing, which is so simple and straightforward in comparison to ours. It seems to me this particular branch of the department is asleep at the switch.
I should like to ask, is there any way by which you could improve the licensing of these particular models and allow these enthusiasts to have radio equipment?


George Harris Hees: I am advised, Mr. Chairman, that this week notifications are going out advising of a reduction in the requirements for the use of this model control equipment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I appreciate having that information and I shall be glad to forward it to some of these enthusiasts.
I should like to bring up a constituency matter which also relates to television. We have a situation whereby our local television station, which is privately operated, is planning to switch its transmitter to a higher hill. The whole region is very anxious that this be done as quickly as possible in order that we find out what the range will be. I should like to say to the minister and his deputy that when the application comes in, will they get cracking on it? If it is in now,

and it may be in now, will they please get it cleared right away; because I cannot think of anything which-unfortunately, I might add-has greater political significance in our area than the extension of television service.


George Harris Hees: This is not the kind of matter- we will get on with it as quickly as possible -that can be cleared immediately, because an increase in the height of a radio or television mast, or a change in location, has to be studied from the point of view of the danger it might cause to aviation. I am advised that in this particular case there apears to be a definite aviation problem. This matter will be studied as quickly as possible, there will be no time lost, and we will give the hon. member an answer as soon as we can.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
429.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $405,000.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister inform me how much is to be spent at the airport next year under this particular item?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that this has nothing to do with airports. This is the radio enforcement provision dealing with monitoring.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone service-
430.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $264,867.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell the committee where the government, as opposed to Canadian National Telegraphs, now operates telephone and telegraph services? If it is a long list and if the minister would like to put it on Hansard I would not object.


George Harris Hees: The only places are in the Magdalen islands and on Cape Breton island. There are quite a number, but the Magdalen islands is the main system, and Cape Breton is quite small.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The installations in Labrador are not included in that?


George Harris Hees: Those come under radio aids.


Erik Nielsen: Is the Yukon considered in this?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
431.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $510,500.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Where is this construction being done?


George Harris Hees: The main item is for the rehabilitation of the line between Chatham and Escuminac, New Brunswick, at a cost of $287,000. The payment is to the New

Brunswick Telephone Company for taking over and rehabilitation of the G.T.T.S. facilities and assumption of full responsibility for provision of adequate service in the Chatham-Escuminac and Richibucto-Point Sapin areas. The other items are Sydney, Antigonish, Pictou and a great many small items. If anybody wants them I can read them out.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No. This construction is
not, therefore, on the government's own lines?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it is.


Erik Nielsen: Before we leave this item
I have one specific question to ask, the answer to which can be given at some later time. The question is in connection with the purchase by Canadian National Telegraphs of the Yukon Telephone Company. I do not see where else I can bring up the matter except under this item. Would the minister inform me what profit or loss was obtained in connection with the operations of the Yukon Telephone Company under the management of Canadian National Telegraphs at the end of the fiscal year?


George Harris Hees: This matter would have to be
referred to Canadian National Telegraphs. I would be glad to do so and ascertain what they say about releasing those figures.


Erik Nielsen: When the minister is making
that inquiry, I wonder if he would also inquire as to whether or not there might be a reduction in rates to commercial users in the near future?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to ask that question.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological branch-
432.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $12,299,325.
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a very brief observation. Since the present government came into office there have been repeated complaints in Newfoundland that the weather has deteriorated very seriously. I am glad to blame the minister for this, but can he do something about it?


George Harris Hees: It will be given very serious
consideration.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to make a very short observation. The weather also bothers the people on the west coast, out in British Columbia. One of the difficulties the fishermen have related to me is that CBU, which is the station which provides excellent weather reports, unfortunately has a power of only some 10,000 watts. The radio station in the Vancouver area, CKWX, which has a power
Supply-Transport
of 50,000 watts, apparently does not carry the same type of information which is so important to the fishermen.
I do not know exactly what the solution is, but I wonder if the department could perhaps give consideration to either providing more extensive weather reports to station CKWX, or speak to the Minister of National Revenue to see if he can increase the power of station CBU.


George Harris Hees: We are very glad to give the radio stations anything they ask for in the way of weather reports. It is up to the radio stations to decide whether or not they carry them.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Since we do not have very adequate coastguard facilities on the west coast-


John Whitney Pickersgill: After two years?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: -and it is particularly important that we have the weather reports broadcast to the fishermen, I was wondering if the department could take into consideration some monetary inducement to station CKWX to provide a detailed weather report?


George Harris Hees: If the fishermen are anxious to receive better weather reports then perhaps they should go in a body to the radio station and make that request. We will be glad to supply anything the radio station wants.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Henry Carwithen McQuillan: For some time the forest industries of British Columbia have been asking for a meteorologist to be appointed for the special duty of forest fire weather forecasting. This matter is extremely important to British Columbia. After our experience of last year with our disastrous fires I am sure the minister will realize that anything that can be done to help minimize the danger would be appreciated. At present we have some service, but the long range forecasts used are those from the state of Washington, and they do not necessarily apply to the local areas of British Columbia. Consequently there is sometimes a good deal of time lost by using these forecasts and at other times work is carried on under particularly hazardous circumstances. I know the minister has had this matter under consideration, and I hope he will move it from the serious consideration basket to the action basket.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I want to ask the minister a question or two about weather stations in

Supply-Transport
the Arctic. In the period in which I was more familiar with administration than I am now, Canada had certain weather stations in the Arctic and the United States had certain weather stations by agreement with Canada, and there was a policy of transferring United States stations to Canadian administration and control as Canadian meteorologists became available. Then that procedure resulted in certain stations which are under joint administration and control. I should like to ask the minister how that transfer of United States stations to exclusive Canadian control is getting on.


Erik Nielsen: Before the minister replies to that question, Mr. Chairman, may I say that I had intended to ask a similar one. I had raised this matter in the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. I would suggest that the practice now being followed, namely that of manning joint weather stations with Canadian and United States scientific personnel, could perhaps be looked at again with a view to manning these stations with 100 per cent Canadian scientific personnel.


George Harris Hees: The weather stations in the Arctic are all under Canadian control. Five of these stations are joint weather stations. There are about half a dozen purely Canadian stations. We are not taking over any of the five joint stations, but we are increasing the Canadian component in these weather stations.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it that the objective, however, is to make these joint stations Canadian stations as soon as that procedure is technically feasible?


George Harris Hees: We have joint weather programs with the Americans. This is part of this whole program where they work with us in Canada and we work with them in the United States. We get along extremely well with them. As I say, these weather stations are all under Canadian control. The whole operation is working harmoniously and satisfactorily both here and in the United States.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I just want to ask a question or two with regard to local weather observers. I presume that matter comes under this item.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have a number of local weather observers throughout the district. I am going to suggest to the minister that owing to the tremendous development that is going on in a country like the southeastern portion of British Columbia, there is a need for highly accurate weather records possibly on a more intensive scale than hitherto, or in other words for more observers.

For instance, you have an observer at Nelson and some on the Arrow lakes, but I do not think there is an observer in the Lardeau district where there is a great difference in the snowfall, in the rainfall and in other weather conditions. Will the minister inform the house under what circumstances these local weather observers are appointed? What I mean is this. Do you try to have one observer for a certain number of square miles, or do you get them where you can, and that sort of thing?


George Harris Hees: We try to provide adequate
service, sometimes by our own staff and sometimes by a local man in the area who does this work for us. The density of these weather observers depends fairly well on the weather problems involved. Some areas have more weather problems than others, and there would therefore be more observers in those areas. However, the number of weather observers is steadily increasing.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I want to bring to the
minister's attention an excellent weather observer at Deer Park, a person who has recorded the weather there for a long period of years most conscientiously. Deer Park is a dry belt country in Kootenay West. To my knowledge there is not one observer in the north Arrow lakes district which has quite a different climate and quite different winter conditions, and there is not a weather observer in the Lardeau country, which again is different. Because of the increasing industrial development in the country as a whole I suggest that we should have as many of these local weather observers as are necessary to give a true picture of the weather in the country as a whole.


George Harris Hees: I should be glad to look into that matter and see what can be done. Might 1 ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether it would be possible, when this item is completed, for us to go back and clean up the supplementary estimates to date? We missed out on doing that in the early stages of the examinations of these estimates. I think it could be a good idea if we brought those supplementary estimates up to date, and then as we go through each section clean up the supple-mentaries for that section. I suggest that procedure if it would be satisfactory to the members of the committee.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. MacEwan):: Is it
agreed that the supplementary estimates to date be taken after item 432?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Hector Payne: Before this item carries, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say just a brief word in support of my colleague the hon. member

for Comox-Alberni. I feel that very frequently the value of proper meteorological information to our forest industry is not appreciated. Realizing that many of the submissions made by the lumbermen across this dominion do not come to the attention of the minister of this department, I am most anxious to point out that in the committee on mines, forests and waters delegations from various areas throughout Canada have told of the great value in the saving of timber from fire destruction that could be achieved by minor adjustments to services and thus increase the information provided by the officials of your department.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would like to ask the minister what truth there is in several stories which have appeared in the press to the effect that there is a great turnover of meteorologists and the department has a hard time holding them. If this is the case, can the minister say what measures are being taken to stop the wastage? My second question deals with meteorologists who are also part time television stars, and I would like to know if there is any difficulty in obtaining funds from the particular authority who may hire them, whether a private station or the C.B.C., and what is their position. Is anything necessary to regularize that position?


George Harris Hees: I take it the hon. member is referring to Mr. Saltzman, who appears on the C.B.C. He seems to have a particular talent for doing that kind of work, and we have given him permission to do so and he earns additional money for performing the work he does.
Regarding the payment of meteorologists, that is a very real problem with the department. We have applied both to treasury board and to the civil service commission to pay these people more money, and we have pointed out the fact that we are losing them, particularly as teachers. We are continuing to press both treasury board and the civil service commission to get permission to pay these important people more money. So far I have not been able to do so, but we are ever hopeful. It is a real problem, as I say, with us.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister explain to the committee why it is so hard to put this case to treasury board? What is the weakness in the case, and why has the minister been unable to convince treasury board of the merits of the case?


George Harris Hees: There is no weakness in the case we have put forward, I believe, Mr. Chairman. It is a reluctance on the part of the civil service commission and treasury board
Supply-Transport
to grant these higher salaries, and why there is this reluctance I find it hard to explain. But I can assure the hon. member that we are just as anxious as he is to pay these people more money, and we are continuing to press our case vigorously.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister agree that this is another example of the sort we have had in other departments, where there is a lack of sensitivity to the need for change on the part of the civil service commission and treasury board? For instance, we can think of income tax assessors and various other categories in other departments where there is a like problem, and despite strong representations from the departments it takes a long time to bring about any action. If you have this crucial problem and the teaching profession is pulling off the meteorologists, how do you as minister try to express the case for quicker action to these two authorities?


George Harris Hees: I can assure the hon. member that representations, and I might say strong representations, have been made to both treasury board and the civil service commission. As I say, we hope our representations are going to meet with sympathetic consideration in the very near future. We are disappointed that they have not been met with that kind of consideration so far.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, might I just ask if the minister has ever tried shouting at the Minister of Finance the way he did here yesterday?


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Finance is a pretty good shouter too.


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, with regard to weather reports which the Department of Transport officials receive from the Saguenay-Lake St. Jean region, is the minister able to tell us if there is a meteorological station at Kenogami? I know it is a very localized question, and if the minister cannot answer me today perhaps he will give me the answer later.


George Harris Hees: There is no permanent station that we are aware of.


Augustin Brassard: I am not talking of a permanent station. I mean weather reports from Kenogami, the Price Brothers company.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there is a climatological station in the area, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hope the minister will forgive me if I pursue these Arctic weather

Supply-Transport
stations a little further, because their significance is a little wider than meteorological. The minister has said that all the stations in our north country are under Canadian control, but that some of them are under joint occupation and the joint occupation by the United States and our own people is working very harmoniously. The minister also said there were similar stations in the United States jointly occupied by United States and Canadian meteorologists. I wonder if the minister could give us more details in that regard, and if that is the case might it not be desirable to bring back some of our Canadian meteorologists to Canada where there is a great shortage?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if I misled the hon. member. They are not joint weather stations in the United States but joint research stations in which Canadians participate with Americans in this type of work.


Erik Nielsen: I have a question following that, Mr. Chairman; I have been trying to catch your eye. Are the United States personnel in these Arctic stations paid by the United States government or the Canadian government, and are there any joint studies undertaken by United States and Canadian scientists with regard to ice as related to meteorology and other mobile Arctic scientific investigations under the minister's jurisdiction?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are joint studies, as the hon. member has described, and the United States meteorologists are paid by the United States.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister give us the number of United States and Canadian meteorologists in the Arctic territory?


George Harris Hees: In the five joint weather stations there are 23 Canadians and 23 Americans. In the purely Canadian stations there are approximately 105 Canadians.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall item 432 carry?


Erik Nielsen: Before we leave this item, Mr. Chairman, the matter I now raise may seem like an unimportant matter, but it is rather important to us. It concerns the question of Mr. Saltzman, who I had understood was a C.B.C. employee but I understand now is a meteorologist employed by the department. He appears, of course, on television programs where he describes the weather picture in Canada, or across Canada, or from coast to coast, or the Canadian weather picture; all these terms are used. But Mr. Saltzman very rarely, if at all, covers the weather
[Mr. Pearson.)
picture in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories; and just to follow this point up, Mr. Chairman, the weather maps in the house, in the lobby and in the government elevators show more of the United States weather picture than the Canadian. This is a carryover, perhaps, from the shortsightedness of the previous administration, but I would suggest that this vast area of the Canadian north is deserving of some consideration when you depict the weather picture of Canada as such.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall the item carry?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it the minister is not making any observation about the previous question?


George Harris Hees: I would be very glad to, but I did not think any comment was required. I think probably the reason Mr. Saltzman does not make too many comments about the weather in the Yukon or the Northwest Territories is that not too many of his listeners or viewers would be stationed there. I think that might be the reason. We can draw this to the attention of Mr. Saltzman, to see if he could mention those areas a little more frequently-


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it the minister is not worried about those maps? Could the minister give us some information about the exchange of meteorological information generally with the Soviet union on these matters?


George Harris Hees: There is a full exchange of meteorological data between the U.S.S.R. and Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
586.	Operating deficit and capital requirement oi canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority 

 further amount required, $296,000.
Lionel Chevrier: I am prompted to rise at this point and draw to the attention of the minister a matter which on the face of it might not appear to be very important, but which is in fact important to a large number of people. It stems from a report which_ appeared in the New York Times concerning the Canadian rules governing small boats passing through the canals of the St. Lawrence seaway. I do not wish to hold up the estimates, but I should like to read two paragraphs of this article which appeared in the New York Times on Friday, June 12, 1959, as follows:
Thousands of owners of small pleasure boats have been dismayed to learn that their craft will not be permitted to travel the length of the St. Lawrence seaway.

As a result, many vacation plans must be changed. Several million dollars already spent for construction of marinas on the seaway may be a dubious Investment.
Willis H. Crosswhite, the traffic services officer of the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation, said yesterday in Massena, N.Y., "Under existing regulations boats under 20 feet over-all or less than two tons dead weight cannot go through the Canadian locks.''
"Therefore, with the Canadians controlling 13 of the 15 locks," he explained, the little boats can't make the whole trip. "In fact," he said, "the boats won't be allowed to travel more than 68 miles on water in the seaway, the distance, including approaches, serviced by the two United States locks."
As the minister knows, the two locks on the United States side-the Eisenhower and the Wiley-Dondero locks-permit the movement of these pleasure craft, and in the area which is affected, particularly the Thousand islands area, the Lachine section and the lake St. Francis section, there are a very large number of pleasure craft whose owners would wish to move them through the locks of the seaway.
I know there must be some reason for the attitude which has been taken here, and I presume that safety of navigation has a lot to do with it; but is it not, going to be a little embarrassing for Canada if the United States permits pleasure craft to go through while Canada does not? I thought I should bring this to the attention of the minister so he may have the opportunity to consult with his officials in order to ascertain if the regulations concerning the Canadian section cannot be changed with a view to having uniform navigation rules for both Canada and the United States.


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to discuss that question with the officials of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The reasons for not allowing these very small craft through the locks are two in number. I should say right away that this regulation only applies to boats less than 20 feet in length, and I think we all realize that these are very small craft. It is considered that it is dangerous for these very small boats to be going through the very large locks of the St. Lawrence seaway. The second reason is that these boats can all be very easily transported by trailer behind a ear. It is considered that they can be moved much more quickly and easily by trailer if their owners want to go, for instance, from New York to Georgian bay. But I will be glad to speak to the officials of the seaway authority about this matter and discuss it with them.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the minister not think that if the Canadian seaway authority has one set of regulations governing this matter
Supply-Transport
and the United States has another, this may be a fertile source of dispute and difference between the two authorities?


George Harris Hees: It might. I was not aware that the United States authorities were allowing these very small craft through their locks, and in view of what the hon. member for Laurier has said I will be glad to discuss the question with the officials of the seaway.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
587.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $2,878,600.
John Andrew W. Drysdale: I wonder if I could get a little information from the minister concerning Prince Rupert and the floating drydock which I think the Department of Transport had there some years ago. I have received several inquiries from fishermen who are interested in a floating drydock, and I was wondering if the minister could indicate why it was removed in the first instance, and where it was removed to, and if there is any likelihood of the department providing a floating drydock in this area at the present time.


George Harris Hees: I was in Prince Rupert a few years ago and I discussed the question of this drydock at that time with the people there. I found there were very few users of the drydock. Efforts were made to find people to operate it, but without sucess. The real reason it has gone out of operation is that there just was not enough business to justify its presence.


Mr, Drysdale:: In the light of the increased size of fishing boats necessary for deep sea fishing, if I could get an interested group together I presume the minister would be prepared to give this matter every consideration?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the original drydock was sold, but if there is anyone who would be interested in operating a drydock he would find complete co-operation from the department. If the hon. member knows of someone who would be interested, and would let me know, I should be pleased to co-operate with him.


Lionel Chevrier: Before this item is passed I should like to point out that here is another $2,878,000 for marine service steamers, and the original vote was close to $16 million. Why has it been necessary to have a supplementary vote of almost $3 million, and what does it cover?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the main part of this vote is to pay for the United States D.E.W. line supply to Baffin which we

Supply-Transport
have just taken over this year. The money will be reimbursed to us at the end of the year, I am advised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does this, then, cover services to be supplied to the United States government for the D.E.W. line, the money to be repaid to the Canadian government by the United States at the end of the year?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
588.	Pilotage service-further amount required, $891,925.
Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister tell us the status of Captain Crawford?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that Captain Crawford was hired as one of our pilots on the great lakes and is now being employed as our dispatcher at the Welland canal.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What salary differential does that give him now compared with the other pilots? Does his present post give him any authority in terms of being boss or controller over the other pilots?


George Harris Hees: He has no special authority. I am advised that there is probably no differential in wages, but I will be glad to check on that and let the hon. member know.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is there any difficulty at the present time in recruiting pilots for the great lakes service?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that at one stage there was some difficulty in recruiting, but that has been overcome and there is now no shortage of pilots.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I presume, with many of the canalers coming off the lakes, there may be more and more competent officers available for this particular service. To me, Mr. Chairman, this whole pilotage matter has been a case where somehow the Department of Transport has not taken a very aggressive or enlightened line, and the very fact that we still are in a certain state of confusion, and that this confusion began away back last year-the minister shakes his head about confusion. I just mean this. We still do not have any arrangement worked out with the United States on a continuing basis-


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, if I might answer that I would like to say that this is not the fault of the Canadian government. We have tried in every way and for quite some period of time to reach an agreement with the United States regarding pilotage, and we are still trying. We are very anxious to work out an agreement with them. I assure the hon.

member it is not because of any lack of desire on our part that an agreement has not been reached so far.


Douglas Mason Fisher: It may not be lack of desire.


George Harris Hees: Or lack of effort.


Douglas Mason Fisher: There is a fundamental difference in approach, and I think it all hinges on the different attitude toward safety. The United States has a different concept of safety and security precautions. It seems to me that has been one of the fundamental difficulties all along the line. I just want to tell the minister that the contacts I have had with the lake shipping people in our area, including men who have gone out and visited the foreign ships that have come in, indicate to me that they are convinced that on these ships the lack of knowledge of English, of the rules of the road on the Canadian lakes, and all the other complicated regulations that fit in to the marine picture are such that we should be much more likely to go toward the United States ideal of having a pilot on the boats at all times in the lakes.
I still think, Mr. Chairman, that is the fundamental difficulty in getting a rapprochement between the Canadian and United States governments. I do not expect an answer on that point from the minister, but I insist this is probably the fundamental weak spot in the negotiations. I would suggest to the minister that his department got the idea very early that somehow an extension of pilotage to the extent that the United States requested was going to put an unnecessary burden upon the foreign shipping using the lakes. This, it seems to me, overlooks two things; one, the factor that it could give them an unnecessary advantage over our own shipping; two, it ignores the safety and security factor that the United States seems to be more aware of than does the minister's own department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Meteorological branch-
594. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $170,000.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This is an additional amount for the meteorological branch. Since there is an increase in the main estimates for this branch of $1,562,000, and since I have learned that none of that increase is going toward the reclassification of the salaries of the meteorologists, can the minister explain this item and give reasons for this increase?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The meteorological branch is responsible for all phases of meteorological service for civil and military purposes in Canada, for shipping in adjacent ocean areas or on the great lakes, and for

international aviation over the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and polar and subpolar routes. Highlights of new and expanded services provided for in the 1959-60 estimates include:
1.	A comprehensive ice observing and forecasting program in direct support of marine activity in the lower St. Lawrence, gulf of St. Lawrence, Hudson bay and sea supply lines to the far north. The major portion of the ice observing will be accomplished through aerial reconnaissance using chartered aircraft. The cost of that amounts to $400,000.
2.	Extension of meteorological research particularly, in the fields of atmospheric ozone, radiation, turbulence, cloud physics and in the determination of the relationships of meteorological factors applicable to agriculture, forestry and so forth, $134,000.
3.	Development of forecasting techniques and extension of services on a routine basis for high level jet aircraft operations, $100,000.
4.	Development and testing of methods of preparing weather forecast charts at various levels of the atmosphere by purely numerical means using high-speed electronic computers, $90,000.
5.	Replacement of departmentally owned radio communications facilities by commercial services for the collection and dissemination of meteorological information at such locations as White Horse, Churchill and Goose. Hitherto such commercial facilities have not been available. The cost of that is $216,000.
6.	Establishment of two additional local forecast offices to serve aviation and industrial agencies and the general public in the Fredericton and Quebec city areas, $30,000.
7.	Operation of surface observing stations at cape Dyer, Northwest Territories, and cape Parry, Northwest Territories, and of an upper air station at Goose, Labrador. These are now staffed by United States agencies; $140,000.
A continuing shortage of professional personnel continues to seriously restrict the capabilities of the branch in meeting the ever-increasing demands for service to continuously expanding fields of endeavour. All other items which have not been specified account for $327,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister mentioned a figure of $400,000, I think, for aerial reconnaissance. Is that an increase or is that the total amount spent on that service?


George Harris Hees: That is an increase this year, Mr. Chairman, but this year we have taken over those operations from the Canadian and United States services which formerly carried it out.
Supply-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister explain the reason for taking it over from the air services of the two countries? Was it on grounds of economy or efficiency?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman; because they wished to withdraw from it.


Lionel Chevrier: There is a question I should like to ask the minister. Are the headquarters of the meteorological service still in the city of Toronto? Is it the intention of the department to keep the headquarters there? Has the difficulty which has arisen between certain groups of officers-I shall not say where -as to where the headquarters should finally be located been determined?


George Harris Hees: Well, I am proud and pleased to say that the answer to both the first two questions is yes, and I am advised that we do not know of any difficulty. If we do learn of any we shall of course, give it very sympathetic consideration.
433. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $1,400,000.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is any of this construction in Newfoundland?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, there is a transmisometer, a daylightceilometer and a decca weather radar installation at Gander, Newfoundland, which will cost $60,500.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Can the minister explain what these things are?


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


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, considering that we have more weather in Newfoundland than in any other province, except possibly British Columbia, this seems to be a very small share of the total amount.


Mr. Winch:: It is a small island.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a very large area, almost as large as British Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil aviation branch-
435. Airports and other ground services operations and maintenance, including authority for payment of grants, totalling not more than $299,000, subject to approval by the governor in council, to appropriate church authorities at Gander, Newfoundland, for the purpose of relocating and re-establishing church activities from the airport limits to Gander townsite and to provide, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, that the treasury board may in the current and future years authorize arrangements to be made for the operation of hotel, bakery, restaurant, staff messing, staff accommodation and similar facilities at airports and authorize the disbursement of revenues derived therefrom and payment of deficits that may occur in the management and operation of these facilities, $18,878,041.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Harold Edward Winch: This item deals with airports and other ground services. I should like to ask the minister to bring us up to date on the government's policy respecting any action to relieve congestion at the Vancouver airport by the development of a secondary civilian airport. I know this matter has been in mind for a long time, and that first one location and then another has been suggested, but there never seems to be any action. I know what the minister has in mind as to policy with respect to the international airport on Sea island as a result of the conference a few weeks ago to which he kindly invited all the Vancouver members, but that is all in the future. I understand that the R.C.A.F. is determined to stay there, and I believe there is a great need for immediate action to establish a secondary airport for light civilian aircraft. Is it possible to waft away all the confusion with respect to this matter and state definitely whether or not the department is going to go ahead with a secondary airport?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have spent a considerable period of time trying to find a satisfactory site, in fact it is a period of about six years. We found only two satisfactory sites, Pitt Meadows and Boundary bay. We consider Boundary bay to be the most satisfactory. We are waiting for the Department of National Defence to move out of Boundary bay, and as soon as they do we will be very glad to take it over and establish it as a satellite airport.


Harold Edward Winch: Have you any indication when that might be?


George Harris Hees: We are reminding the Department of National Defence that we are very anxious to move in, and we keep pressing them.


Harold Edward Winch: Do you think it would be a good idea to give the Minister of National Defence a nudge in that direction by asking him when his estimates are before us?


George Harris Hees: I do not think it would do any harm at all.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, because of the size of this vote I think the minister should give some indication of where the airports are and the amounts to be expended at each, but before he does that I am sorry I have to burden him again with some of the difficulties still plaguing Dorval airport. I am prompted to do so because of an article which has been published in the Montreal Star and which is seriously critical of the department's efforts. The article is by Mr. W. A. Wilson and is entitled, "Air Terminal Costs Spiral as Building Delays Continue." The article reads in part as follows:

-costs have mounted along with the delays until they are now officially described as "way out of hand." The Department of Transport has refused to reveal the level estimated costs had reached last week when a drastic paring job began on them but one source said he understood the total had soared to $26 million and another described this figure as "probable".
The article goes on to give the various estimates that were made for the building, the first estimate in 1953 of $4 million, a later estimate raising the figure to between $8 million and $9 million, and still another last year raising the estimate to between $15 million and $16 million. I am glad the hon. member for Carleton is staring at me because this will probably recall certain incidents to him. In any event, the final estimate given by the minister yesterday was $15 million to $16 million which, excluding all the extra facilities required there, might well bring the ultimate cost to between $25 million and $30 million. I believe those were the figures he gave yesterday.


George Harris Hees: Could I answer that now?


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to finish and then I perhaps will not have to get up again. There is a very serious charge made in another part of the article, where it is indicated that in certain parts of the building practically no one is working. The minister shakes his head, but there is a man who has visited the place and says that some of the floors are completely empty with nobody working at all. The article goes on to say:
While only about 100 men were working three days ago it could be estimated that 400 could easily have been employed on the main structure alone, excluding the hydrant fueling system, the apron, power plant, fingers and aeroquays for most of which contracts have not been let and for some of which plans are now being redrawn.
It goes on at great length and I am not going to pursue the matter unduly, but I do wish to reiterate what I said yesterday; that I think something more than an ordinary assurance by the minister that everything is being done to hurry construction is required in this case. I think the minister should give instructions to his officers to see to it that the building is completed at once. I said a moment ago that there was a great similarity between what is happening here and what happened at the printing bureau.


George Harris Hees: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: The circumstances are very much alike. Mind you, I am not being critical of what was done, because I know that in the Department of Transport there are some officers who believe that contracts of this nature should be given out piecemeal, and I am not going to challenge that decision. It might well be an excellent decision and

under certain circumstances the only decision that should be taken. It may well be that when you are dealing with an airport that is the only way to make progress.
The fact is that here you have a building which originally was to cost $4 million. The cost is now going to reach between $25 million and $30 million, it is not finished, and six years have gone by from the time the first announcement was made until the minister's announcement yesterday. So there is a great deal of resemblance between this situation and the investigation which was made of the printing bureau. I am not suggesting that an investigation should be made in this case, but I am saying that those who were so anxious to be critical of the previous administration because of what happened at the printing bureau find here, if they go into the matter carefully, circumstances that are very similar; first, with reference to the contracts being let separately and, second, with reference to the skyrocketing of the costs. Perhaps the minister might be good enough to answer the few questions I have asked.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Part of this misunderstanding arises from the fact that the first estimates dealt with the building only and the final estimates deal with the whole complex which comprises a great deal more than the building. The hon. member was minister at the time, and he knows that the so-called first estimates in 1953 and 1954, which were between $4 million and $8 million, were no more than a guess. Then in the early stages of preparation, in 1955, the estimate rose as he says, under his government, from $4 million to $10 million, that is 2i times. Then, still under the government of which he was a member, when the main plans were completed-I might point out that when he is talking to us about these delays that are supposed to be taking place today, it took three full years before the plans could be prepared under the former government. They were not prepared until 1956, and at that time the estimate rose to $12.5 million, which is several times what he says was the original estimate, which was just a guess.
Now, when the final plans have been completed, the estimate is between $15 million and $16 million, because there have been a number of things added amongst which was the air conditioning which was announced last year, costing an additional half million dollars. The estimated cost of the building alone is between $15 million and $16 million. Yesterday when I mentioned this subject in the house I gave a full statement of the additional items which brought the cost up to somewhere between $25 million and $30 million. These items were never included in any
Supply-Transport
of the former estimates. I refer to such things as the fingers, the aeroquays, the main floor finishing, the furniture, the power plant, the heating plant, the apron, the ramp paving and the access road. These are all matters that were never included in the earlier estimates, and they bring the estimate today up to between $25 million and $30 million.
I am afraid, therefore, I cannot agree with the hon. member that there is anything out of the way. As I say, if we are talking about delays I wish he would just think back to those years between 1953 and 1956 when it took three full years to complete even the preliminary plans. During that three year period the estimate rose by over three times. I am not pointing the finger at him, but I do suggest he should not point the finger at me.


Lionel Chevrier: On the contrary, I am not pointing my finger at the minister at all. I am agreeing with what he has said. I am very glad he has said just what he has, because that is exactly what we were saying with reference to the printing bureau but nobody would pay any attention to us. We started off by saying that the first estimate was a guess and they said, "Well, that is just terrible; there is no sense to that". Then the minister rose and said that after two years' time they added something. Of course you did, and that is what increased the cost. I am not suggesting for a moment that the additions were not proper and were not required. That is exactly what happened in the other case.


Harold Edward Winch: Careful; you would not want to reopen that affair.


Lionel Chevrier: I am quite able to take care of myself in that respect. I believe the circumstances here are exactly the same as they were in the other case. I am pleased that the minister reiterated practically everything that was stated by us in the other committee. There is no doubt in my mind that if the estimate rose from $10 million to $16 million, and then from $16 million to $25 million, it was because of the aeroquays, the fingers, the air conditioning and the like. There are unquestionably reasons for the additions. I am glad the minister did make the statement he made. I have no fault to find with it, because I believe the circumstances are exactly the same as in the other case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister has shown a broad understanding of these difficulties of mounting costs, changed specifications, the requirements of air conditioning and all that sort of thing, which adds to the cost of a building.


Harold Edward Winch: Maybe we ought to investigate him, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Go ahead.

Supply-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister also said the other day that in contrast to the situation a couple of years ago, the work is now really humming; that there is activity; that they are pushing along. However, that is not the information in this article. Perhaps one should not judge from casual, personal experience, but any of us who have been in and out of Dorval lately cannot help but be struck by the fact there is no sign of this humming, this pushing along. If the minister is satisfied-


George Harris Hees: I might say it is all inside, Mr. Chairman.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister satisfied that everything is being done that can be done to bring this building to completion at the earliest possible date and at the lowest possible cost?


George Harris Hees: Yes. As I said yesterday when dealing with this matter there were delays recently, and I described them. There is a reference to it in the newspapers this morning. There had been some hold-ups at treasury board, and having been a member of a government for quite some time I think he, and any other member who has been a minister, knows just how annoying that can be. These have been overcome, I am glad to say. I think I have a sympathetic ear over there in the former minister. These delays have been overcome, and I feel confident that progress will be made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The minister used to be a heavyweight boxing champion, so why does he not do something about treasury board?


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister answer the first question I asked him?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that this vote covers 120 separate airports.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want that, Mr. Chairman. Would the minister take the international airports, say Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver?


George Harris Hees: Do you want me to name them?


Lionel Chevrier: No, the amounts for these various international airports?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I do not know whether or not it would save repetition, but I have some specific questions for the minister on the Vancouver international airport. Does he want me to ask my questions and make my observations now?


George Harris Hees: Yes, go ahead.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to the problem of the Vancouver international airport, because with the tremendous influx of jet planes-as a matter of fact I think they are expected to start in

August of this year-the airport is more or less at the crossroads of its development. Although it is called the Vancouver international airport I might point out to the hon. member for Vancouver East and other members that it is located in Richmond, which is in my riding. Sea island, which is at the mouth of the Fraser river, covers some 4,000 acres.
I wish to put some of the items into perspective in discussing this particular matter. The city of Vancouver actually owns some 480 acres on Sea island for airport purposes, whereas the Department of Transport has some 2,310 acres and the Department of National Defence some 190 acres.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Any trouble over expropriations?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: There are at present some 1,200 acres in use. It is expected that by 1980 they will require some 3,450 acres. The minister indicated earlier in answer to my questions, as well as those by the hon. member for Vancouver South, that the government is prepared to acquire the airport should Vancouver decide to relinquish control. However, there has been a certain amount of confusion in the statement of facts, so I should like to direct two or three specific questions in order to put the matter in its correct perspective.
The first question I should like to ask- I do not know whether or not the minister would like me to ask each question and then have it answered?


George Harris Hees: I think that would be simpler.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The first question is, what is the equity of the federal government in Vancouver airport? I would appreciate a breakdown of the land, buildings, subsidies, etc.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I have that information, Mr. Chairman.
The equity which the federal government has in the Vancouver airport is $11,414,386. The breakdown is as follows: land purchases, $4,459,993; loans for construction of domestic terminal building, $305,701; construction of buildings, runway, et cetera, as at March 31, 1958, $6,061,759 and for the fiscal year, 1958-59, which is not final, $75,209; for a total so far of $10,902,663. The contributions which the federal government has made for airport development are as follows: 1937-38, $64,892; 1938-39, $76,563; 1939-40, $111,082; 1941-42, $9,998; 1957-58, $120,000; for a total of $382,535; operating subsidies paid to the Vancouver airport from the fiscal year 194849 to the fiscal year 1957-58, $129,188; or a grand total of $11,414,386.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I wonder whether the minister can now tell me what is the approximate equity of the city of Vancouver as represented in the 480 acres plus the buildings?


George Harris Hees: Yes; approximately $2 million.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I have a further question. The present problem of the city of Vancouver is the establishment of a terminal building which is estimated to cost some $13,700,000. I was wondering what amount the federal government would be prepared to give as a grant in aid on this building or as to how that figure would be computed by formula.


George Harris Hees: The amount of any federal government grant in aid toward a proposed passenger terminal to cost $13,700,000-that is the cost which the city quoted to us- would depend on the nature of the plans for the building, but normally the government might make a contribution related to 100 per cent of the cost of the space required for customs and excise plus 75 per cent of the cost for public waiting room accommodation, plus possibly some ramp and apron construction. Federal government grants usually amount to about 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the cost of the terminal building.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I have just one final question. As reported at page 4146 of Hansard of May 29 in answer to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South who has also shown a great deal of interest in the Vancouver airport, the minister made certain statements as to the federal government's policy in this matter. However, on June 2, in the Vancouver Province there was a front page article by a Mr. Jim Fairley. The article is headed "Four Firms Seek Jet Terminal Job" and is to the effect that there are four private firms who have indicated that they are willing to put up the money for the airport. I should like to have the minister's comment on certain statements that were made in the particular article. It is stated as follows:
Alderman Wilson also brought back a compromise offer from the federal government which he will present to city council today.
Under this plan there would be a land switch but no sale of the airport, and the federal government would build a new passenger terminal which it would ask the city to manage on a percentage-of-profits basis.
The article states further:
In the compromise deal, the city would turn over to the government the city-owned land in the centre of the airport where airport officials agree the new terminal should be located.
In return, the federal government would turn over some of its land to the city for aviation industrial development.
The city would continue to own and operate "100 per cent" this and the present industrial holdings, and would also run the government's big new passenger terminal on a percentage fee to be negotiated.
Supply-Transport
What I should like to ask the minister is this. In view of his statement made on May 29, which appears to be at variance with this article quoting Alderman Halford Wilson, can he give his opinion as to which statement should prevail?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, there has never at any time been any kind of compromise deal at all offered to the city of Vancouver in this matter.


Harold Edward Winch: That is not what you told us.


William Harold Hicks: The Pitt Meadows airport has been mentioned here this afternoon and I should like to say a few words about it. It is over two years ago since I understand certain private airplane owners asked to have an airport established at Pitt Meadows. During that time land was gradually secured, some expropriated and some purchased. When the government changed, this same policy seemed to continue. Quite a number of farms were taken over. Some of them, as I say, were expropriated, which meant, of course, that the owners of those farms could not go ahead and make improvements. A number of them are sitting there yet wondering what is going to happen to the Pitt Meadows airport. This is situated on the east side of the Pitt river and on the north side of the Fraser river. There has been considerable controversy as to the suitability of this airport, weather-wise. A large number of the farmers there want to have something definite settled about this airport and about these farm lands. I should like to ask the minister whether it is planned to continue with this airport and to make a success of it or what is the plan for the future.


George Harris Hees: As I have stated earlier, we prefer the Boundary bay site provided we can get it and we expect to do so. Provided that the Department of National Defence move out of it we are going to use Boundary bay. But at the present time we do not wish to abandon completely the idea of Pitt Meadows until we are absolutely sure of getting Boundary bay. That is about as clearly as I can state the position.


William Harold Hicks: I want to say a word or so also about another airport in my constituency, namely the Abbotsford airport. In the last few months we have heard a great deal about the millions of dollars being spent around Vancouver. I am a little bit inclined to think that the day is not too far away when Abbotsford will be almost the top, if not the top airport, for Vancouver. It is only about twenty miles out. When the highway is completed it is going to be

Supply-Transport
really within reach. I tell you that Abbotsford airport is some day going to be an airport. I say that because they have absolutely ideal weather at Abbotsford. I do not know how many planes come in there from, we will say, November 1 until April when they again land at Vancouver. There are two alternatives. One is to go to Victoria. Of course, if you have passengers for Vancouver they might as well be taken to Hong Kong as to Victoria. The other alternative is just to turn your plane around and go and land at Abbotsford. You certainly can land at Abbotsford.
I think this airport should be developed, and I know it will be in a few years. But the point I want to make today is this, that we have taken over quite a number of small farms around the Abbotsford airport but there are still four farms on the east end of the flight. They are only small places and they are chicken ranches, and sometimes some of these great liners come in there and fly over homes and poultry houses, and I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, they really cause quite a disturbance, not only amongst the housewives but among the chickens as well. Some of the chickens have been known to lay two eggs in 24 hours!
Now, Mr. Chairman, seriously, I would like to ask the minister to consider taking over without any further delay the small properties owned by Rev. J. J. Stoffel-incidentally, he should not be afraid of airplanes going over-D. Logan, J. Rempel and C. Enns. They are on the Clearbrooke road at the east end of the flight and I certainly do not think it is any place for a person to have to live with these things coming over and making a great deal of noise.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I might answer the question of the hon. member for Laurier who asked for a breakdown of this vote. I am afraid I have not got it by main airports but I have it by districts. It reads as follows:
Headquarters	 $1,354,255
Gander. Newfoundland ..	2,619.605
Moncton region	 966.858
Montreal region	 4,269,532
Toronto region	 2,292,258
Winnipeg region	 1,730,695
Edmonton region	 4.282,915
Vancouver region	 1,361,923
This, Mr. Chairman, makes a grand total of some $18,878,000.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to transport the minister for a moment from Abbotsford, where I am sure there will soon be a great and silent airport, to another part of Canada, and ask him if he could tell me what progress is being made with regard to [Mr. Hicks.)
an airfield for the most important, progressive and exciting new community in Canada? I refer, of course to Elliot Lake.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that we have made several surveys of the area, but unfortunately so far we have not been able to find a site which could be developed at anything but a very excessive cost and it would be some distance from the town. However, we are continuing to study the whole matter, and if the hon. member knows of any site that he thinks would be suitable we would appreciate it very much if he would draw it to our attention and we will be glad to investigate it.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be very glad to do that, Mr. Chairman. I was up there the other day on government business-


George Harris Hees: Of course.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and I was taken by the chamber of commerce to a proposed site not far from Elliot Lake, which they thought could be suitable for the construction of an airport. However, I will get in touch with the minister in due course.
(Translation):


Mr. Belzile:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words with regard to the airport at Matane, county seat of my riding. I would like, also, to explain to this house the emergency which exists there. At present, the airport at Matane is used by two air transport companies, the Quebecair Incorporated and the Air Services Limited. Now in September 1958, Quebecair Incorporated acquired some heavier aircraft, so that just now the Matane airport, with airstrips that are too short, does not meet present requirements.
The Matane airport is located at a point of strategic importance, because it has to serve the Matapedia valley, Matane, Ste. Anne des Monts, and all parishes around the county seat.
On the south coast, workers who are employed either in the mines or on hydro and lumbering projects and have to travel between the south and north shores, use Quebecair craft, and those of the other company I mentioned a few moments ago, for the trip between the airports situated on the north shore, like Forestville, Baie Comeau, Schefferville and Seven Islands. The town council of Matane has spent fairly large amounts on the purchase of needed property. In fact, so far it has spent $25,000 for that purpose. It will easily be realized that great

improvements are called lor at this time, and I need not refer to the gist of the correspondence exchanged in the last 15 months or so between the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), the officials of his department, the Matane city council, the Matane chamber of commerce and your humble servant. All that correspondence is of course in good hands, since it is filed with the department, for use in due course.
However, it is obvious that, by this year, the Department of Transport should not fail to consider the possibility of lengthening at least one of the airstrips by a few hundred feet, preferably strip number 0725, so that the larger Quebecair craft may land at Matane to let off or take on people who want to travel between various points in the area.
The people of Matane and I would be very glad if the hon. minister could take into consideration the present economic aspect and urgent need of development of our airport, so that we may get this year, if possible, at least the extension of the airstrip in question.
Furthermore, I would ask the minister to consider the possibility of including, in next year's estimates, the amounts required to put in the necessary improvements at that airport, so that it could adequately meet the needs of the population, especially with regard to traffic between the south and north shores of the St. Lawrence.
I imagine that the hon. minister, understanding as he is known to be, will take my remarks in good part and that, in the near future, we shall have the pleasure of noting that he has acted on our request.
(Text):


Mr. Slogan:: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions about airfields in Manitoba, but before I do so may I say that I feel a good deal of sympathy with the hon. member who was talking about the plight of chickens in the Abbotsford airport area. But as long as the chicken are laying two eggs a day rather than one as a result of the disturbance of aircraft, the ranchers should not be too concerned. I recall that during the election campaign of 1953 we were campaigning by aeroplane and booming our message down by loudspeaker to the people below. Subsequently one of the farmers complained that one of his cows had miscarried. I am sure that cost me a few votes and contributed to my defeat.
Supply-Transport
I was wondering, in view of the increased activity at Winnipeg airport by commercial aircraft and the growing hazard at this airport from small aeroplanes, especially those not equipped with suitable radio communication facilities, whether the department has taken definite steps to establish a satellite airport north of Winnipeg and, if so, whether a site has been chosen. If a site has not been chosen, could the minister tell us when he expects to make an announcement regarding the choice of the site?


George Harris Hees: We have selected a site, but we have not been able to announce it yet because we have not received the necessary authorization to purchase the land. But as soon as we do get authorization we shall be making the announcement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the minister about the language of this item. I am particularly interested in the last ten lines or so. Perhaps I had better read them out.
-the treasury board may in the current and future years-
In other words, this legislation is not merely for one year but for all time-
-authorize arrangements to be made for the operation of hotel, bakery, restaurant, staff messing, staff accommodation and similar facilities at airports and authorize the disbursement of revenues received therefrom and payment of deficits that may occur in the management and operation of these facilities.
I am not criticizing that; quite the contrary. Perhaps I should have noticed this before I spoke yesterday. I am glad to hear that the minister is taking power under this item to build and operate a hotel at Gander if he cannot find anyone else to do it. I assume that that is what this authority means. I think, though, that the minister should tell us how it is planned to use this authority. In that context I have a practical suggestion to make to the minister about the best single inducement to hold out in order to get a hotel at Gander. I think the Department of Transport which, after all, is in the driver's seat at Gander, should say that no one gets a licence to sell beverages at Gander unless he undertakes to build a hotel. It would not be very long, then, before a hotel was provided. But I think we ought to know precisely what the minister has in mind, at least for this year. We do not expect to have information with regard to future years.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member has asked what this wording means. It is technical wording required, again, by the treasury board-they

Supply-Transport
always seem to be the villains in the piece. This is technical wording required to enable us to use the revenues from the restaurant and bakery at Gander in a revolving account. Otherwise, we would not be able to make immediate purchases for our needs in that area. What was the other question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The suggestion I made to the minister was that if the government would say that in the new terminal whoever was licensed to sell beverages would have to provide a decent hotel, I do not think it would be very long before we got a hotel.


George Harris Hees: I am told that we are the licensee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I think it is up to
you to build a hotel.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister what the policy is in the airports under the jurisdiction of the department concerning the sale of liquor? I understand that at Gander there is a licence. I also understand that in the new airport at Montreal provision has been made for a licence. Could the minister elaborate on that?


George Harris Hees: Yes. I understand that the licence at Gander has been in existence for some 20 years. Regarding the other airports no decision has been taken to make liquor available by sale.


Lionel Chevrier: What about the situation
in the airport at Montreal? Provision was made for a liquor and beverage area.


George Harris Hees: No decision has been taken to make liquor available there.


Lionel Chevrier: That has not answered my question. Is the area in the Montreal airport which was provided as a liquor outlet still in existence?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: But the policy of the department has not yet been determined with regard to the sale of liquor for all airports other than Gander. It is still under consideration. Is that the position?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister tell
me what are the relations of the department with commercial caterers at Gander?


George Harris Hees: They act as our management agents under contract.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But you are the licencees, and you actually own the premises.


George Harris Hees: We own the premises and are financially responsible.


Erik Nielsen: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
437. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, and amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and including authority to contribute up to $250,000 in 1959-60 to the province of Nova Scotia towards the construction of a highway providing access to the new Halifax international airport, $63,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, really I
cannot understand this vote. It comes to me as a great surprise. I hope the minister will not be able to reply-if he does I will have to take my seat-that a vote of this magnitude ever existed before. Certainly, I cannot remember it in the time that I was there; I cannot remember $63 million in one vote. I think it is just abnormal. The vote should be divided so that the committee will get some idea of what it is. After all, there is no sense in giving this wording:
Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities-
It includes everything that one can think of. There is more money being voted in one item here than in several other departments of government. Perhaps that goes to
Supply-Transport
indicate some of the criticisms-constructive criticisms, I believe-that were directed against the department because of its size. Surely, something should be done about a vote of this magnitude. How can it be expected that the committee can give any serious consideration to a thing of this kind. I do not know what it means, and I have some comprehension of what goes on in the Department of Transport; but to ask for this tremendous amount and not give a greater breakdown than this I think certainly demands an explanation.


George Harris Hees: I think there is something in what the hon. member says. I think this could be broken down into smaller amounts and I will certainly see that that is done next year. If there are any specific questions the hon. member would like to have answered on this vote I should be glad to give him the answers.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the minister should break down the three or four items that are contained in the description of the estimate. First how much of this is for construction of buildings; how much is for municipal airports or contributions to municipalities; how much for zoning regulations and compensation in payment thereof; how much for the other airports contained in the last part of the vote.
Before the minister replies may I ask him this. Does he not think that this is the time to outline the policy of the government with reference to airports in general? By that I mean what is the policy with reference to municipalities; what is the policy with reference to far-flung areas in the country, and how much is contributed in that respect? What is the policy with reference to airports that do not fall within that category, such as small strips? I think now of those along the north shore of the St. Lawrence river. When it is established that additional services are required, does the department make contributions on each occasion? What is the reason for those contributions? Here we have a tremendous vote, and I think the minister should first of all outline what the policy is in connection with the various categories of airports falling under his department, and next give a breakdown of this $63 million under the headings which are mentioned in the vote.


George Harris Hees: The present arrangement under which the majority of airports are federally operated, particularly in the secondary field category, is the result of historical development and wartime growth. Basically speaking, however, the present policy is that the federal government encourages municipal operation of airports, and at mainline airports served by scheduled services may, if necessary, pay

Supply-Transport
a subsidy to a municipal airport operator toward meeting operating deficits. If the municipality is not prepared to operate the field and if the field is a major airport required to carry out international commitments, the federal government would assume responsibility. In other cases, particularly requests for construction of a new airport, the federal government normally requires municipal participation giving as a minimum assurance it will provide the land for the airfield and agree to operate it after the federal government has constructed it. In the case of local airports, dollar for dollar participation may also be required. The granting of operating subsidies to meet municipal deficits are dealt with by special investigation, both technical and economical in each case and then a reference to treasury board for decision.
In this vote, Mr. Chairman, there are no zoning expenditures and no expenditures for grants. It is all construction of runways and buildings. I have here a complete list of all of the expenditures. I could give them all but it would take considerable time. If the committee would like me to do so I will give only those where amounts of over $100,000 are going to be spent.


Lionel Chevrier: Before the minister does that, there is a clear indication in the vote that it is for amounts paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is affected by the operation of the zoning regulations passed by the house. Therefore a substantial portion of the vote must be in payment of compensation for that purpose.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there is a token item of $500,000 which is an authorizing item for unknown claims that may be made. To break down the vote roughly, there is $25 million for buildings and the remainder is for runways, lighting, taxiways, etc. If it is satisfactory to the committee and the hon. member would like it-as I say I can give every item but there are a great many-I will give those items over $100,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Give the items over $1 million.


George Harris Hees: The first one is Halifax, Nova Scotia, air terminal building and incinerator, $2,450,000; Torbay, Newfoundland, extending runway to 7,000 feet, $1 million; Montreal, air terminal building, $6,500,000; Montreal, power and heating plant for new terminal building, including distribution tunnels, $1,300,000; Montreal, concrete parking apron, $1,800,000; Montreal, new parallel runway, 10,000 feet by 200 feet, $2,900,000; Sault Ste. Marie, development of airport, $2 million; Toronto, development of the island

airport, $1,500,000; Toronto, air terminal building, $8 million; Winnipeg, air terminal building, $3 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the amount for Toronto
complete Malton airport?


George Harris Hees: That is just the start. Edmonton, air terminal building, $1,500,000; Edmonton, airport development, $1 million. Those are all the items $1 million and over.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to make a suggestion to the minister. After listening to these almost astronomical figures it would seem that the Department of Public Works is a very small department compared with the Department of Transport but the Department of Public Works does list its various projects. Of course, they have a grab-all for items less than $25,000. Perhaps that is too small a sum in this field but does the minister not think it would be in the interests of informing parliament and the people of the country better if next year this item were broken down into sub-items and every separate project amounting to over $50,000 was listed separately? It is true, of course, that there is the question of transferability of funds but as long as it is all under one item that problem does not arise. In public works they cannot transfer from one province to another. I am not suggesting that we go that far but it does seem to me, as the hon. member for Laurier has said, that this is a tremendous sum of money to put in a vote without any kind of itemization or anything that enables us to compare the expenditures in one year with those in another year.
While I am on my feet, may I deal with something about which I particularly want to speak. I refer to the contribution toward the highway to the new Halifax international airport. I do not want the minister to think that I am criticizing this. I am a very strong exponent and belong to a political party which is a very strong exponent of doing more about highways in the Atlantic provinces to compensate for the railway building that is done with federal assistance in other parts of the country and which is not very suitable in the Atlantic provinces.


Mr. Brooks:: You have not done very much in your own province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. gentleman will look at the vote for the Terra Nova national park, which is right on the trans-Canada highway and which was established largely, if I may say so without undue immodesty, on my initiative when we were in office, he will see that I can make some claims that are very well recognized in my constituency.

I thank the minister for reminding my constituents because I would have been too modest to mention it myself.
I want to come back to the question of the Halifax international airport. It is very necessary that there should be a new airport at Halifax. Everybody recognizes that and, of course, as the hon. member for Laurier has reminded me and as he is too modest to say it himself I will say it for him, he was the one who decided that. This airport is some little distance from Halifax and if it is to serve that great metropolitan community it is most important that there should be a good high speed road to the new airport.
But we have a situation in Newfoundland where we have an airport which, I am afraid, is no better than the existing Halifax airport, if indeed it is as good, as far as weather is concerned. We are now finally beginning to get a road between St. John's and Gander, and it does seem to me that there ought to be some principle upon which this assistance is based. I know that the distance to Gander from St. John's is about ten times the distance from Halifax to the international airport and naturally one could not expect the same mileage rate, but I would ask the minister if he does not think, in view of the number of times that aircraft bound for St. John's have to stop at Gander, that there should be some consideration given to treating Newfoundland and the Gander-St. John's situation on the same kind of basis as this treatment of Halifax. Perhaps the minister would tell us precisely what the formula is in the case of Halifax.


George Harris Hees: The formula in the case of Halifax is that we have contributed to the provincial government the amount of money we calculated it would cost us to build a road from the airport to the nearest highway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: To the nearest highway?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How far is that?


George Harris Hees: Five to six miles.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that the minister has somewhat deflated my case. I know that before he became minister his department was giving some consideration to an alternative site to Torbay out at Topsail or somewhere in that area where the weather is quite different from what it is east of St. John's. Of course, another airport would be a very expensive item. If a suitable site can be found, everyone would agree that would be the best thing but if a suitable site cannot be found then, as an alternative, I suggest that some consideration might be given to some assistance to speeding up work on the trans-Canada highway in order to overcome 66968-9-296
Supply-Transport
some of the frightful disabilities existing at present because of the state of the road to Gander.


George Harris Hees: I will draw that to the attention of my colleague, the Minister of Public Works.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Public
Works, no; you will get nowhere doing that, if I may say so with respect. I suggest that the minister take it up himself and make the project his own. Then, in view of that grit and determination about which we have read in the public prints lately, we can hope something might happen.


Mr. Broome:: I should like to draw the
attention of the department to the question of specifying the products of western Canada for the construction of buildings in western Canada. I would request the incorporation of those products by name in the specifications. At the moment the specifications as developed by the Department of Transport are written with products manufactured in Montreal and in Toronto in view, to the extent of about 99 per cent. We think we are being discriminated against.
I should like to point out to the minister that this is exactly what happened to the 13 American colonies before 1776, because Britain tried to keep manufacturing there and did not allow any secondary industry in the 13 colonies. We, in British Columbia, have almost reached that point. The minister's officials have ways of ascertaining the different products which are available in other parts of the country, outside of Montreal and Toronto. I hope the minister will have his officials give active help to western manufacturers so that they will receive the same treatment as eastern manufacturers. I know something about specifications and the writing of specifications. This is not a hollow request. There is room for legitimate criticism of the way things are being handled now so far as our manufacturers on the west coast are concerned, and I suspect in Alberta as well.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I should like to raise a matter which is, I think, of considerable importance. I refer to the expropriation of property. I hope hon. members to the right will take it in the objective nature that it is being suggested. I raise this in connection with the Vancouver international airport. There were expropriations filed in 1954 and at that time the vast majority of the cases were settled.
What I wish to draw to the attention of the minister is that under the expropriation Act and also the Exchequer Court Act, unfortunately the valuation of the property has to be made at the date of expropriation. I feel that some consideration should be given to reviewing present expropriation procedures

Supply-Transport
because, under conditions as we have them today, property valuations have been increasing over the years. However, under the present system of expropriation a person is entitled only to the valuation of the property on the date of expropriation which, in this particular instance, is 1954, plus possibly an allowance of 10 per cent for forcible taking.
I lay no blame on the Department of Transport or on the particular people involved, but sometimes these properties are expropriated with extremely long range plans in view. It has been the practice, very often, to allow the people to remain in possession of these properties, without any settlement being effected. The result has been that when the time for settlement comes around the settlement is made on the basis of 1954 valuations. I have had a great deal of difficulty, personally, explaining to these people why they cannot get the advantage of the increased value. I would suggest that the minister give consideration to a plan whereby, for example, if property has been expropriated and no settlement has been made within one year, some provision could be made so that the owner could take advantage of increased land values. If that is not possible, then perhaps the replacement value of the property could be used as a basis for settlement so the person could locate in a similar place under similar circumstances.
As a result of having been associated with some of these individuals I suspect the minister's answer might be that they could proceed in the exchequer court, but the attitude toward people involved in these expropriation proceedings has been to load the gun in favour of the department. The majority of these people with small holdings are unable to afford the cost of expropriation proceedings. I feel some consideration should be given to reviewing the Expropriation Act and the Exchequer Court Act to provide for some of these contingencies in the future.


Augustin Brassard: I read what the minister said yesterday with regard to the possibility of establishing a civilian airport in the vicinity of Jonquiere. He said, as reported on page 4576 of Hansard:
-I should like to answer the hon. member's question about airports. I recognize the problem in the Chibougamau area-
I am sure the minister was referring to the Chicoutimi area.


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Augustin Brassard: He said:
We have reviewed the general area from the point of view of other locations for a field and have the matter under continuing study.
[Mr. Drysdale.l
I should like to ask the minister if, in the survey of the area which has been made by D.O.T. officials, they have considered a location within the boundaries of Lapointe county, which means Jonquiere, Arvida or Kenogami?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, if some municipality makes an approach to us with a proposal we will be very glad to look into it. So far, none has.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister mentioned a figure of $8 million, if I remember correctly, for Toronto. Was that for the new air terminal in Malton?


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is for the new air terminal. I am advised I said $8 million when I should have said $6 million.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister when the decision was taken about the establishment of the new air terminal at Malton, and where will it be located?


George Harris Hees: It is at the south end of the field, and I am advised the decision on that location was taken two or three years ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Are the plans and specifications ready?


George Harris Hees: No, not yet.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask who has prepared the plans and specifications?


George Harris Hees: The firm of John Parkin and Associates.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give an
idea of the present estimate of the cost of the new terminal?


George Harris Hees: The first stage will be the construction of a single aeroquay. The first estimate is somewhere in the vicinity of $13 million.


Lionel Chevrier: How many stages will there be in the terminal?


George Harris Hees: This will be determined as traffic grows. The first stage is a single aeroquay and, as traffic develops, other stages will be developed.


Lionel Chevrier: Have any contracts been given for the first stage?


George Harris Hees: Yes, the excavation only.


Lionel Chevrier: When is it expected the terminal will be completed?


George Harris Hees: The indication at the present time is somewhere between four and five years.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give an idea of what the total cost of the terminal will be?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, the plans have not advanced sufficiently to be able to do so now.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister tell the house what kind of terminal it will be? By that, I mean, what is going to be contained in the terminal? The minister says the first stage will cost about $12 million. What is envisaged in the terminal? Is it a terminal, for instance, in the nature of La Guardia?


George Harris Hees: This is a circular terminal building which does not include any office space. That will be the next stage, namely to build an office building which is separate.


Lionel Chevrier: What will be done about the present terminal?


George Harris Hees: It will be used for other purposes.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall the item carry?


Mr. Dumas:: No, Mr. Chairman. As to the construction of terminal facilities at Val d'Or airport, can the minister tell the committee whether plans have been finalized and arrangements made with the municipality of Val d'Or?	'


George Harris Hees: This is an R.C.A.F. field. I wonder whether the hon. member can tell me specifically what he has in mind?


Armand Dumas: Yes. What I have in mind is this. That may be an R.C.A.F. field but Trans-Canada Air Lines are operating from that airport. As to the facilities there, while I would not say that they are third class, I will say that they were built in 1950 when we had a small airport at that place. Now it has grown and it is congested. I understand that the municipality has been in contact with the Department of Transport in connection with the improvement of those facilities.


George Harris Hees: It is my understanding that the city runs the airport and that it is their responsibility. We have not any plans at the present time.


Armand Dumas: Can the minister say whether the municipality has approached the department with regard to the construction of those facilities?


George Harris Hees: Not to our knowledge. They have approached us for road assistance, but that is all.


Ernest James Broome: I have not had from the minister an answer to my question. I should like the minister to give me an assurance that his officials will give every active assistance to western manufacturers who are desirous 66968-9-296J
Supply-Transport
of submitting their products for the purpose of obtaining acceptability to the department so that they in turn may quote on projects which are in our area?


George Harris Hees: Yes. Our policy wherever possible is to use local products.


Ernest James Broome: I asked for active assistance in getting the products accepted for specification purposes.


George Harris Hees: Yes; if local manufacturers or builders or makers of products wish to have them accepted and come to see us they will receive co-operation.


Ernest James Broome: That is exactly the point. They are obliged to travel 3,000 miles in order to see department officials whereas people from Toronto can come up here over night or people from Montreal can come up here in two hours. Much of these negotiations must be carried on by correspondence. The idea I am trying to put across is that departmental officials should actually help these manufacturers to get the same treatment as if they were located in Montreal and could could come up here at relatively small expense and see departmental officials. In other words, what I am asking for is willing cooperation along those lines.


George Harris Hees: We shall be very glad to cooperate. If they will contact us by letter and let us know what they have, we shall be very glad to co-operate with them.


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: I want to ask the minister whether in the present estimate any consideration has been given to the construction of a major airport in Kootenay East. I realize that several briefs have been submitted in the matter. I believe the department officials in their wisdom will settle on a good location for the airport. I think this has been a matter of correspondence for some time.


George Harris Hees: Can the hon. member tell me specifically what location he has in mind?


Murray Lincoln McFarlane: Several locations have been mentioned in Kootenay East for the airport. At the present time we have an air field at Wasa and one at Cranbrook. Representations or briefs have been submitted to the department for a major airport to be constructed at Creston. We feel that this matter should be considered by department officials.


George Harris Hees: We are studying that proposal but there is nothing in this year's estimates. However, we are studying the proposal to which the hon. member has referred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
* 439. Contributions to municipalities or public
bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations including a contribution to an appropriate authority in respect of an airport at Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon, Quebec, $82,060.
Lionel Chevrier: On this item I am prompted to ask the minister a number of questions.
I remember that at one time there was on foot a plan to operate a milk run from Toronto to Montreal with stops at Cornwall, Belleville, Brockville, Kingston, and Oshawa; T.C.A. had in mind the operation of that run. I wonder whether anything has been decided in so far as that matter is concerned.


George Harris Hees: T.C.A. has nothing under consideration at the present time but we understand another operator has been giving it some thought.


Lionel Chevrier: I see that the hon. member for Stormont is in the chamber. I am sure he will not mind my asking this question inasmuch as I was on the other side of the house when two surveys were made of an airport for Cornwall. I wonder what progress has been made in that respect.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the matter has not been pursued any further by the city.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Can the minister tell us what improvements have been made in and what expenditure is provided for in these estimates for the Castlegar airport this year?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the present site is developed about as far as it is capable of being developed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air Transport Board-
442. Salaries and other expenses, Including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $369,285.
Lionel Chevrier: As the minister knows this is perhaps one of the most important items there is in this department because under it can be considered and discussed the various rights and agreements aifecting the air lines of Canada. I am prompted here to bring to the minister's attention again the changes that were made in the United Kingdom air agreement which he announced in the house the other day and which I should like to discuss briefly and about which I should like to ask a few questions.
As I understand that matter, when it was announced by the minister there was first a service that would in the future operate from Toronto to Hong Kong, originating in Toronto. As the minister knows, there is also a service from Vancouver to Hong Kong in connection with the bilateral agreement. Next there was announced a direct operation
IMr. Hees.]
Vancouver-Winnipeg-Edmonton to London. I presume that on that basis the Canadian government will in due course have to designate the chosen instrument for those two routes. I do not know what the government is going to do but I think the minister should give some indication of what is likely to happen arising out of these rights. After all, they have been granted by the government of Canada. Whether C.P.A. will expect to get and be entitled to get the run from Toronto to Hong Kong is a matter to which I think consideration should be given, and the minister might well indicate what is the position. It may well be that T.C.A., because of its western services, will expect to get the run from western Canada direct to London because of the services which it already performs from the eastern part of Canada to the United Kingdom.
Then another announcement which was made by the minister had to do with furtherance rights: that is, fifth freedom rights from London to Brussels, Dusseldorf and Vienna. Of course, as has already been discussed, if B.O.A.C. now gets access to Toronto arising out of the air agreement, I think that since these matters fall to be determined partly by the air transport board and partly by the minister and the governor in council under the Aeronautics Act, a matter of this importance should get a little further consideration than was given on the occasion of the announcement made by the minister. So that I ask the minister this: What will the position of T.C.A. be in the face of this amended air agreement when it comes into force in 1960? Next, what will the position of C.P.A. be in so far as the additional rights are concerned?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the allocation
to any particular airline of these new air routes has not been made, and when it is it will be announced by the government.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister says the allocation has not been made and will be announced when it is made. How will the allocation of these routes be made?


George Harris Hees: In the most equitable way that the government can do it.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not satisfied with that answer. Will it be made by an application by the airlines to the air transport board, or will it be made by determination of the governor in council?


George Harris Hees: The allocation of an air route to any air carrier under an international agreement requires a government decision, not an order in council.


Lionel Chevrier: A government decision means that the decision is made by the governor in council.


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Then, may I ask the minister this. Since the governor in council, as I understand it, has not determined what the chosen instrument shall be in these various cases, what other airlines have made representations to the government tor additional rights in Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, it is not a question of airlines making applications. I have asked the air transport board to study the whole international picture and to submit a report to me with their recommendations.


Lionel Chevrier: Is that a report which is made under the Aeronautics Act?


George Harris Hees: It is the air transport board reporting in the normal course of its duty to the minister on what it recommends under this agreement with regard to the routes which should be allocated to a specific airline.


Lionel Chevrier: Under the Aeronautics Act, as I understand it, an application must be made before the matter can be brought to the attention of the air transport board. Has an application been made by any of these airlines for additional rights in Canada?


George Harris Hees: No formal application. There have been informal discussions.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the report the minister speaks of be available to the house?


George Harris Hees: No. This is a private report made by the air transport board to the minister.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, under this item 442 dealing with the air transport board I should like to take a few minutes of the committee's time to refer to the recent order of the board which cut the city I represent, Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, from regular airline service as of last April 6. This was done, as the minister knows, when the board approved the application of Pacific Western Airlines to suspend operations in Moose Jaw.
I want to draw the attention of the minister to the need for some policy that will assist cities which find themselves cut off from a regular scheduled flight although they possess very adequate airport facilities. In this regard I want to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat, who made an appeal yesterday for greater attention to air service for the cities on the prairies. The minister knows of our efforts in Moose Jaw to obtain an air service in line with our position as a city of over 30,000 serving an area
Supply-Transport
with a population of 100,000 people in a flat, open country which is very suitable for day and night flights, with ideal flying weather conditions.
I have here, Mr. Chairman, some correspondence from Moose Jaw officials to press our claims for greater consideration in future air services, and if I may I would like to put on record just a few excerpts from recent letters. This is part of a letter written by the mayor of Moose Jaw, and it says:
The municipal air board, the chamber of commerce and the city of Moose Jaw are most concerned with the situation in which the city of Moose Jaw is now placed by being completely eliminated from the commercial air map.
Then again he says:
The municipal airport has a double hangar under lease from the Department of Transport and is in a position to provide excellent facilties . . .
The board has, since undertaking the responsibility of civilian commercial aviation in this district, expended some $53,000 in the hangar in order to provide a radio room, ticket offices, waiting room, maintenance shop and heated hangar storage if required. In addition, we have in the past six months installed two gasoline dispensing units capable of dispensing gasoline at the rate of 50 gallons per minute, thereby providing emergency gasoline service whenever required.
Our hangar is located at the R.C.A.F. station which has one of the best airfields in Saskatchewan.
I might point out to the minister, Mr. Chairman, that some form of feeder line service linking prairie cities off the T.C.A. route would almost certainly increase T.C.A.'s passenger service. It has been estimated that Trans-Canada Air Lines now enjoys passenger fares from Moose Jaw of over $125,000 annually without providing any air facilities at all in the city. Passengers buy their tickets in Moose Jaw and provide their own transportation to Regina to board the plane. I think, Mr. Chairman, as do the people of Moose Jaw, that it would be good business to provide an air link to encourage this passenger traffic.
Moose Jaw has always been a very air-minded city, with almost a pioneer's record in the aviation field. We had one of the first flying fields in the west and one of the first flying clubs. We staged the first air show in the province in 1929, 30 years ago, when over 30,000 people saw one of the first exhibitions of formation and stunt flying, and the first exhibition of parachute jumping. The test flight before the official start of the old western Canada air mail service took off from the Moose Jaw flying field. I had the pleasure of being a passenger on that trial flight, in 30-degree-below temperature in the middle of winter and with the pilot, the well known northern flyer, Con Farrell, sitting in an open cockpit.
I am not speaking for Moose Jaw alone, Mr. Chairman. At a recent meeting of the
[DOT]4672

Supply-Transport
sessional committee on railways, steamships and air lines it was indicated by Mr. Gordon McGregor, T.C.A. president, that by 1961 the T.CA. will be operating an all turbine powered fleet, consisting of Viscounts for the shorter distance operations; Vanguards for the medium distances and DC-8's for the long-range flights.
T.C.A. flights 150 and 151, operating between Winnipeg and Calgary, using DC-3's, now touch down at Brandon, Yorkton, Regina, Swift Current, Medicine Hat and Lethbridge. Mr. McGregor's statement that all turbine powered aircraft will be operated by T.C.A. by 1961 indicates that there will be no DC-3's in operation by that time. Most of the smaller airports mentioned above have runways that cannot handle the larger planes. This means that these cities might also, like Moose Jaw, lose their regular scheduled air flight service. I am sure this matter is being given very serious study by air flight experts with the object of accommodating the points now on T.C.A. flight 150 and 151 schedules.
I wish again, Mr. Chairman, to emphasize to the minister, and through him to the air transport board the need to include Moose Jaw in such a service, and the claims of Moose Jaw to be included in such a service.
I wonder whether the minister would comment on the future policy with regard to prairie cities in the light of Canadian flight schedules after 1961?


George Harris Hees: This is, as I am sure the hon. member realizes,, and as he has pointed out, a very difficult problem and a major problem and it is one which is under very serious study at the present time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister had any indication from the civil aeronautics board in the United States as to the position of North Central Airlines with regard to their wish to establish a line to the Canadian lakehead which would link up to Minneapolis?


George Harris Hees: Nothing has come through from the United States with regard to this matter.


Douglas Mason Fisher: If the board in the United States does entertain this application from North Central Airlines, what part could be played by the local people in that area? We are very anxious to have this particular franchise established. And what part is played by the air transport board in relation to the Department of External Affairs in this matter?


George Harris Hees: The hon. member asked what the people of the lakehead could do to further this application, and the answer is that they could go to Washington and support the application when it comes before the air transport authority there. The hon. member
[Mr. Pascoe.l
asked what is the role of our air transport board here. It is to license the airline once a licence has been granted to the airline by the air transport authority in the United States.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is the minister now satisfied that the whole question of international air agreements can go much faster than a year ago when he said he was not able to make much progress in getting together with the United States authorities?


George Harris Hees: I regret to say that the answer is, no. We try on every possible opportunity to reach agreement with the United States on these matters but we find the going hard.


Douglas Mason Fisher: In pilotage and then, again, in the air we seem to have repeated and consistent delays. The minister says, of course, that it is not the fault of his department. What seems to be the problem in the channel of communications?


George Harris Hees: There is no problem in communications but we find it is difficult in all these cases to get the United States authorities, first, to sit down and talk and, second, to agree to what we believe to be fair propositions. They are tough bargainers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does this mean that they will not pay attention to Canadian interests because, perhaps, these are considered minor matters and there are more important matters with which the authorities in the United States want to deal, or is it because they want the highest possible rate, and the department has to struggle and struggle with them?


George Harris Hees: I do not think it would do international relations any good if I were to describe these things in intimate detail. All I will say is that we are doing our best to reach agreement with the United States. We have our propositions which are fair and reasonable, and I am sure they do, too, but we find it difficult to reach these agreements, though it is not for lack of trying on our part.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One last question. Who replaced the member of the air transport board who died last year?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Paul Davoud who is the
present chairman.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister give us any idea of his background?


George Harris Hees: There is no secret about this. A press release was made, his background was given in great detail, and since it was in all the papers I am surprised the hon. member has not read it. We have not got the details of his background here, but I thought every hon. member was thoroughly familiar with

them because this was an important appointment. I should have thought that the hon. member would have read the announcement.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I did, but I was not able to discover anything about his political persuasion.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am able to say that I have no idea what party he chooses to support.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. Hanbidge:: I wish to speak on item 443-
Progress reported.


Mr. Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, in accordance with standing order No. 51.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill SD-107, for the relief of Maurice Castonguay. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-277, for the relief of Iris Marion Saunders Robbins. (Without Amendment).- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-278, for the relief of Eleonora Dudarowa Shukoff. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-279, for the relief of Jeannette Belanger Ross. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-280, for the relief of Evelyn Isbit-sky Goldenberg. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-281, for the relief of Salla Weis-man Stopnicki, otherwise known as Sally Weisman Stopnicki. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-282, for the relief of Ovila Rivet. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-283, for the relief of Bella Valin-sky	Segal. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-284, for the relief of Alexander Pavlovich. (Without	Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-285, for the relief of Catherine Anne Gillis Roper. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-286, for the relief of John Robertson	Low.	(Without	Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-287, for the relief of Barbara Ann Foam Armstrong, otherwise known as Barbara Ann Foam Copan. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Industrial Relations
Bill SD-288, for the relief of Ruth Mary Morgenstern Usher. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-289, for the relief of Eddie Ronald Joe Willard. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-290, for the relief of Michel Alphonse Dubois. (Without Amendment).- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-292, for the relief of Phyllis Ann Applebaum Isenberg. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-293, for the relief of Zita May Pardoe McCall. (Without Amendment).- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-294, for the relief of Monique Andree Seguin Tyson. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-295, for the relief of Bertha Sylvia Berman Maxwell. (Without Amendment).- Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-296, for the relief of Margery Fletcher Dennis Phillips. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-297, for the relief of Margaret Helen Dawson MacKenzie. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-298, for the relief of Eleanor Gwyneth Henley Norman. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-299, for the relief of Marie Pauline Primeau Landreville. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-300, for the relief of Ellen Wilk Tuke. (Without Amendment).-Mr. McCleave.
Bill SD-301, for the relief of Rhoda Lillian Rabinovitch Katchan. (Without Amendment). -Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, February 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Peters for the second reading of Bill No. C-8, to provide for minimum wages for employees.
Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate adjourned on February 27 I had just risen to make a few comments on this bill. Perhaps, to refresh our memories, I should refer to the explanatory note of the bill. It says:
The purpose of this bill is to establish a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction. This bill provides that such minimum rate of wages shall be $1.25 per hour. The bill also provides that its terms do not affect any employee whose rate of wages is higher than the minimum established

Industrial Relations
by this legislation. However, any rate of wages less favourable to employees than $1.25 per hour is superseded by this bill.
The last time this was discussed I had expressed approval of the principle of a minimum wage law. I was about to differ with the principle of this bill, and I think that one of the main objections to it lies in the fact that it says that this bill can apply only to those who come under federal jurisdiction. 1 believe that to be a serious defect in the bill and I believe it would nullify the value that it would have otherwise. The second objection I take to it is that $1.25 an hour may be suitable in one part of the country; it may be too low in another pari and it may be too high in still another part of the country.
I should like now to refer to one matter which the member for Timiskaming mentioned when he introduced the bill. He compared it with a previous minimum wage bill which had been introduced in 1935 and was actually enacted by the parliament of Canada. That bill, of course, did differ greatly from the present one inasmuch as its purpose was to apply to everyone in Canada, not only to those under federal jurisdiction. This is a matter that seems to come up quite often these days. When we come to enact legislation we find a conflict of jurisdiction between the federal and provincial governments.
I think nearly everybody who took part in the debate of that day did refer to the fact that this legislation had been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada which ruled it to be ultra vires. I must confess that at the time this was last discussed I felt that was the case myself. However, I have before me the page of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada at that time and I believe this has a very important bearing on all of our labour legislation.
It has been suggested many times that we should have uniform labour legislation and, of course, the purpose of the bill in 1935 was to ratify one of the conventions of the international labour organization which had been set up pursuant to the treaty of Versailles and under the auspices of the League of Nations. We are still members of that international labour organization, and we have not been able to ratify many of the conventions of that organization because of this very conflict that arose over the jurisdiction of federal and provincial governments.
I should like to refer to the judgment of the supreme court at that time, because as it turns out the legislation was not found to be ultra vires by the supreme court. Three of the justices held that it was intra vires
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) .3
of the federal government and three justices held that it was ultra vires. As a result, it was referred it to privy council who then declared that it was ultra vires. Of course, we are not faced with that situation today. If the same decision had to be made over again it would be the Supreme Court of Canada who would have the decision to make and for that reason I think it is very interesting to look at the decision that was made by the supreme court at that time. I am just going to refer to it now.
I hold in my hand a book from the library of parliament entitled "Supreme Court and Privy Council Judgments Special Legislation-1934-1935". This is in the matter of a reference as to whether the parliament of Canada had legislative jurisdiction to enact the Weekly Rest in Industrial Undertakings Act, being chapter 14 of the Statutes of Canada, 1935; the Minimum Wages Act, being chapter 44 of the Statutes of Canada, 1935; and the Limitation of Hours of Work Act, being chapter 63 of the Statutes of Canada, 1935. There was a good deal of other social legislation enacted by the Bennett government at that time and the other acts that were passed at that time were ruled ultra vires by the supreme court. However, in this case, as I pointed out, there were three judges on each side. This is the head note:
Held, per Duff C. J. and Davis and Kerwin J. J.. that these acts are intra vires of the parliament of Canada; per Rinfret, Cannon and Crocket J. J., that they are ultra vires.
I should like to read a portion of the judgment of the three judges who held that it was intra vires of the federal government.
From two main considerations, the conclusion follows that legislative authority in respect of international agreements is, as regards Canada, vested exclusively in the parliament of Canada. First, by virtue of section 132 of the British North America Act, jurisdiction, legislative and executive, for the purpose of giving effect to any treaty obligation imposed upon Canada, or any one of the provinces of Canada, by force of a treaty between the British Empire and a foreign country, is committed to the parliament and government of Canada. This jurisdiction of the dominion the privy council held, in the Aeronautics case and in the Radio case is exclusive; and consequently, under the British North America Act, the provinces have no power and never had power to legislate for the purpose of giving effect to an international agreement: that, as a subject of legislation, is excluded from the jurisdiction envisaged by section 92.
Second, as a result of the constitutional development of the last 30 years, and more particularly of the last 20 years, Canada has acquired the status of an international unit, that is to say, she has been recognized by His Majesty the King, by the other nations of the British commonwealth of nations, and by the nations of the world, as possessing a status enabling her to enter into, on her own behalf, international arrangements, and to incur obligations under such arrangements. These arrangements may take various forms. They may take the form of treaties, in the strict sense, between heads of states.

to which His Majesty the King is formally a party. They may take, inter alia, the form of agreements between governments, in which His Majesty does not formally appear, Canada being represented by the governor general in council or by a delegate or delegates authorized directly by him. Whatever the form of the agreement, it is now settled that, as regards Canada, it is the Canadian government acting on its own responsibility to the parliament of Canada which deals with the matter. If the international contract is in the form of a treaty between heads of states, His Majesty acts, as regards Canada, on the advice of his Canadian government.
It goes on with two or three further instances and I will refer to one particularly farther down the page. It says:
-in all these matters the authority of parliament in not merely paramount but exclusive.
The Minister of Labour was asked a question in the house a few days ago with respect to why we had not ratified some of the conventions of the international labour organization. I believe this is a matter worth pursuing and if we can find some way of enacting legislation that will apply to the whole country I think it would be very worth while. However, in view of the fact that the bill would only apply to those who come under federal jurisdiction, as it exists at the present time I am sure everyone will agree that the bill is not suitable.
The hon. member who introduced the bill placed on Hansard information as to the minimum wage provisions of the various provinces. We find that the amounts range from a low of 35 cents per hour in Newfoundland to a high of 75 cents per hour in British Columbia. It would seem to me to be absolutely ridiculous to have legislation providing for a minimum wage of $1.25 an hour which would apply to employees of federal organizations in a province and at the same time a provincial statute making provision for a minimum wage of only 35 cents an hour. It would be completely discriminatory in the case of firms that came under federal jurisdiction.
I think that emphasizes the other point I have made that from the range of minimum wage rates in the various provinces across Canada we can see that one minimum wage might not be suitable and if federal legislation were enacted applying to the whole country that would not mean that there would not have to be varying rates. Certainly that was taken into consideration in the original legislation enacted in 1935. Provision was made for varying rates across the country if that was found to be necessary, and I firmly believe that is the case. Therefore for the reasons I have mentioned I strongly suggest that this measure be rejected at the present time.
66968-9-297
Industrial Relations


Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to say how very privileged I am to have the opportunity of speaking on such an important measure as minimum wages, the subject before the house at this time. I should also like to take this opportunity to commend most heartily the hon. member who has brought this legislation before the house because I feel that I am not alone and that in fact every hon. member of the house is against the possibility of any one Canadian or any group of Canadians, any one labourer or group of labourers, being exploited as a cheap labour source. This, sir, is intolerable. In fact, one of the principles of the bill is concerned with protecting people against such exploitation. As the hon. member who has just spoken has so well pointed out, our ability as a federal legislative body is limited with regard to minimum wages, but I believe that every member of the house is definitely against those conditions which permit the exploiting of a cheap labour source.
Before I go into the actual merits of the bill I want to touch very briefly on something I have noticed during private member's hours. There seems to be an attitude that once such bills are presented by hon. members opposite there is an attempt to talk them out. I do not want to go on the defensive or make excuses but I should like to state in the most forthright and sincere manner that invariably bills presented to the House of Commons during this hour are of a contentious or complicated nature and require sincere and close study by all members of the house. For my part I should simply like to state that I do not think there is political cowardice involved in any sense whatsoever when I say I am not prepared to vote on this bill at the present time.
I do not suggest that this legislation should be shelved but it needs objective study and I feel that the discussion during private members' hours helps to contribute to the gathering of material which in turn will help to contribute to good legislation that will stamp out the ability of any employer to exploit a cheap labour source. Let us look at clause three of the bill. As has been pointed out time and again by previous speakers, clause three provides as follows:
This act applies to and in respect of employment upon or in connection with any work, undertaking or business that is within the legislative authority of the parliament of Canada, including, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing-
As has been pointed out, our ability to be very effective in a legislative way with regard to minimum wages is restricted here.

Industrial Relations
I say this because I think it is most important that after the debate is over no member of the House of Commons should try to go out and say to the public that what is involved is legislation to provide a minimum wage of $1.25 right across the board for all types of work in all areas of Canada from coast to coast. That is just not the case.
Before preparing my notes for this debate I talked at length with officials of the Department of Labour and I am sincerely satisfied that the question of minimum wage legislation-I know this is an often used expression-is receiving active and thorough consideration by the Department of Labour. I think that a definition of minimum wage is something that we should try to arrive at in our discussion of the subject. Historically the definition of minimum wage in by-gone days was a living wage. Later minimum wages were described in relation to varying standards of living. At the international labour organization conference in 1928 minimum wage was described as a suitable standard of living.
Within the provincial sphere we find that during the past years the provinces have tended to define a minimum wage as a wage sufficient to cover the cost of living. This has been arrived at by preparing a list of commodities necessary for a worker and his family to be able to live in a suitable manner. Herein lies a very important attempt to define exactly what we mean by a minimum wage. We know that a minimum wage for skilled labour is often arrived at by collective agreement brought about by union activity. This is done under the collective agreements act in the province of Quebec and, in the other provinces, under the industrial standards act. In fact I think it is most important that we point out right now that because of the conditions to which the hon. member who has just spoken referred, because of varying local conditions right across the nation, I feel it is important that union activity, not always but largely union activity, brings about the necessary minimum wage levels.
It is becoming increasingly apparent across the country that it is the unions who, by their responsible actions, are bringing about at least what we should call minimum wages for the workers under their jurisdiction. It was pointed out how difficult it is, even within a province, to arrive at uniform minimum wage legislation. Zones have to be set up between industrial and rural areas. As the hon. member who has just spoken pointed out, in most provinces the minimum wage is different from the amount that we are now discussing in this chamber.
Another thing that comes to my mind in looking over the proposed measure-I can be

corrected if I am wrong-is that so far as I can ascertain this is the first time that the federal parliament has attempted to deal with the problem of minimum wages by statute. In the past it has seemed wiser not to deal with minimum wages per se by statute. Naturally, with the experience of the past before us I am led to wonder if certain risks are not involved in dealing with minimum wages by statute. We see that in those specific provinces which I have already mentioned there are minimum wages fixed by minimum wage boards.
Before closing, there is one thing that I do want to stress most emphatically, and it is this: We are not hiding anything, but this is definitely a matter of considerable importance to the labouring force. I believe the Progressive Conservative party has shown what its attitude toward the workers of this country is since we came to power. We have the contemplated amendments to the unemployment insurance legislation before us. The Minister of Labour has actively placed great emphasis on the national placement service of the Department of Labour. During the last session we saw the Minister of Labour introduce legislation to extend the unemployment insurance benefits. It is most important in my opinion that the problems of management and labour are approached with a high degree of forthrightness and statesmanship by the members of this house.
I personally feel that good management-labour and in turn good management-labour-government relations constitute the most important single domestic consideration before this House of Commons. I well remember, in my early college days, when the Liberal party called themselves the liberal compromise, middle of the road party. They told us that truth never lay at the extremes. What did that mean, Mr. Speaker? I shall tell you what it means. While the princes of privilege, with their grab-bag of fetishes forgot their stewardship and bowed before the throne of Mr. Howe, the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) was calling us the party of St. James and Bay streets. While the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) divided race from race, the hon. member for Essex East put party before national interest and invariably divided labour from management. Today, I think our party has shown time and time again that labour's interest is always the national interest. We do not divide and rule, but our party has established by its legislative commitments a good atmosphere in this field for co-operation between labour, management and government. I feel that the paramount

consideration in the minds of members of parliament should be the keeping of this atmosphere intact because, as I say, this is the most important single domestic consideration that we have before us today.
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and
Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to put a great many words on Hansard, but I do appreciate this opportunity of making a few remarks on Bill No. C-8 brought forward by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters). The purpose of this bill has already been stated, but perhaps I should put it on the record again. As I understand it, the purpose of the bill is to establish minimum wages with respect to all employees who come under federal labour legislation. I shall deal later with the specific employees I have in mind.
The bill provides that such minimum rates of wages shall be $1.25 per hour. The bill would also provide that its terms will not affect any employee whose rate of wages is higher at the moment than the minimum that would be established by the bill, but any rate of wages less favourable to the worker than $1.25 per hour is superseded by the bill. I should like to remind the house, for the record, that in the memorandum presented to the cabinet on January 22 of this year by the Canadian Labour Congress, legislation of this nature was requested. I quote from the submission, the start of the second paragraph on page 28:
We believe parliament should enact a national minimum wage of $1.25 an hour and a national maximum work week of 40 hours.
With this I fully agree, and I shall try to elaborate in a minor way why that is so. The previous speaker has said that unions were doing a good job, and that is quite true. It is also true to say that approximately 400,000 employees engaged in industry come under federal jurisdiction, about 70 per cent of whom are covered by collective agreements. However, there are still a large number who are not so covered, and I refer to the employees in our own national parks.
In Cape Breton, we have the beautiful Cape Breton Highlands national park. Despite recent increases, the labour rate paid at this park now is still only $1 per hour. In correspondence with the Department of Labour I am informed that in order to determine the rates of pay to recommend to employing departments for prevailing rates employees wage surveys are conducted by the labour department to ascertain the rates paid by private industry in the area for similar work. I am informed also that each survey is a personal survey, conducted by an officer of the department right in the field. Studies are also made 66968-9-297J
Industrial Relations
of any collective agreements that have been sent in to the labour department at Ottawa and which affect wage rates in the area under review.
It is rather difficult for me to understand why such a low rate is paid in Cape Breton Highlands park. It must be rather difficult to make a proper survey of industry in the immediate area because, other than a small fish plant and a gypsum operation, no other industry exists in the county. I may say that the hourly rate that is paid in the gypsum operation is higher than that paid in the park.
Possibly one solution could be arrived at if the survey was made taking into consideration the industrial area of Cape Breton which is not too many miles distant. It is also my information that the aforementioned wage surveys and recommendations for any necessary revisions in the prevailing rates are made only when the labour department is requested to do so by the employing department. Because of these circumstances it is possible that a goodly period of time would go by before a new survey would be made, possibly because of an oversight on the part of the department concerned. I personally cannot see any justification for a wage earner to be paid the sum of $1 per hour doing the same work in this park while, for instance, in the Banff national park the hourly rate is $1.65.
For the information of the committee I should like to quote and put on the record the hourly rates paid at the various national parks throughout Canada. This is information which has been received from the department of northern affairs. Then hon. members will have an idea of what I am trying to get at. The rates are as follows:
Labour Kates in National Parks Across Canada
(Hourly Rates)
Ottawa	 $1.30
Banff National Park	 1.65
Jasper	 1.60
Kootenay	 1.65
Elk Island	 1.25
Mount Revelstoke	 1.65
Glacier	 1.65
Prince Albert	 1.35
Riding Mountain	 1.25
Waterton	 1.25
Yoho	 1.65
Point Pelee	 1.15
St. Lawrence Islands	 1.20
Georgian Bay	 1.15
Prince Edward Island	85
Fundy	95
Cape Breton Highlands	 1.00
Terra Nova, Newfoundland ..	1.00
In view of these figures I have given, if for no other reason, I am sure all hon. members of this house will realize why I feel that the principle of this bill is most important. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Timiskaming for bringing it into the house and to assure him of my support.

Industrial Relations


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I had intended in any event to say a few brief words in support of this bill. But if I had any reluctance to do so, that reluctance has been removed by the juvenilia of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) for whom I have, as he knows, a great affection even though I find it somewhat difficult to follow his inconsistencies both in this house and before he came to this house when he embraced the Liberal party as one of its ardent advocates.


Mr. Martel:: He finally saw the light.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that he finally saw the light. It is quite apparent that many people in this country have seen the light as was indicated by the great increase in Liberal support in the results of yesterday's Ontario election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I know that hon. gentlemen opposite are not too happy about what happened yesterday in the province of Ontario. It is significant that the combined opposition vote yesterday in Ontario is larger than the vote received by the Conservative party.
What I rose primarily to say was that this bill surely now is to be regarded as being in line with the responsible attitude taken now by most people with regard to the need for recognizing that in the complicated nature of the society in which we live increasing attention must be paid by the community to the problems and deprivations of so many people. This bill which seeks to provide for a minimum rate of wages with respect to all employees in Canada who come under federal labour jurisdiction arises out of a concept that prompted the promulgation in this country of wise and widespread social measures both on federal and provincial account, but particularly in recent years on federal account. Those of us who sit in this group do not need to take second place to anyone in this country or to any group in this country in our advocacy of measures seeking to provide desirable social measures for our people. In view of the fact that we belong to the party responsible for family allowances, old age pensions, disability pensions, blindness allowances, the national hospital insurance plan-


Jay Waldo Monteith: What has this to do with the bill?


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and for the
Veterans charter it is therefore consistent that we should, as we review the problems

that face the people of Canada at this time, give as we do support to a measure of this kind.
The hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, in his penetrating analysis which I regrettably did not hear but about which I have been told, spoke knowingly about the problem of labour and management. He should be the first to realize that there is nothing unique in a member of this group in the opposition recognizing that not only is there a problem but also that there are rights and obligations for labour and that likewise there are rights and privileges for employers. We need not take second place to any group in this house because of what we have done over the years by way of seeing to it that the labour groups in this country were given the opportunity of enjoying the full advantage of the part which they themselves in such large measure have played in the building up of their own organizations and in the promoting of their own welfare.
My friend, the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi sought to convey the impression that because there were strong personalities in the preceding administration, we had thereby abandoned our advocacy and our championship of the rights of labour. Great historian that he is and penetrating student of political science that we all recognize him to be, my hon. friend knows, of course, that that is not the case. He knows that we have been consistent over the years, particularly since the days of one of the great figures of our time, one of the greatest men who ever sat in this house, a great prime minister in war and peace, Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, who will always be looked up to in this country by generations to come, not only because he was the first deputy minister of labour and not only because he was the first full time minister of labour but because he was, when it was not popular to be so, the great champion of labour's rights and was more responsible than anyone else in the political life of our country for the advances that were given to labour, which advances are imbedded in the international labour organization constitution and in such charters as the declaration of Philadelphia.
The Liberal party need not take occasions like this to affirm its convictions and to remind hon. members of this house-so many of whom are new, but it is a good thing for these new members to realize this-that at a time when the advocacy of social welfare measures was not popular and at a time when it was not regarded as respectable to fight for labour, hon. gentlemen opposite, who now intervene with these wholly meaningless interruptions, were among those who

charged us with championing causes and taking positions which were said to be dangerous.


An hon. Member:: Hospital insurance.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Hospital insurance. Well do I recall, when we discussed hospital insurance in this house, being told by hon. members and some of the journals which strongly support hon. members opposite that we were embarking upon a program which was beyond the financial capacity of this nation, creating, it was argued, additional props to the so-called welfare state. These hon. gentlemen, having condemned this proposal of hospital insurance and having referred to it as one that would bankrupt this nation, now realizing its popularity, seek to claim authorship when we all know perfectly well that the present hospital insurance act was placed on the statute books by a Liberal government under the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You were forced to do it by Frost.


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend says that we were forced to do it by Frost. I am glad that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Monteith), who I regret to say in the time he has been minister has not shown too great an interest in hospital insurance, mentions that.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I regret to have to differ with my friend, but at the same time I think the record will show that we have developed hospital insurance much more quickly than it would have been developed under the previous administration.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not unnatural for the minister to make that statement, but the records after the election of June 1957, and in the sessions of 1957, 1958, will show that on four distinct occasions I rose in my place and urged the minister to take advantage of the fact that there was a master agreement in existence prepared by the previous administration and awaiting concurrence.


Jay Waldo Monteith: And we changed that over to-


Paul Joseph James Martin: -by those provinces which had not accepted the program-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a most interesting debate, but I would ask the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) whether he does not think that by now he has dealt fully with the irrelevance of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey). After all, he was only out of order for about two minutes, and the hon. member for Essex East
Industrial Relations
has been out of order for at least fifteen minutes. Therefore, weighing one against the other, I think it might be advisable to return to the bill, which has to do with minimum wages.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. gentleman resumes his speech, I think I have a question of privilege to raise about what was said by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in his ridiculous claim that the hand of the Liberal government was forced by Mr. Frost. Mr. Frost claimed that his hand was forced by the reporting of a speech which I made in the city of Kitchener.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour asked me a question, and I cannot say that I agree with what you have said. This is a bill that has to do with establishing minimum rates.


Mr. Speaker:: If he does not agree perhaps the hon. member will indicate to me why he feels he should be allowed to continue?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am now about to do that. On a bill like this where one is discussing a particular measure of social welfare, one is certainly not precluded from discussing social welfare measures generally. After the provocation I have had from the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) who has made a most provocative and I was going to say almost a merciless attack on the hon. member for Essex East, surely that hon. member has the right in discussing this measure to rise and defend himself against the Goliath from Brome-Missisquoi. That is exactly what I am seeking to do. The hon. member has said-


Mr. Speaker:: The question I asked the hon. member was whether he did not feel he had done that sufficiently and should now return to the point which is before the house?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If Your Honour is convinced that I have successfully dealt with the argument of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, I would readily accede; but I can only conclude from some of the interventions of hon. gentlemen opposite that they are not fully convinced that I have completely demolished the hon. member's argument.


Mr. Speaker:: I may say that I am satisfied.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Your Honour has said that he is satisfied and I could want no more authoritative imprimatur of my views and of my answer than that. I thank Your Honour and ask the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to take serious note of the observations which Your Honour has just made.

Industrial Relations
Mr. Speaker, I believe that this house will recognize that the increase in the standards of living of the people of this country warrant support for this measure. There are, of course, difficulties, as the hon. gentleman who has just spoken has indicated, but this bill will set standards which certainly are not excessive in the light of the standards of living which have been achieved by the Canadian people as a whole. We would want to see that our standards were kept at a proper level, and because this is one way in which in this parliament and jurisdiction we can achieve that object, I unhesitatingly rise and support the principle of this bill.


Mr. Morris:: I wonder if the hon. gentleman would consent to my asking two questions which are not antagonistic at all?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be very happy, antagonistic or otherwise.


Edmund Leverett Morris: This bill before us includes a provision for the fixing of minimum wage rates by statute. The hon. gentleman was himself a minister and had a great deal to do, as he has reminded us, with various matters. My question is this: In his judgment is this a useful procedure? I have in mind that in all the provinces a minimum wage machinery is established rather than a fixed rate under statute, so that a legislative amendment of the fixed rate is not required; it can be fixed by a board. I ask the hon. gentleman whether he thinks this is a useful way to set minimum wages, namely by statute rather than by creating machinery which is adaptable to change?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This, of course, does not mean that there cannot be further increases in the wage scale, but the use of the technique of legislative decision to establish minimum wages is not by any means a novel one. It exists in my own province with regard to particular groups, and if my hon. friend would read the report of the international labour office, I think for February, or at any rate for one month this year, he would find a review of minimum wage legislation in many countries. He will also find that this technique is one that is used, sometimes as the sole method of determining a minimum wage, and also in many jurisdictions as one of the supplementary methods. This does not preclude negotiation. It does not preclude the use of the processes of collective bargaining. It is one way in which we have in our limited sphere of jurisdiction the opportunity of indicating that we are not anxious to see the standards of living of our people reduced beyond certain minimum levels.


Edmund Leverett Morris: May I now be permitted a second question?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) is anxious to speak and I do not think I should prevent him exercising the right which was his when the hon. member for Essex East sat down.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: Mr. Speaker, I, also, am pleased to support this bill although I think it is too limited in its scope and does not go far enough. I was expecting a great deal of light from the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) when he rose to speak on this measure, but instead of speaking about the principle of the bill or the bill itself he tried to show how good his party had been to labour generally. However, in 22 years in office they did not find time or show industry enough to get legislation of this kind on the statute books of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not remember those eloquent speeches he used to make about the attitude of the party to labour when he was a member of the Liberal party not so long ago?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: It could not very well have been on matters found on the statute books of Canada, because I have searched for a minimum wage act and could not find one. There may be some welfare legislation, but there is no labour legislation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: -unless we include the attempt made by Mr. R. B. Bennett in 1935 which was brought before the supreme court and the privy council, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Browne). I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway produced some very telling arguments with regard to this bill, as did the hon. member for Brome-Missiquoi (Mr. Grafftey), but the hon. member for Essex East only talked in general terms to put on a good front for his party, and submitted very little argument. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether he read the bill at all, because the explanatory note speaks about a minimum wage rate of $1.25 an hour, although the bill itself, in clause four, sub-clause one, reads as follows:
Every full-time employee shall be paid by his employer in respect of the time such employee is required or permitted by his employer to work, or to be at his disposal, wages which are not less than wages calculated at the rate of $1 per hour.
So the bill itself calls not for $1.25 an hour but for $1 an hour. I do not think the explanation of a bill can go contrary to the terms of the bill itself, and I had expected the hon. member for Essex East to explain that part of it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We are anxious to have a vote. That is why I did not take too long.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: As I said before, I think the bill is too limited in its scope. Coming from the province of Manitoba, I notice that our minimum wage act has been replaced by the employment standard act which deals with general employment standards, minimum wages, conditions of work, definition of general holidays, notice of termination of employment, the safety of employees and hours and conditions of work in factories. It does not prescribe one set minimum for the province but is administered under regulations which can be made in accordance with the needs of particular localities or the needs in one industry as opposed to another. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Morris) has pointed out, the best way of drafting such a measure as this is not by fixing a minimum in the bill but by setting up machinery to devise reasonable regulations which could be changed from time to time without having to amend the act from year to year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. gentleman tell the committee the date on which that statute was enacted?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: It was enacted in 1957. It is chapter 20, and it reads: "An act respecting wages, hours of work and standards and conditions of employment for persons employed in industry and business.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. gentleman happen to remember the political complexion of the government in Manitoba when that was put on the statute books?


Laurier Arthur Régnier: It was in 1957. It was a government which sometimes called itself Liberal and sometimes called itself something else; it was a coalition government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Liberal Progressive.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: The leader of the Manitoba government never admitted it was a Liberal government. As a matter of fact, in 1957 he would not be seen with the federal leader of the Liberal party, and that was one of the reasons why the people of Manitoba did not support the federal Liberal party-* because their own premier would not be seen with workers for the federal Liberal party.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That statement is not correct, and the hon. member knows it perfectly well. And he is out of order.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I am sorry if I was out of order-
Supply-Transport


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Niagara Falls is out of order in interrupting the speaker.


Laurier Arthur Régnier: I should like to say, before I conclude my remarks, that I agree in principle with this measure and feel it should be brought before a committee or discussed at a time when there is more than an hour in which to do so. I think that a full day's discussion would probably be necessary before the house could arrive at agreement on a bill which made sense.
May I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Speaker:: I think that in fairness to the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Houck) who was not in the house, I should say that another member was in his seat; otherwise my remark might be taken as reflecting on him in some way.
The hour for consideration of public and private bills having expired, the house will revert to the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
It being six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
443. Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,112,773.
Robert Leith Hanbidge: Mr. Chairman, I have no desire to hold up the minister in getting his estimates through the committee, but there is a very urgent matter that I wish to bring to his attention and to lay at the foot of the throne. Some three months ago, when the farm delegation was down here the mayor of Wilkie, Mr. Nat Freidman, and the mayor of Unity, Mr. Jim Dickson-both of these towns are in the north end of the best constituency in the west, the Kindersley constituency-told me that a rumour was abroad saying that the Canadian Pacific railway proposed to discontinue its passenger service on the line between Winnipeg and Edmonton. This is the line that goes through Saskatoon and also through the north end of the Kindersley constituency. It was only a few weeks later that the rumour became a fact and an application was made by the Canadian Pacific railway to the board

Sup p ly-Transport
of transport commissioners to permit them to discontinue the passenger service on that line.
Representations were made by the city of Saskatoon, by the town of Wilkie and others to the board of transport commissioners. If my good friend, the hon. member for the city of Saskatoon were here, I am quite sure that he would not let this item go through the committee without bringing this matter to the attention of the minister. In his absence, owing to the fact that he is on urgent public business outside the country-I believe across the Atlantic-I am going to refer briefly to the brief that was presented to the board of transport commissioners by the city of Saskatoon. This brief was prepared by Mr. S. L. Buckwold, mayor of the city of Saskatoon and Mr. C. T. Hazen, president of the Saskatoon board of trade. It is dated April 20 last. The first paragraph reads:
The Saskatoon city council and the Saskatoon board of trade note with concern that the Canadian Pacific railway has made application to the board of transport commissioners for permission to remove trains 41 and 42, presently providing passenger service between Winnipeg and Edmonton via Saskatoon. After due consideration the city and board of trade have gone on record as strongly opposed to the granting of this application.
I am not going to read the whole brief. One of the grounds referred to in it is that the discontinuance of that passenger service will affect the people living in many communities along the Canadian Pacific railway line as no other passenger service is available.
Reference is made to the reasons advanced by the Canadian Pacific railway for discontinuing the service, and then the brief goes on:
Important also in the elimination of the passenger service is the loss to be suffered by the people who have invested in the communities now being served by the C.P.R. Many of the people in these communities have invested their life savings in buildings and businesses and if through the cancellation of the passenger service the communities suffer loss of population, as they undoubtedly will, those remaining will have to bear heavier financial burdens to continue and maintain essential community services.
It is significant that the C.P.R. has not experimented with any substitute form of passenger service. It is proposing at one stroke to cancel a service extending over a distance of approximately 1,000 miles that has been in effect for 50 years.
Then, they go on to say:
Now the C.P.R. proposes to cancel what amounts to its only main line passenger service in northern Saskatchewan. Actually if the application were granted Saskatoon and northern Saskatchewan would be devoid of all C.P.R. passenger service.
The brief continues:
All organizations providing service for the public cannot expect to make a profit in all of their departments all of the time. Railways are no different in this respect from other businesses, where frequently goods or services are offered at a loss in

order to attract patronage for other goods and services. This is notably true in the case of public utilities.
The brief concludes with these words:
Saskatoon city council and the board of trade earnestly request that you refuse permission to the C.P.R. to cancel its Winnipeg-Saskatoon-Edmon-ton passenger service.
So much for the Saskatoon brief; I have here also a letter from Mr. E. W. Edmund-son, the assistant local chairman of the brotherhood of railroad trainmen. The letter is addressed to me and is dated April 24, 1959. Among other things he says this:
This is causing a great deal of concern in this area as it would mean-
That is, the application to discontinue the passenger service. I continue:
-there would be no passenger service of any kind on this Winnipeg-Edmonton line and it would have a very detrimental effect on all towns on the line.
Later in the letter he says this:
From Winnipeg to Edmonton and return there will be a total of 27 brotherhood of railway trainmen affected by such a move. In this area it could affect nine men who have established homes at Wilkie.
The C.P.R. has offered no alternative service whatsoever save to say that there would be improved freight service. The elimination of this train would mean that there would be no passenger service out of Wilkie whatsoever.
In addition to that letter, I received a copy of the brief that was sent to the board of transport commissioners by the town of Wilkie. This brief was prepared by Mr. Walter O. Smyth, Q.C., town solicitor. It is dated April 28, 1959 and it reads in part as follows:
The town of Wilkie and its chamber of commerce oppose the application made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
Our stand is supported by the rural municipalities of Buffalo No. 409, Reford No. 379, and Tramping Lake No. 380 as well as the neighbouring villages and hamlets of Revenue, Tramping Lake, Leipzig, Handel, Cloan, Thackeray, Phippen, Adanac, Wolfe and Traynor, all of which would be adversely affected if the application were granted.
Further on in the brief they suggest that the real reason for the loss of business by the
C.P.R. on this line is poor service. The brief concludes with these words:
Finally, we would draw the attention of the board to the fact that the company set out townsites along its line and sold lots to prospective settlers on at least an implied promise that railway service would be supplied. Now the company is in effect attempting to transfer its loss to the residents of these areas, because elimination of trains would reduce the capital value of property in the communities now served.
We have no copy of the agreement between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the dominion government, but are advised that it is a term of that agreement that the company would build a line from Winnipeg to Edmonton and maintain

service thereon as a condition of obtaining land grants from the dominion government. If such is the case, it would seem to us that on this ground alone the application should be refused.
I am not personally acquainted with Mr. N. R. Crump, the president of the Canadian Pacific railway, but from all I hear he is a great Canadian, a great railroad man and, I believe, is the peer of any of those who preceded him in the office of president of the C.P.R. I have no doubt that while I am only a silent partner in his great organization- I think all that I own in the C.P.R. would probably cover the cost of a couple of rails and maybe a few ties-nevertheless as one of the silent partners I would urge him to continue the service on that line. I hope that the Minister of Transport will use some of the eloquence and persuasiveness-and he convinced me yesterday that he is both eloquent and persuasive-to persuade the C.P.R. to continue that service. I want to assure him right now that there are thousands of people in the north end of the constituency of Kindersley who will rise up and call his name blessed if he keeps that line open.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, trains No. 41 and 42 are the ones that the hon. member has been referring to. The application is now under investigation by the board's inspectors and I am advised that it will likely come to hearing in September. I shall be very glad to bring the representations of the hon. member to the attention of Mr. Crump.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: Thank you.


Lionel Chevrier: I was also tempted to interrupt when the hon. member mentioned trains 41 and 42 and ask him if they were on time. Here are two very substantial items having to do with the grade crossing fund and also the additional amount which has been voted now for at least two years. As the house knows, we had a very complete discussion last session of the railway grade crossing fund and the amount voted for the additional projects that the board of transport commissioners as well as the government have approved. In order not to delay the committee unduly I wonder whether the minister would report on the position of the grade crossing fund and the amounts that have been spent. I think that would serve my purpose.


George Harris Hees: The amount in the fund at April 1, 1959 was $25,059,606. This amount includes $2,500,000 of the $15 million for the fiscal year 1959-60. Outstanding commitments up to March 31, 1959 were $21,379,116. The balance available in the fund at April 1, 1959 was $3,680,490.
Supply-Transport


Mr. Peters:: Has this item anything to do with the painting of box cars as a safety factor? I have not seen any box cars so far that have been painted and I am wondering how many have been done and what is the extent of the project.


George Harris Hees: The judgment directing the railways to carry this out was issued two months ago and there really has not been time to put it into operation yet but I am sure it will be soon.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to point out that there is some urgency involved. Two or three weeks ago a car with a number of young people in it ran into the side of a freight train in my constituency and they were all very badly injured. The train was very long and they came up to the level crossing and did not see it. I should like to see this work proceeded with as quickly as possible because quite a number of such accidents are taking place, many of them fatal. I think this move would be of help in avoiding some of these accidents.


George Harris Hees: We are urging the railways to get on with the work as quickly as possible and we will keep right after them.


William Arnold Peters: I understand there is some problem with respect to United States railway box cars. As a large number of United States box cars are hauled by Canadian railways, there is a question of what the result will be if the Canadian railways do it and the United States railways do not. I understood there was some discussion with relation to the use of United States box cars that might not be so protected.


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member probably knows, the railways objected to this but the board has ordered them to go ahead and paint these signs on all new cars and an equal number of old cars.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that an order has been issued that all box cars produced and used in Canada must have these reflectors on them but has Canada any authority to demand that all United States box cars coming into Canada shall be equipped in the same manner?


George Harris Hees: All new box cars are having these reflectors put on them and all old box cars as they come into the shops.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, the minister did not understand.


George Harris Hees: No, we do not have authority over United States cars coming into the country.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: That is an interesting point. Do you mean to tell me that the government

Supply-Transport
of Canada cannot issue instructions that no foreign box car shall come on Canadian soil unless it complies with Canadian law, provided our act is amended?


George Harris Hees: I am advised we have no authority to do that.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Well, we are not a sovereign state any longer.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that this order has been introduced for the safety of Canadian citizens, may I ask whether any approach has been or is being made to the United States railway companies to ask that a similar policy be followed there with respect to cars coming into Canada? Has any approach been made?


George Harris Hees: I am advised this would require legislation by the United States and that a number of bills have been introduced in congress in the past and none of them has passed yet.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We have the authority to pass any legislation we wish in this chamber. If we amended the act would that not be sufficient to cause United States cars coming into Canada to be equipped in compliance with the law?


George Harris Hees: The main objection would be that this would completely interrupt transborder trade. It would be very detrimental to trade across the border.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand the explanation of the minister but in view of the fact that it is now mandatory with respect to all Canadian box cars will the minister endeavour to have the Department of External Affairs make it known that this is now the law in Canada and ask whether it is possible for United States box cars to be so equipped so that they will comply with our Canadian law?


George Harris Hees: Yes, we will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
445.	Administration, $153,488.
Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister what is the present state of the Canadian ocean going fleet? I should like to know how many vessels were under the Canadian flag a year ago and how many are under the Canadian flag now.


George Harris Hees: I have that and I also have other information. As of March 31, 1958 ocean going ships in foreign trade numbered 17; as of March 31, 1959 the number was 13. As of March 31, 1958 ships in the coasting trade numbered 60 and as of the same date this

year they numbered 61. Lakers and St. Lawrence canalers numbered 193 in 1958 and the same number this year. Upper lakers numbered 78 last year and 80 this year. To summarize, total ships as of March 31, 1958 numbered 348 and as of March 31, 1959, 347. I will also give ships under United Kingdom registry. As of March 31, 1958 there were 66 and on the same date this year there were the same number.


Lionel Chevrier: These are Canadian ships under United Kingdom registry.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Canadian owned ships.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask what action, if any, the minister or the government have taken in the last year to stem the decline of the Canadian merchant fleet?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we have been no more able to stem the decline of the Canadian merchant fleet than was the former government. I have some figures here that I know will interest the hon. member and the committee. The total number of deep sea ships under Canadian registry in 1946 was 151. By 1956, when the former government was still in office, this number had shrunk to 26 and as of March 31 of this year, the number was 13. I think the hon. member and the committee will realize that this is a continuing process and that it appears no government is able to do very much about it.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer my question. 1 simply asked the minister what action the government has taken to stem the reduction. If he wants to make a comparison, he said himself that there were 151 in 1946 and this number had declined to 26. Now, this number has been cut in half. My question, which the minister did not answer when he said that no more was done than before, is, what has been done by the present administration to stem the decline of the Canadian merchant fleet?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the decline has largely taken place as a result of the sale of old ships. There has been some replacement, but not very much.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the decline resulted from the sale of the Canadian National ships?


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member knows, being pretty good at arithmetic, the eight ships-


Lionel Chevrier: I am not nearly as good as the minister is.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member is pretty good; he knows quite well that there were eight Canadian National West Indies Steamships ships sold and therefore, of course, they would not be listed amongst the thirteen.


Lionel Chevrier: Has the minister or the government given any consideration to giving Canadians engaged in this field of enterprise any tax reductions such as was done by the introduction of legislation for depreciation two years ago, I believe?


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is under study at the present time and one branch of the industry is going to submit detailed proposals in the very near future.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another matter which I should like to bring to the minister's attention, and it is this: A large part of the present Canadian ocean-going fleet consists of vessels built during the war which are no longer competitive with vessels from other countries. For instance, this can be seen already with the opening of the seaway where many owners of Canadian vessels feel that they are going to have difficulty in competing with ships coming from countries where the cost of constructing a ship is about 50 per cent lower than in Canada and the cost of operating a ship about 40 per cent less than in this country. I am wondering if any consideration has been given to assisting in offsetting the disappearance of these non-competitive vessels?


George Harris Hees: Yes, as the hon. member knows, the vessel construction assistance act was brought in some years ago and amended last year. It has been of considerable assistance.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. Has the minister given further consideration to this question of a subsidy? I understand that at one time there was consideration given in the Department of Transport to subsidizing a small number of ships which would compete, that is subsidizing them from the point of view of capital expenditures as well as from the point of view of operation?


George Harris Hees: No, that type of subsidy is not tinder consideration.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a final question? I am sure the minister has in mind the statements made by the Minister of Public Works not so many years ago in which he said positively that the moment his friends got into office there would be a merchant vessel on the oceans of the world which would compete.


George Harris Hees: I somehow remember those
speeches.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is one question I should like to ask the minister before this item carries. Has he yet found the budget for the Canadian National steamships for this year?
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Yes, I found it buried down in Halifax harbour.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
446.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $5,553,500.
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to bring a matter to the attention of the minister, and it is one which would have been brought up by the hon. member for Levis, had he been here. It has to do with a steamship subsidy which was paid by the maritime commission under the jurisdiction of the department for a service operating between Isle aux Grues and Mont-magny. It seems to be a most unfortunate situation because a ferry operator who had been running this service for a period of 30 years, and who had been receiving a subsidy for the last 10 years of $3,300 for summer service, $1,700 for winter service, plus $1,000 per year from the postal department, now finds himself without the subsidy at all. In other words, from the information the hon. member for Levis has given me and which I now have before me, it looks as if the department simply cut this man off without giving him the slightest notice. This action was taken with regard to a man who had been operating the service for 30 years.
I should like to put on the record a paragraph from the file that was left with me by the hon. member for Levis:
(Translation):
For close to 30 years, Mr. Gagne has been carrying mail between the lie aux Grues and Montmagny. Last year, he received $1,000 for this service. In addition to his postal duties, Mr. Gagne operated a freight and passenger water transport service between those two points. The service has been subsidized for nearly 10 years by the Canadian Maritime Commission on the following basis: $3,300 for the summer service, $1,700 for the winter service. It was this grant that enabled him to carry the mail for a price of $1,000 a year.
On March 2, Mr. Gagne received from the Canadian Maritime Commission, a letter,-of which I enclose a copy-informing him that his grant would not be renewed, on the grounds that a bigger ship was required for that service. Never before that letter had the commission asked Mr. Gagne to operate a larger ship.
(Text):
I have a letter in my possession which was written by the director of steamship subvention service in answer to a letter from the operator, Mr. Gagne, dated December 30 and sent to him on March 2, almost three months later, saying that his contract had been cancelled and that he was simply out of luck. It seems to me that if these circumstances are correct it was a most unfair way in which to deal with a man who had been operating this service for 30 years. What is more, it seems to me that the first thing that should have been done at least should have been to

Supply-Transport
offer to give this man an opportunity to perform the new service at the same or similar conditions which were available to other tenderers. Frankly, I feel, and the hon. member for Levis feels, very strongly about this. I think an injustice has been done to this man.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the Mr. Gagne to whom the hon. member refers has been carrying on this service for a number of years with a small ship incapable of carrying automobiles or farm machinery. Early this year a Mr. Lavoie offered to undertake the service with a ship capable of carrying automobiles and tractors. On March 2 the maritime commission wrote to Mr. Gagne advising him of the situation and telling him that in view of the greater suitability of Mr. Lavoie's vessel his contract would not be renewed. This was two months before the commencement of the service. It is true that the delay was short. But the other offer had only been received recently and there was little time to examine it.
The commission has always tried to award these services locally when possible. In this case both the former contractor and the present contractor are from the area. On March 19, Mr. Gagne, the former contractor acknowledged the commission's letter, and although he expressed disappointment at the short notice and award of the contract to another, he made no mention of his ability to supply a larger vessel.


Lionel Chevrier: Why was he not given the opportunity to supply the ship, as it has been the practice of the maritime commission over a number of years?


George Harris Hees: If he had come forward with a ship of comparable size and performance with that of Mr. Lavoie undoubtedly he would have been given the contract. It was well known that he did not have such a ship, that he had only the one ship and was unable to perform the service. Therefore in the interests of the people who would be served by this ferry, the better and more capable ship was being used.


Lionel Chevrier: Why was he not given a chance to submit a tender on the newer ship?


George Harris Hees: This was no secret to his fellow islanders. They knew all about this. This matter was well known down there and was discussed by them.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the minister answer my question?


George Harris Hees: He had the opportunity. He knew two months before. If he had come forward with a comparable ship he certainly would have been given every opportunity to tender but he did not do so.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, those are not the facts. The facts are that when the time arrived for the new service to be entered upon this man was not given an opportunity to tender. The circumstances and the facts are to that effect. The minister confirms that situation in his reply now because it has been the practice of the maritime commission, when a service like this is brought to an end to give to the former operator an opportunity of tendering on the new appliances.


George Harris Hees: As I have said, it was well known that this gentleman, Mr. Gagne, did not have a suitable ship. If he had had a suitable ship he would certainly have had every opportunity. When he was notified two months before the termination of the contract, if he had come forward and said, "I can produce a better type of ship that can perform the service that is needed by the residents of this area", he would then, of course, have been given every opportunity to tender. But he did not do so. It was well known by all concerned that he did not have a ship. I do not think the hon. member would wish the people of the area to put up with inferior service when a far better service is available to them.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is just a little bit too suave in this case to be able to get around the circumstances. I can tell the minister exactly what happened. The point is that the new incumbent is a strong supporter of the minister's administration.


Mr. Ricard:: What is wrong with that?


Lionel Chevrier: There is this the matter with it. The other man should have been given an opportunity to submit a tender, particularly when he had been operating the service for 30 years.


An hon. Member:: It serves him right.


Lionel Chevrier: I hear that interruption which came from down at the other end of the chamber and which was to the effect that it served him right. If that is the kind of policy we are going to have from hon. gentlemen opposite-"it serves them right because they voted Liberal"-it is a good thing to know and a good thing to have on the record. I submit here that this policy is not the kind of policy that should be followed by any department or by any government. A man who has been providing a service such as this should at least have been given the opportunity to tender on the new requirements for the service. Furthermore I am told that the population on the island has decreased somewhat and that therefore it may be quite doubtful whether a larger ship was required. I think the minister owes this committee an explanation.


George Harris Hees: I can say this very clearly. Political considerations had no effect whatsoever and did not come into this matter in the slightest degree. This man was given a contract on one basis and one basis only, namely that he could provide a far better service for the same subsidy. It seems to me to be a little bit strange that not so long ago in relation to some debate hon. members opposite were protesting or suggesting the waste of government money. Here, with the same subsidy, we can get for the people of that area a far superior ferry service. But the hon. member is suggesting that for the same subsidy that this government pays we should put up with inferior service.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not suggest that.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly what you are suggesting.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I will not let the minister put those words in my mouth. I am not suggesting that at all. I am trying to get at the difficulty.


George Harris Hees: I have nothing to get at. There is no difficulty as far as I am concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is this. You are talking about a new service.


An hon. Member:: Address the Chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Why did you not give this man an opportunity to tender?


George Harris Hees: That man had every opportunity if he had had a sufficiently good ship to support his tender. He knew two months before the new operation started. He was not so shy or so backward as all that. If he had wanted to do so or felt that he had a ship that could perform the services required he could have written us and said, "I have a ship as good as that myself and for that subsidy I will provide as good a service", and of course he would have been given every opportunity. That is the way in which this government treats people; if they come forward with a reasonable proposition they are welcomed with open arms. What we are aiming at is to give the people in every constituency of Canada the very best value possible for their tax dollar and that is what we intend to do. We do not intend to force upon them an inferior service which perhaps had been done for quite some time by the former government because perhaps this man, Gagne, was a supporter of the former government.


Lionel Chevrier: You must have thought that he was fairly good because you carried him for two years after the former government left office. You must have thought his services were satisfactory. However, I want to
Supply-Transport
draw to your attention the manner in which this contract was brought to an end. I should like to put on the record the letter which came from the director of subvention services. It is addressed to Mr. Gagne and is dated March 2, 1959, three months after the operator of this service had written to the director of subvention services. It reads as follows:
(Translation):
Dear Mr. Gagne,
I acknowledge your letter of February 21 concerning your application, dated December 30, 1958, for renewal of your subsidy contract.
I regret the delay that has occurred, but the commission has been conducting a general inquiry into representations it had received for the provision of a larger ship which would allow automobiles and self-propelled agricultural machinery to be transported to the island through the regular service at a reasonable cost, and would avoid the necessity of hiring a special ship for such purposes, at heavy expense.
The commission has reviewed all aspects of the matter and has decided that the . . .
(Text):
I cannot make out the name of the ship. (Translation):
-is not suitable in the circumstances. I am therefore directed to inform you that your contract will not be renewed in 1959.
The contract has been awarded to Captain Eugene Lavoie, who operates the-
(Text):
Then again it is the name of the ship that I cannot make out. I think it is St. Jacques. (Translation):
I regret this situation, which arises from the increasing number of machines and vehicles on the island, and from the necessity of providing for their transportation.
I therefore take this opportunity to thank you, on behalf of the commission, for your co-operation in the past years.
Yours sincerely, etc.,
(Text):
It is quite clearly set out here that the man had not the slighest opportunity to tender on these new services that the minister, now that his government is in office, wants to give to the people in the area. After all, it seems to me that the man who had been there for so long should at least have been given an opportunity. He was not given an opportunity because he was a Liberal.


George Harris Hees: That is not the case at all. If it was known that the man had a suitable ship he would have been given every opportunity. In communities like that everybody knows fairly well what everybody else has. It was well known that this man had one ship and not one of satisfactory size and capacity. If he had come forward and said, "I should like to have the privilege of tendering" he certainly would have been given it. We are simply carrying out in this instance our policy of

Supply-Transport
providing the best services for the people in every riding in Canada at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question which I think I should have asked on the previous item, but I know I will be at least 51 per cent or more in order because it is related to ships' equipment. The people of Canada, at least those who are used to using our waters, are very interested in the design of a satisfactory lifesaving vest for use on small craft. I understand the minister called a conference in connection with this matter last year, and I wonder if he could report to the house what progress has been made by his department with respect to designing a satisfactory lifesaving vest for use by people in small watercraft.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have had several meetings with the manufacturers and users. Improved designs have been submitted and are being examined at the present time, and we consider that satisfactory progress is being made toward this very desirable end.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I am intrigued by this peculiar approach that the Department of Transport has down in this locale where everybody knows everybody else. It seems to me that is a most peculiar basis for operating or changing any services. I know how distinguished these services are because the minister has reiterated a number of times that they give the best possible service at the lowest possible cost, and everybody knows everybody else. What is this principle of everybody knowing everybody else? Can the minister explain how large a community would get before you decide that everybody does not know everybody else and that maybe you could have a bid or a tender, or maybe a public announcement inviting tenders. I would like to know whether Port Arthur and Fort William are the sort of communities where everybody knows everybody else. How does the minister manage to appoint somebody up there who happens to be a brother-in-law of a local Conservative politician?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, to start off with, everybody is somebody or other's brother-in-law, and the fortunate ones have Conservatives as brothers-in-law. That shows they have good judgment and have married into the right kind of family. As to the size of communities where everybody knows everybody else, I would not think for a moment that in Fort William or Port Arthur people would, because they are very big, important and imposing cities and people do not know everybody else. That is the case in large and

important cities such as those. But I had the privilege last fall of visiting Isle aux Grues and I visited a great many families there and found them extremely charming and delightful, and I can assure the hon. member that in a friendly community like Isle aux Grues everybody knows everybody else and they are very informed on matters of this kind.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, under the details of this item for steamship services on the west coast, the western local services, one of them is Vancouver and northern British Columbia ports, in the amount of $194,500, and the other is the Vancouver and west coast of Vancouver island service, $100,-
000.	I wonder if the minister can tell me what companies are involved in these subsidies, what ships they provide for the service and the ports of call that they must make?


George Harris Hees: The company is the Northland Navigation Company and the ships are the Canadian Prince and the Tahsis Prince.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Which ship, Mr. Chairman, operates on the west coast of Vancouver island?


George Harris Hees: The Tahsis Prince.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I take it that is a new ship which has gone on that run?


George Harris Hees: Yes, that is correct.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I would like to make a suggestion, although I rather hesitate to do it, about the comparison between the British Columbia coast and the Atlantic coast and the amount of the subventions, because I think there is perhaps the possibility of saving a little money on the Pacific coast. I would like to ask the minister if he has ever given any consideration to initiating a service on the west coast to the island from Port Alberni? I believe it could be done and would give a much more frequent and better service for less money.


George Harris Hees: I am told this has been considered, Mr. Chairman, but it was considered impractical because nearly all the freight originates in Vancouver.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, that is
hardly an answer. I happen to know that part of the country very well. Perhaps a great deal of it does originate in Vancouver, but it comes to Port Alberni and is transferred to ships already going down to the other end of Barkley sound so there would be no difficulty in transferring freight into ships going to Nootka and Kyuquot. I hope the minister will also take that out of his serious consideration basket and put it in his urgent basket.


George Harris Hees: Yes, I shall be glad to.


Robert Dugald Caldwell Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would like to again bring to the attention of the minister the need of the people of Grand Manan for increased transportation facilities. I realize that is not the direct responsibility of the minister's department, but included in this item is an amount of $95,000 which is a subsidy paid annually to the Grand Manan ferry. Grand Manan is an island in the bay of Fundy, having a population of about 2,600 people, and I would like to put on record part of the brief submitted by the people of Grand Manan and the board of trade to the provincial government:
As expressed in the text of this petition, the present service when inaugurated in 1946 was at the time classified as a service of temporary nature, subject to improvement when a more suitable vessel could be obtained, and this information would be on file in Ottawa.
When the previous transportation system was set up in 1930 it consisted of a newly built ferry especially constructed to meet the requirements of this particular service, in which there was accommodation for 12 automobiles carried underdeck, a freight compartment adequate to service this area, and comfortable passenger accommodations for slightly over one hundred people.
During the years 1930 and 1939 the tourist traffic to Grand Manan showed yearly increase, there was an increase in the number of inns catering to this trade, and expansion programs were undertaken by the already established hostelries.
This ferry service was taken over in 1939 and a converted private yacht put on in 1946. This yacht can only handle nine passenger cars and these are put on with a derrick and must remain on deck. There is a most inadequate freight service and the accommodation is limited to about 20 people. Now the island of Grand Manan, as members of this committee know, is essentially a fish producing area, but in order to ship the fish to the mainland and maintain supplies it must have adequate contact with the mainland by ferry. It is the wish of the people of the island that they be provided with a ferry capable of handling below deck 30 cars and having a reasonable accommodation for passengers. I suggest to the minister that he and the officials of his department should take another look at this question to see whether the subsidy paid by the federal treasury cannot be utilized to supply the people of this island with an adequate ferry service to keep them in contact with the province of New Brunswick.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
447.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1959 on any or all of the following accounts:
Supply-Transport
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	 $ 933,500
Saint John	 830,000
Chicoutimi	 150,000
Quebec	 2,770,000
Prescott	 325,000
Churchill	 25,000
Generally

Unforeseen and miscellaneous	 200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds	 938,386
Total	 4,295,114.
Harold Edward Winch: On this item, which I think is a very important item because it deals with the national harbours board, I wish to make one suggestion in particular to the minister, and though this board is, of course, of importance right across Canada, I wish to speak only of its operations as they affect a certain area in British Columbia.
I am sure that all hon. members from the lower mainland of British Columbia, irrespective of party, are keenly interested in and perhaps a little worried about the situation regarding the development on the Fraser river. To the best of my knowledge there are now in the Fraser river area two harbour commissions. We have a harbour commission in New Westminster and we have a harbour commission on the north Fraser.
The Fraser river has played a most important and integral part in the economy of British Columbia. The lower mainland has developed at a very rapid rate, and because of that I personally believe that we have now reached a point when a new look should be taken at the development of the Fraser river and an endeavour made to bring in not only the city of New Westminster but all the adjoining municipalities which have a vital interest in that area. I know from my own studies in the past that the harbour board in New Westminster has had a fairly free hand, but New Westminster as such is now pretty well developed with regard to harbour facilities, and with the growth on the Fraser river of the adjoining municipalities I would dare to guess that inside a very few years the adjoining municipalities will equal, if not surpass, the city of New Westminster in population. But up till now there has been very little interest, if any, in development on the other side of the river and in the upstream and downstream areas.
I know from my personal knowledge that a few years ago this was recognized by the harbour commission in New Westminster, and the commission endeavoured to work out a plan whereby they would have control. That plan failed. The result is that at the present

Supply-Transport
time an endeavour is being made, perhaps without the knowledge of the minister, to tie in the north Fraser harbour commission with the commission in New Westminster. Who instigated this move, I do not know. I have received a great number of letters protesting any such idea. I do know from my own personal discussions with the Minister of Transport that he himself is not a party to this proposal. However, I would draw the attention of the Minister of Transport to the fact that this matter of harbour commissions on the Fraser river is one which I understand includes the activities of his own department, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Fisheries, the Department of Public Works and, I believe, one or two others. Honestly, I am afraid there has not been coordination and co-operation between the various departments of government relative to the development of the Fraser river as far as it is concerned as a navigable river up to a certain point and also involving the question of agriculture and of fisheries.
The Fraser river is, as I have said, a most important economic factor in the life of British Columbia, especially on the lower mainland where almost half of the population of British Columbia is concentrated. I firmly believe the time has come when there must be major planning to deal with the problems of the Fraser river and a co-ordinated effort by all the departments of government concerned. The Minister of Transport has, I believe, the major responsibility because the matter comes under his estimates. I should like to ask the minister if he will say whether there is any realization in his department and in the various departments themselves that the time has come to establish a Fraser river control board or commission so as to bring in all the rapidly growing municipalities, such as Burnaby, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody and the others up the river. I am certain that I am not breaking any confidence when I say that I discussed one angle with the minister relative to what is now the understanding by a great many people and organizations on the lower mainland that there is a drive to have the north Fraser harbour commission swallowed up by amalgamation with New Westminster.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Harold Edward Winch: Would the hon. member mind if I finished and then I shall be glad to answer his question.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is right on the particular point he is now making. The hon. member keeps referring to this proposed amalgama-

tion. I was wondering whether he could inform us as to what is the basis of his information?


Harold Edward Winch: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to. The basis of my information is the minutes of a recent meeting of the Burnaby council where the matter was discussed. The basis of my information is the number of letters that I have received from tugboat operators and other commercial firms operating on the north arm of the Fraser river. The basis of my statement is the statement made on June 5 in this House of Commons by the house leader, which is to be found at page 4386 of Hansard, in which the house leader said:
The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam advocated the establishment of a Fraser river authority to supervise the development of that great river. An attempt is being made to further the co-operation of the different bodies involved with the river but at the moment there is no plan for an overriding authority. That may come eventually but there would be many difficulties to be ironed out before a movement of that kind could be made.
I say in answer to the question of my colleague from British Columbia that on the basis of my information from municipal councils in the lower mainland, my information from the statement of the house leader in the House of Commons and the letters I have received from such men as Captain Lowrey of the Bridge Towing Limited in British Columbia, and others, this matter very definitely is either under consideration or is rumoured as such.
I bring these matters to the attention of the minister not so much because of the possible abolition of the north Fraser harbour commission, though I would hate to see that at the present moment, but to ask the Minister of Transport whether he would do one of two things. Because of the fact so many departments are concerned-I understand that his own department, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Fisheries are concerned-can he say here, not so much for himself but for those who are so vitally interested in the lower mainland of British Columbia, and particularly those on the Fraser river-my own riding boundaries are about two miles from the Fraser river but I have a keen interest- can he give us a picture under this item as to what is the position as regards the north Fraser commission and its relationship to any possible amalgamation. As a matter of fact, I would forgive the minister if he did not answer those questions provided he would give us a picture on the development of the entire Fraser river and a possible tie-in with the proposed establishment of a new board under a new system but still on the same

basis of a harbour commission under which all cities and municipalities and all those interested, namely agriculture, fishing, tugboats and shipping, could have what is now a basic requirement, namely an over-all Fraser river control board. I cannot think of any other term to use but to use a Fraser river control board. Under this, they could have the most efficient development, the most efficient operation from the mouth of the Fraser river up to the end of navigable waters.


George Harris Hees: Approaches were made to my department with those ideas in mind some time ago. We looked over the whole situation but we are not going ahead with any plans to carry this amalgamation that the hon. member mentioned into effect, and will not do so unless we are approached by the municipalities and the people concerned who express to us a real and considered desire that this should be done. If such a broad board of authority is suggested to us we will be very glad to discuss it with the people who would bring such an idea forward.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask a supplementary question? Did I gather from what the minister said that, as far as his knowledge goes as minister in charge of the harbour commissions, there is no suggestion by himself or his department of an amalgamation of the north Fraser river, nor any wiping out of the present board; but if there is any need or request for a Fraser river control board it must come to him as a request from the municipalities concerned?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Harold Edward Winch: On both questions?


George Harris Hees: That is correct on both questions.


Mr. McLennan:: Mr. Chairman, in the first place I think the hon. member for Vancouver East is maybe a year or a year and a half behind the times. In the second place-


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; one of our members made the suggestion two years ago.


William Alexander McLennan: That is fine, two years ago. Right now you are a year and a half behind the times. In the second place, if the hon. member does not know any more about his own riding than he does about New Westminster I do not think he knows too much about it. He said that the boundaries of his constituency were two miles from the river. Those are the shortest two miles I have ever known in my life.
In the fourth place, there is another municipality bordering the river on the south side of the river, which is considerably larger than the city of New Westminster, and that is the municipality of Surrey.
Supply-Transport


Harold Edward Winch: I said that.


William Alexander McLennan: The hon. member said "nearly as large". It is much larger than the city of New Westminster. I do not think for one minute that the city of New Westminster wants to control the Fraser river. We have the New Westminster harbour board. What the people in that valley want is progress. They want a Fraser river authority or a Fraser river harbours board; they are not interested in taking over the north Fraser harbour board. It is a different deal altogether.


Harold Edward Winch: Did the hon. member say "the Fraser river authority?"


William Alexander McLennan: It is a different deal altogether, taking under control the whole navigable system of the Fraser river. The north arm is not navigable for deep sea ships and is mainly used for log storage and log tawing. As far as the harbours board is concerned, or the Fraser river authority- whatever you want to call it-they are not interested. If the hon. member would stay on Burrard inlet and stay out of the Fraser river you would be a lot farther ahead.


Ernest James Broome: I should like to say a few words on the national harbours board as its operations affect the harbour of Vancouver. I have been looking at the 1958 report and I notice that over the last five years receipts and shipments of grain at the port of Vancouver were 1,170 million bushels compared with 1,119 million bushels in the case of Montreal. Montreal, however, has storage capacity about 77 per cent in excess of that of Vancouver and other facilities to a much greater degree. If we look at the figures for 1958 and 1957 we see that in 1958 receipts and shipments at Montreal amounted to 249 million bushels while the figure for Vancouver was 275 million bushels. In 1957 the figures were 172 million bushels for Montreal and 282 million bushels for Vancouver.
Capital expenditures over the last year were $6 million in Vancouver and $17 million in Montreal. I understand from newspaper reports that there will be very heavy capital expenditures for the port of Montreal in the next year or so. I should like to suggest to the national harbours board that they should make a survey of the port of Vancouver to see whether the facilities are adequate to take care properly of the traffic passing through that port at the present time. I think there is need for an over-all look at what they have there because right now I think there should be in the planning stage a major expansion program with regard to facilities.
I should like them to consider an access road all around the harbour which would be

Supply-Transport
of advantage for lire fighting if we had a major blaze in the harbour area. At the present time you cannot get to half of the sheds because they are cut off by railway tracks that parallel the harbour. I think the port of Vancouver has been neglected to a certain degree and that the national harbours board, which after all has been consistently netting at least $1 million and sometimes far more each year from the operation of the harbour, should take a good look at what the future program is to be in order to bring the facilities up to a level more or less equivalent to the facilities in Montreal.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question so that the attention will not all be on Vancouver?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: It is the best port in the country.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask the
minister how the survey into silting and mud in Saint John harbour, conducted in cooperation with the Department of Public Works and completed a short while ago, is coming along? We are looking forward to the results.


George Harris Hees: A report is being prepared but it has not been received yet.


William Hector Payne: Before the vote carries I want to say a brief word or two. I do not do so with any intention of embarrassing the hon. member for Vancouver South but on behalf of the people of my constituency, which circles the north shore of Burrard inlet, I want to express very sincere thanks to the chairman and vice-chairman for their excellent work and the co-operation they have shown throughout the year. I want to thank the minister for the splendid announcement which I am sure will meet the situation that is concerning the hon. member for Vancouver South and all other members from the lower mainland. In passing I should like to say to that righteous cavalier, the hon. member for Laurier, who appears before the house so gallantly as a Galahad these days, that at times I wish he were sitting over there and I was sitting where he is because I would dearly love to have him justify the neglect and careless action with regard to this great national port during the years of his stewardship.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to reply to the hon. member who has just spoken. I do not know to what years he was referring. I am sure he could not have been referring to the nine years I was over there because during that time the port of Vancouver certainly was not neglected. The minister made a statement in the house the other
day dealing with the port development at Montreal and he announced the appointment of an interdepartmental committee to deal with harbour improvements in that port. Would the minister give the names of the members of the committee and the terms of reference?


George Harris Hees: We do not normally give the names of individuals in cases like this but the departments concerned on the committee are the harbours board, the Department of Transport, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and Canadian National Railways. There are representatives of these bodies.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I have the terms of reference, please?


George Harris Hees: The terms of reference simply are to report on the future development of the port.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there no further information that the minister can give the committee? I think the committee is entitled to this information.


George Harris Hees: They have simply been asked to study this matter and make a report and the report has not been made yet.


Lionel Chevrier: I am going to send over to the minister an article from the Montreal Star written by James Oastler. It gives the name of the chairman, the terms of reference, the work there is to be done and what they anticipate doing. I am sure he did not concoct the whole thing. I am not going to press the matter unduly but it seems to me in a matter of this importance the details should be given to the house first before they are given to the press. The details in the statement are so numerous and of such a nature that they appear to me to be pretty close to the facts, and I have some knowledge of what is happening.


George Harris Hees: I just do not happen to have the terms of reference of that particular committee here. I gave the general term of reference, the general purpose of the committee and what they are intending to do. I think that is what the hon. member is interested in. I gave him the departments concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I think the committee should have had it before the press.


George Harris Hees: I am told that the chairman is Mr. Paul Kuhring, former head of the Department of Transport ship channel branch, and there are representatives from the other departments.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to press it.


George Harris Hees: There is nothing to be hidden here.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not suggesting there is.
I am suggesting that here is an article containing the kind of information which should have been given to the house first.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member says it should have been given to the house. I did not give it to the press. I had no knowledge of it being given to the press. I do not know whether the press got it from somebody in the C.N.R., the harbours board or the St. Lawrence seaway authority.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister do me the courtesy of reading it?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I will be very glad to.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister do me the courtesy of reading it and then let him compare what is contained in that article with the statement he made in answer to the question by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George the other day?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I will be very glad to.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: Mr. Chairman, we have been discussing the north Fraser harbour commission and the New Westminster harbour board and I do not feel I can let this item go by with the implication that those more immediately concerned in this particular area have been ignoring the situation. I point out that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the hon. member for Vancouver South and the hon member for New Westminster, within whose ridings the New Westminster harbour board and the north Fraser harbour commission operate, have been well aware of the problem and are right on top of the situation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What about air passes?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I appreciate very much the fact that constituency matters do not occupy the hon. member for Vancouver East on a full-time basis, so he is able to take the time to come down into the Fraser river and tell us how to control things in our own particular constituencies.


Harold Edward Winch: If you don't raise them, I will.


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I appreciate these extraneous remarks which are constantly injected into the debate. I just wish to put on the record the fact that the members who are more immediately concerned with these respective ridings have been spending far more time and effort, perhaps not in a verbal way but in a more practical way than the hon. member for Vancouver East, in trying to get something accomplished.


Harold Edward Winch: Leave it to me to raise the questions.
Supply-Transport


William Arnold Peters: I do not know whether the matter I wish to raise comes under this particular item. We do not have a national harbours board, but we have a number of harbours that are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. These harbours are on the upper Ottawa lake and the upper Ottawa river area. I should like to inquire if there is any regulation of this area for which the minister is responsible which would prohibit a company from allowing logs to float free? I should like to know also if the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company is subsidized by the department in the operations they carry on in both the Ottawa river and lake Timiskaming?


George Harris Hees: The answer to the second question is no. The answer to the first question is that the problem of logs as they may affect navigation is one which the Department of Public Works and ourselves are trying to solve at the present time. I am advised that there is a special meeting scheduled with one of the private companies at Sturgeon Falls this month to deal with this very matter.


William Arnold Peters: As the minister is probably aware, in lake Temagami, for instance, where a similar situation exists it is necessary for the logging companies to have their logs off by June 15. In the past the sweep of lake Timiskaming has been very haphazard, and although we have intervened a number of times with the company we get very little response. There is never a complete sweep of the lake. Is there a regulation covering lake Temagami which provides that the logs must be off by June 15, and would that regulation apply to lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa river?


George Harris Hees: There are no regulations that can deal with this problem. It can only be solved by co-operation or by legislation. As I say, the Department of Public Works and ourselves are studying the matter at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister if the jurisdiction of the national harbours board will be extended to cover the south shore opposite Montreal?


George Harris Hees: That is one of the matters being considered by the committee which we mentioned a few minutes ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Aciing Chairman (Mr. MacEwan): Item 482?
George Harris Hees: May I ask, Mr. Chairman, if we could take item 486, which deals with the harbours board as well, and which will be

Supply-Transport
found under "Loans"? I should like to do this while the officials of the harbours board are still here.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Shall item 486 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transport-
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
482. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve. $30,000,000.
Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: This item deals with the St. Lawrence seaway and is for loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve. I believe that due to its misconception and faulty construction this seaway will be like a bottomless pit into which we can sink untold sums of money. I believe that this seaway is obsolete before it is opened. I believe it imperative that before any more money is spent those who constructed it should get full credit for it and assume full responsibility. I believe that there should be a full appreciation of the difficulties which this government will encounter in inheriting the seaway and in trying to make it work.
Since Her Majesty has graciously consented to open the seaway I hope there will be no misunderstanding of what I am saying. I wish to inform the house how eagerly we in Stormont are anticipating the visit to Cornwall of Her Majesty and His Royal Highness on June 27 and how grateful we are to the Prime Minister for his sympathetic understanding of my efforts to include our area in the royal itinerary. Although not a compensation, this is a very gratifying recognition of all the dislocation suffered by the people of this historic seaway valley. It is particularly appropriate as no part of Canada is more loyal and devoted to the crown. In fact, many Stormont people have the unique distinction of belonging to the only civilized races that have never lived under any government but a monarchy. My French Canadian friends escaped the horrors of the French revolution and every Scot is a royalist to the core, especially those whose fathers followed Her Majesty's Stuart ancestors.
From the shores of the St. Lawrence we can still gaze south to the blue haze of the Adirondacks through which winds the Mohawk river on which our great great grandparents turned their backs because they were steadfast to their Tory and loyalist beliefs.


Harold Edward Winch: That was well read.


Grant Campbell: Whatever I, or anyone else, may say of the St. Lawrence seaway, I gladly proclaim that it is the most magnificent engineering feat of modern times. It is the greatest example today of cooperation between two countries which were formerly enemies. It is a symbol of Canada's growing industrial strength and it is, above all, the occasion which warrants the royal visit to our shores. But unfortunately we are so seduced by the idea of size in Canada that if a thing is big enough and costly enough it is unpatriotic or even sacrilegious to criticize it. I do not subscribe to this pagan heresy which is in the same category as Hitler's "big lie". The pyramids of Egypt were also a great engineering feat, but it is questionable whether the glorification of one man was worth all the labour and suffering involved in their construction.
The hundreds of millions of dollars squandered on the Arrow program was due to the megalomania of one man. Yet, think what this money would have done for Canada if it had been spent on the reduction of taxes or to increase old age pensions and family allowances. Think what this increased purchasing power would do to relieve unemployment. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, will the people of Canada have cause in the next 10 years to regard the St. Lawrence seaway as they now regard the Arrow. After the tumult and the shouting dies, after the captains and the Queen depart, I wonder will the whole of Canada awake as disillusioned as Cornwall with the whole seaway project.
In any realistic appraisal of the seaway there are certain basic factors that must be taken into account. The whole pattern of oceanic shipping is changing. The tramp steamer which was willing to pick up a miscellaneous cargo wherever it could be found is being superseded by the liner, either cargo or cargo-passenger, operating on regular schedule. Although a successful liner service is based on high grade traffic, it requires enough low grade bulky freight for ballast. To obtain this it can offer such attractive prices to the shipper that the tramp has difficulty in competing.
A second factor is that ships will have to operate between Montreal and the lake cities at about three-quarters of their normal rate of movement. In addition to the canal, there are about 67 miles of restricted channel in the St. Lawrence with the least width through the Thousand islands from lake Ontario to Chimney point being 500 feet, and about 150 miles of channel navigation from the head of navigation in lake Superior to the head of the St. Lawrence. The passage of each lock takes up to an hour and the river speed of, say 12 miles per hour, would

have to be reduced to about four miles per hour in the canals and about eight miles per hour in the improved channels. In other words, a ship would take over 12 days to make the round trip from Montreal to Duluth, which trip could be performed in 9 days of unrestricted navigation.
Finally, the practical navigation season for ocean vessels is limited to about 6-| months. I know that the average duration of open navigation is 227 days. The average period is roughly from April 26 to December 9. But this is quite different from the practical shipping season.. Boats leaving Montreal for Duluth or Chicago would or must return by the earliest possible closing date at Montreal. It would take 18 days to 20 days to make the trip to Chicago, load, and return. With the date of closing of navigation at Montreal coming sometimes as early as November 25, the last departure could not be later than November 5 or 6. Even this would be cutting it so fine that the insurance rates would naturally be increased substantially. The season for boats going only as far as Detroit would, of course, be about one week longer. This is no problem for the great lake freighters because they can winter in the upper or lower lakes, if necessary.
The economics institute of the Brookings institute, which is supported by the Carnegie trusts, as long ago as 1929 asked most of the major shipping companies of the world whether it would be feasible to operate ships on regular schedules over the St. Lawrence route during the summer months and then lay them up for the winter or shift them to regular services or place them in tramp service during the closed season provided, of course-and this is the biggest proviso-that there were adequate channels and harbour facilities with at least 33 feet draft. Without exception those companies replied that no ocean vessel could obtain sufficient revenue to lay up during the winter season. Deep-sea boats, of course, cannot be used as temporary grain storage elevators as can lakers.
The great majority also answered the later questions in the negative. They pointed out that during the winter months there is no general increase of overseas trade which would enable established trade routes to absorb this additional tonnage, and competition is too keen to let outside tonnage come in and take business away from established lines for part of the year only. Vessels could make a profitable trip to Europe in the same time that they could make the return trip from Montreal to the head of the lake. Regular lines would probably [DOT]confine themselves to ports where they could
Supp ly-Transport
combine cargo with passenger traffic and of course passengers would land and embark as near to the sea as possible rather than take a long, slow inland trip by water.
Most of the shippers also thought that the seaway traffic would not even prove profitable to tramp tonnage. If a tramp vessel contracts to go from Montreal to the head of the lakes for grain, involving a trip of 18 days, she runs the risk of losing a more favourable charter which she might obtain if not tied up with a long inland trip. A small boat of this size could not carry grain from the head of the lakes to Liverpool at a return comparable with that which shippers can obtain via the great lakes bulk freighters to Montreal and large 10,000-ton to 12,000-ton cargo vessels out of Montreal. This small tramp would be less efficient than your great lakes bulk freighters for the inland voyage and less efficient than a first-class cargo liner for the trans-Atlantic run.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to make the sober statement that the St. Lawrence seaway as a paying route for ocean vessels is obsolete before it is officially opened. This will sound incredible to many people, I know that the hon. member for Laurier, who conceived the seaway, will vigorously refute this statement. It will probably even be denied by the present Minister of Transport who is left holding the baby. But I make this statement in the firm belief that time and circumstances will prove its validity. It is very interesting, in fact, to note that this statement is substantiated by Mr. B. J. Roberts, Canadian president of the seaway authority who is reported in the Montreal Gazette of May 25, 1959, to have stated, when interviewed on his first tour through the seven locks of the seaway:
From an economic standpoint the use of lakers for bulk cargo may, in the long run, prove to be the best thing for the seaway.
I continue to quote:
The lakers with smaller crews and lower operating expenses can outdo ocean vessels on the seaway and I think they will supersede the larger ships.
He further declared that by running on a light tonnage instead of full capacity the salt water vessels may prove to be uneconomical. I think this is a masterpiece of understatement.
The main reason for this fiasco is the inadequate depth of the seaway for profitable ocean traffic. The question of the appropriate depth was considered by various United States congressional committee in 1951, 1952 and 1953. On February 29, 1952 the Hon. Charles

Supply-Transport
Sawyer, secretary of commerce, testifying before the senate committee on foreign relations stated as follows:
While it is true that only about 10 per cent of the American merchant marine can operate fully loaded in 27 feet of water, the overwhelming part of our merchant fleet-at least 75 per cent-can use the seaway if laden to less than capacity.
It was also stated before the committee that the total additional costs of providing a channel depth of 30 feet upon the unit cost levels of December, 19*50 would have been to the United States, $20,260,000 and to Canada, $23,465,000.
The only justification for the 27-foot depth to have been publicly advanced in Canada is to be found in the following single sentence spoken by the former minister of transport in the House of Commons on December 11, 1951, as reported in Hansard of 1951, second session, at page 1765:
The canal is to be 27 feet deep and that will adequately take care of, I believe it is, very nearly 90 per cent of all the ocean going ships that are in existence at the present time.
In common charity, all that I can say is that the honourable minister, as he then was, must have been including Chinese junks, Portuguese fishing smacks, Jamaican rum schooners and all sorts of other vessels that trade in obscure corners of the world thousands of miles from the St. Lawrence. He must also have included those that could go through empty, but no money is made in that way.
When allowance is made for the lesser buoyance of fresh water and for the squat of a vessel due to forward motion under way, the maximum draft that can be permitted in the seaway is 25 feet. As of December 31, 1957, 978 of the 1,039 vessels in the British merchant fleet-the great proportion of them -are over 25 feet in draft. According to the data supplied by the Canadian maritime commission, which is published in the December, 1957 report of the royal commision on the coasting trade-appendix X, incidentally, pages 261 to 270-it is stated that of Canadian dry cargo vessels of 1,000 gross tons or over, only 10 vessels under Canadian registry and three under United Kingdom registry are under 25.5 feet in draft. The others, 8 under the Canadian flag and 84 under United Kingdom registry, are all over the 25.5 foot limit. Although I shall refrain from doing so, I could itemize the names, tonnages, and drafts of all the Canadian ships.
It must be remembered that the key to profitable shipping is the last two or three inches of cargo in the hold and that an oceangoing ship is a very expensive proposition. Apart from high insurance due to the traditional hazards of inland navigation an

8,000-ton deep sea vessel costs $1,500 a day to operate. In comparison, a laker, because of higher wages, costs $2,000 daily, but it is able to carry 25,000 tons of cargo as opposed to 8,000.
Much of this was pointed out by Dr. C. P. Wright in his excellent book in the St. Lawrence seaway authority, which was published as long ago as 1935, and again in a recent article in the Canadian Banker, which was reprinted in the Montreal Gazette of March 23, 1959, by Mr. Clayton Sinclair. Despite all the ballyhoo about the St. Lawrence seaway, it stands a poor eighth in the size of vessel it will handle in comparison with other great world canals. The Panama canal and the Amsterdam-Rhine canal are 41-feet deep, the Kiel canal is 37 feet, the Suez and Port Arthur, Texas-Beaumont canals, 34 feet, the Houston, Texas, canal 33 feet, and the Manchester ship canal 28 feet. The St. Lawrence seaway will merely be the continent's third largest shipping artery and will not give ocean shipping priority over inland boats like the other two.
Even more fantastic than building an ocean seaway which could not accommodate ocean ships was trying to enter ocean shipping into a Welland canal which was already taxed to capacity. Digging the seaway, while leaving the Welland canal unimproved, was like making a bigger bottle without enlarging the neck. The Montreal Gazette of June 1 of this year commented editorially on the fleet of ships which lay at anchor in lake Ontario waiting to enter the Welland canal as follows: It is, of course, true that the flow of foreign ships into the waterway is partly explained by novelty and experiment. But even when all the abnormal conditions are taken into consideration, it still remains doubtful whether the Welland canal is capable of handling any very remarkable addition to the number of ships it has handled in the past.
Last year it was possible for Canadian ships to pass through the Welland canal in nine hours. This year it is taking up to 58 hours. Not only are the costs of these delays being added to what Canadians must pay, but the level of tolls imposed with the opening of the waterways is yet another addition to the cost structure. The users of iron ore, coal and grain face delays in receiving their supplies-still another addition to costs. The Steel Company of Canada, for example, has already expressed its grave concern at having its supplies held up. If grain cannot be promptly and efficiently shipped through the Welland canal, then there is the possibility that part of the crop is left on the farms. Unless Canadian lake freighters are given priority in the Welland locks the Canadian economy will be seriously injured by the St. Lawrence waterway instead of being:

aided by it; and if Canadian lakers get the necessary priority, the waterway is no longer a seaway.
The hon. member for Laurier has recently published a most interesting book on the St. Lawrence seaway, and despite his modesty it is apparent from his book that more than anyone else in this country or in the United States he was responsible for the conception and the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway. He deserves full credit and full responsibility for this. As I have said, this is a delightful book-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Grant Campbell: -and should make an excellent grade 12 civics text.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate has risen on a point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, now that the hon. member has proved conclusively that the seaway could not be used, could not the minister withdraw the item?


Grant Campbell: May I continue? Despite the fact that it is such an excellent book, it is not the definitive work that we would expect from a man who took such a leading part in the seaway. Not only will the economists find little there of assistance to them, but even a novice member like myself finds it conspicuously lacking in answers to the questions that concern us here in this house. Why is there no explanation of the monumental disparity between estimated and actual costs? Why were the piers of the south channel bridge at Cornwall not founded on bedrock instead of floating on glacial till, especially when the specification called for them going down to bedrock in view of the fact that a former bridge had collapsed in the same place?
Finally, the whole reason that I am speaking here tonight is to ask, why was the seaway built at all, when it is of little use to ocean shipping? Why was not the old canal system merely enlarged to 22 feet draft, which would enable lake freighters to go down to Montreal, transship grain, pick up iron ore and take it to the head of the lakes? This could have been done for a fraction of the cost, and it would have served the same purpose. We would then have had a toll-free seaway, an all-Canadian seaway, and all the ships would still go by Cornwall as they have done for the last 100 years. Perhaps part of the answer is that the former minister was ill advised by some of his assistants such as Mr. R. A. C. Henry, who was connected with a company con-
Supply-Transport
tracting with the Department of Transport while the same Mr. Henry was advising the department. I believe that the former minister of transport deserves full credit for his role on the seaway construction and I believe further that the present Minister of Transport deserves full sympathy for his unenviable task of trying to make the seaway work.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct a question to the minister whose estimates are now before us. Is it the minister's intention to comment on the well read speech and charges made by the member for Stormont?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention either of commenting on the speech which the hon. member for Stormont has made, but I am rising to deal with a matter as briefly as I can which was brought up earlier which comes under this head, and that is the construction of the south channel bridge at Cornwall. I do so with a great deal of detachment because the bridge was constructed after I had left the administration of the seaway, although I must admit that the contract was awarded shortly before I left. I desire to deal with it because of some of the statements which were made by the hon. member for Assiniboia, and I believe there are one or two things which have not been brought to the attention of the committee which I would like to deal with at the moment.
The first matter is that it is an international bridge; one-third of it is in Canada and two-thirds is in the United States. By an agreement with the St. Lawrence Seaway Corporation, that is the United States entity, it was agreed that Canada would build the substructure of that bridge and the United States would build the superstructure. It was also agreed that the engineers of the bridge would be Mr. D. B. Steinman, consulting engineer of New York city, who worked in association with Dr. Pratley, now deceased; but the plans and specifications were prepared by Mr. Steinman. The point I am trying to re-emphasize now is that the bridge is one which is located one-third in Canada and two-thirds in the United States.
The other point I am making is that the contract for the substructure was given to a Canadian corporation. Now the Foundation of Canada Engineering Corporation Limited was retained by the St. Lawrence seaway authority to ascertain what effects there were in the piers. It was reported one of the piers on the north side close to Cornwall island had shifted to some extent because it was

Supp ly-Transport
not lying on glacial till although later this proved unfounded. It was, however, a short distance from glacial till; there was some sediment between the bottom of the concrete and the glacial till. After that had been discovered, remedial measures were effected and further examination was made. An independent board of consultants was appointed in order to investigate the measures, and the board of engineers was composed of two United States engineers and a member of the Foundation Company of Canada. And after they had examined the pier they found that the piers were adequate to safely sustain all dead and maximum live loads and that the remedial works which they had recommended had been completed.
The point I want to make is that this was first and foremost a joint Canadian-United States obligation in so far as the construction of the bridge was concerned. It was a purely United States operation in so far as the plans and specifications were concerned. It was a purely Canadian operation in so far as the substructure went, but I am sure that the United States development corporation would never have thought of placing on the substructure the weight of the superstructure unless they had been convinced, as the board of consultants so found, that the weight of the superstructure would be borne by the substructure.
Then there is also the point that this bridge operates between two countries. This bridge, in so far as the piers are concerned, is not unlike some installations of the seaway authority where the walls were placed on glacial till, and from what information I gained I am confident in my mind that there is absolutely nothing the matter with the bridge. I am sorry that the hon. member for Assiniboia, basing his contention on an anonymous informant, made the statement which he did. The statements which he made are serious and far-reaching because they are to the effect that the bridge is doomed. There is not the slightest evidence that the bridge is doomed. On the contrary, there is every evidence that the bridge is in excellent condition, and it seems to me in fairness to those with whom I was associated over a number of years-though I had nothing to do with the execution of the contract- that I should at the first opportunity make the statement that there is nothing wrong regarding the construction of this bridge.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you give me time to speak before ten o'clock?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I will be through in just a moment. Then there is also the point that it is unfortunate that information

such as this should be used in the committee when it is of an anonymous nature. If an hon. member feels that something has gone wrong with construction work and will name the engineer or name the person making the charge, or indicate that the person has a reputation with which he backs the charge, then I think those are conditions which should receive attention, but when a charge is made without foundation and without information of that character, and without sufficient grounds, based on information supplied by an anonymous person, then, I believe, no credence whatever should be given to it.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Laurier, I should like to ask whether he and the minister have seen the Toronto Telegram of June 12. I would call their attention to the front page, where it says: "Would go 40 Miles to Shun Bridge". The article, written by a staff reporter, says, and I quote:
The former chief of the St. Lawrence seaway's inspection division says he would drive 40 miles to avoid going over the new Cornwall bridge and that he would not take his family across it under any circumstances.
J. B. Stirling of Montreal offered to come to Ottawa and testify fully if a parliamentary inquiry or a judicial investigation is ordered by the government to study charges that the bridge is unsafe.
May I also draw the attention of the minister and the hon. member for Laurier to what appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of June 11, where it was reported:
M. A. Hanson, divisional engineer on the St. Lawrence seaway, this morning said there was no foundation for reports that the south span of the Cornwall-Massena bridge was improperly constructed.
Since this latter statement is at variance with the information which was given in answer to the question I asked concerning the movement of the piers, and in the light of these reports which appear in the Citizen and in the Telegram, particularly the statement by the former chief of the seaway inspection division, I should like to ask the minister with regard to the statement he made, in all sincerity and honesty, that if he is prepared to have a meeting between the St. Lawrence authority and their engineers-everyone responsible-and those of us who have been asking questions on this matter here in Ottawa; that if his offer is not an offer of a secret or star chamber meeting but will be an open meeting, then we accept it. The hon. member for Laurier has seen what is in the papers, and the affidavits, according to our best information and our personal inspection, and I repeat that if the minister's offer means an open

meeting we accept. I accept right now, and am authorized to do so on behalf of the hon. member for Assiniboia. But I do not accept it if the meeting is to be held as a star chamber meeting.


George Harris Hees: This talk of a star chamber is the kind of nonsense we have been accustomed to expect from that corner of the house, the kind of nonsense which was talked during the last provincial election, and the result showed what the people in the big province thought of that kind of talk.
1 have offered to have the hon. member for Assiniboia and the hon. member for Vancouver East meet with any of our officials, and if they are interested in getting all the information they may ask questions freely and take all the time required to digest the information. If they are interested in getting information, that is the way to get it. Nothing will be withheld, and they will be given all the information they desire. If they are interested only in cheap publicity, which appears to be the case, then of course they will not be satisfied with that kind of meeting because at such a meeting the press will not be present; they will not be there really to get information to satisfy their curiosity as to whether this bridge was properly built. I would like to read a report which I have dealing with the bridge, which was given to me by the St. Lawrence seaway authority. It reads as follows:
The design engineering of this bridge, both substructure and superstructure, was the work of
D.	B. Steinman, consulting engineer, New York, under contract with the corps of engineers, United States army, acting in its capacity as contracting agent for the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, and P. L. Pratley, deceased, consulting engineer of Montreal, retained by the St. Lawrence seaway authority as Canadian associate consultant, both as agreed to by the two seaway entities.
The piers were designed for and are founded on extreme dense glacial till. The original test borings made at the sites of the main piers disclose dense glacial till overlying bed rock. Borings were taken into the rock. Standard penetration tests disclose material as being extremely dense with a weight of 145 pounds per cubic foot, as compared with 148 pounds for concrete. The glacial till required drilling and blasting to excavate. There has been no settlement from the time the piers were completed and prior to the erection of steel. The factor of safety is at least one and a half under the most extreme conditions of load.
After the piers were erected test borings made in the normal course by seaway engineers revealed a lack of proper bonding between the base of the piers and the glacial till. This was remedied under expert supervision and an engineering board representing both Canadian and United States interests has certified that the piers and the soil on which they rest are now adequate to sufficiently sustain all dead and maximum live loads.


Harold Edward Winch: If I may, I should like to say I regret very much that the minister should say that I speak nonsense. He and I are
66968-9-298
Business of the House
very good friends, and I think sincere and honest friends. I do not speak nonsense in the house. I think it is the responsibility of a member-although I am not an engineer -that when he reads that a former chief of the St. Lawrence seaway inspection division makes a statement which appears on the front page of one of the largest circulating papers in the country to say something about it. You cannot say that because a member reads and quotes and uses such an article that he is speaking nonsense. I want to make that very clear because I have a great many friends on the other side, althought we differ in politics. I do not speak nonsense on the floor of the house. I try to take the information which comes to hand.
Am I to understand from the minister that in view of this he still feels that any meeting whatsoever must take place in private and that the public and the press are not to be entitled to know what perhaps a man like Sterling or others have to say? I am just asking, what is the position of the minister? Is he afraid of the public, or is he not?


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member wants information, and if he wants to take certain friends of his, Mr. Stirling and other people, to help him in his cross-examination of our engineers, I shall be very glad to have him do that. If this is just a press stunt, as I think it is, then I am not willing to have this thing turned into nothing but a circus, and that is what I think is intended. If the hon. member wants information, if he wants to take Mr. Grant or Mr. Stirling, if he wants to take a friend who is supposed to be an engineer, a friend of the hon. member for Assiniboia, then he can come along and talk to our engineers and find out everything that he wants to find out. They will hold back nothing; they will tell him the whole story and that I feel sure will satisfy him as a responsible member of parliament that this bridge was well constructed and is completely safe and will stand the test of time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Howard Russell MacEwan: This completes the estimates of the Department of Transport.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day, reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, we have had a pretty long siege with these estimates and I think the house leader will find that there has been a great deal of co-operation from all members in connection with the very long and sometimes intricate estimates of the Department of Transport. Will the house leader

Business of the House
indicate what the business will be for Monday and the succeeding days, during the course of the week?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we shall commence with item No. 18, the resolution concerning pensions for the R.C.M.P.; then item No. 15, the resolution concerning funds for the Canadian National Railways; then item No. 20, the resolution preceding amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act; then item No. 9, concerning a taxation convention between Canada and Finland; then, item No. 14, the resolution concerning defence services pensions; and item No. 2, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act. On Tuesday we shall start off with item No. 19 concerning Harrington lake.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That will be the first item on Tuesday?


Howard Charles Green: That will be the first item on Tuesday. Then, following the completion of the business I have listed for Monday, we would take item No. 10, the second reading of the act respecting the superannuation of members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; then, item No. 3, amendments respecting the Royal Canadian Mounted Police; and item No. 11, second reading of an act to amend the Criminal Code. We would also
like to get the bills through, following these different resolutions I have referred to.
The estimates for next week will be first those of the Department of Justice and then the Department of Finance.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister indicate what he expects we will be taking, on Wednesday?


Howard Charles Green: It will depend on the progress we make with the legislation. It will be either on Wednesday or Thursday.


Lionel Chevrier: May we have some indication of when the defence estimates will toe brought forward?


Howard Charles Green: No, I am unable to do that, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: Might I just take this opportunity to thank all those who have taken part in the examination of my estimates during the past three days for their co-operation, for the very useful suggestions and ideas they have put forward. I can assure them that all of the suggestions and ideas will be studied with care and attention. Thank you very much for your co-operation.
It being 12 minutes past ten o'clock, the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Questions



ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Argue: 1.	Has the Minister or officers of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources ever received recommendations from any persons of the profession regarding Dr. Richard S. MacNeish's suitability for the positions he has held at the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, from what persons were they received, and what were their professional positions, on what dates were they received, and what was the nature of each recommendation?
3.	Has the minister or officers of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources ever received communications from any person of his profession criticising Dr. MacNeish's competence in any way to maintain the positions he has held at the museum?
4.	If so, from what persons were they received, on what date, and what was the nature of the criticism?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National
Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	Dr. James B. Griffin; see return to motion for papers No. 70, tabled on March 25, 1959.
3.	Yes.
4.	From Mr. T. E. Lee on March 4, 1959 when he tendered his resignation. Mr Lee stated he was not prepared to serve under Dr. MacNeish whose professional competence he was not prepared to accept.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


Mr. Argue: 1.	How many appointments to the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources have been made in each branch in each year since 1950 by order in council or treasury board minute?
2.	What was the name of each person so appointed, the date of appointment, the position to which each was appointed, the duties for which each was responsible, and the authority under which each appointment was made?
3.	In what country was each of these persons born, and what citizenship did each hold at the time of their appointment?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.1950, Nine; 1951, One; 1952, None; 1953, Six; 1954, One; 1955, Two; 1956, One; 1957, Twelve; 1958, Four; 1959, One
2.
Name
Date
Position and Duties
Authority
G. Sylvestre	 1/1/50
E. J. Peters	 18/1/50
C. V. Powers	 18/1/50
M. Saunders	 18/1/50
E. Tupper	 18/1/50
L. P. Cockburn	 15/2/50
R. L. Elliott	 4/2/50
A.O.6. assistant to director, Canadian government travel bureau	 Privy council
Confidential messenger, minister's staff	 "
Clerk 2B, minister's staff	 "
Secretary to executive, minister's staff	 "
Clerk 4, minister's staff	 "
Assistant private secretary, minister's staff		"
Private secretary to the minister	 "
66968-9-298J
4702	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Name	Date	Position and Duties	AuthorityA. E. Villeneuve	
5/9/50 Clerk 2A, minister's staff	
Privy councilH. A. Young	
1/10/50	Deputy minister and commissioner,	Northwest	"Territories	D. McCready	
16/10/50	Stipendiary magistrate, national parks of	Canada(part time)	
"H. Black	
1/3/51	Stenographer 3, minister's staff	
"F.	E. Armstrong	
22/6/53	Clerk 2A, minister's staff	
"L.	Benoit	
17/9/53	Confidential messenger, minister's staff	
"M.	Lachaine	
17/9/53	Clerk 2B, minister's staff	
"G.	LaCasse	
18/9/53	Head clerk, minister's staff	
"ft. M. Robiehaud	
1/10/53	Clerk 3, minister's staff	
"R. G. Robertson	
15/11/53	Deputy minister and commissioner, NorthwestTerritories	
"M. Arsenault	
1/9/54	Stenographer 3, minister's staff	
"C.	M. Lavigne	
1/4/55	Stenographer 2B, minister's staff	
"D.	Pare	
1/5/55	Private secretary to the minister	
"M. C. Dubois	
6/3/56	Stenographer 3, minister's staff	
"M.	C. Dubois	
1/1/57	Clerk 4, minister's staff	
"H.	A. Myre	
21/1/57	Stenographer 2, minister's staff	
"P. M. Jones	
22/6/57	Head clerk, minister's staff	
"W. W. Raymond	
15/7/57	Confidential messenger, minister's staff	
"A. Bradley	
12/8/57	Stenographer 3, minister's staff	
"H. J. Robertson	
22/8/57	Clerk 3, minister's staff	
"D.J. Thiessen	
4/9/57	Private secretary to the minister	
"C. V. Irving	
6/9/57	Head clerk, minister's staff	
"A. P. Wilcock	
16/9/57	Clerk 4, minister's staff	
"H. J. Montgomery,	
17/9/57	Confidential messenger, minister's staff	
"33. J. Thiessen	
1/11/57	Executive assistant to the minister	
"R. A. Faibish	
7/11/57	Private secretary to the minister	
"J. C. Potter	
10/6/58	Clerk, minister's staff	
"A. E. Ireland	
1/7/58	Stenographer 2, minister's staff	
"*C. V. Irving	
1/8/58	Associate private secretary to minister	
"J. E. Powell	
31/12/58	Typist, minister's staff	
"N.	Roth	
1/2/59	Assistant private secretary to minister	
"
Questions
3.
Name
Country of birth Citizenship at appointment
G.	Sylvestre..
E.	J. Peters...
C.	V. Powers...
M. Saunders	
E.	Tupper	
R. L. Elliott...
L. P. Cockburn... A. E. Villeneuve..
H.	A. Young...
D.	McCready....
H. Black	
F.	E. Armstrong..
L.	Benoit	
M.	Laehaine...
G.	LaCasse....
R. M. Robichaud. R. G. Robertson. . M. Arsenault....
C.	M. Lavigne....
D.	Pare	
M. C. Dubois....
H.	A. Myre....
P. M. Jones.

W. W. Raymond..
A. Bradley	
H. J. Robertson... D. J. Thiessen..
C. V. Irving....
A. P. Wilcock...
H. J. Montgomery R. A. Faibish...
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Not available	Not available
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Not available	Not available
Canada	Canadian
Not available	Not available
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Not available	Not available
Not available	Not available
Not available	Not available
Not available	Not available
England	British
Canada	Canadian
Russia	Canadian
	(naturalized
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian
Canada	Canadian



NATIONAL MUSEUM-THOMAS E. LEE

Mr. Argue: 1.	Was a Mr. Thomas E. Lee ever employed at the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so: (a) what positions has he held there, on what date did he take up each, and on what authority? (b) what was the nature of the duties Mr. Lee was responsible for in each of these positions?
3.	Was a civil service competition held for any of these appointments?
4.	If so. for which ones and what was the date of each competition?
5.	Has Mr. Lee taken (a) the oath of allegiance; (b) the oath of office?
6.	If so. on what date was this done?
7.	If not, under what authority was Mr. Lee allowed to take a position under the jurisdiction of the Civil Service Act?
8.	At what universities did Mr. Lee take his degrees, in what subjects did he specialize, and under whom did he study at each university?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister
of Northern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	(a) Technical officer 1, (summer seasonal) June 15 - August 31, 1949 by civil service certificate. Technical officer 2, June 10, 1950, by civil service certificate; anthropologist 3, April 1, 1952, by civil service certificate; anthropologist 4, April 1, 1955, by civil service certificate; biologist 3, April 1, 1956, by civil service certificate.
(b) Technical officer 1 and 2, general archaeological duties, lectures in anthropology. Anthropologist 3, organizing, conducting field reconnaissance, intensive explorations and research in archaeology, lectures in anthropology. Anthropologist 4, same duties as anthropologist 3 with greater responsibility. Biologist 3, same duties as anthropologist 4.
3.	Yes.
4.	Technical officer 2, date of competition not known, temporary eligible list 83133-El established 24 February, 1950. Anthropologist 3, permanent eligible list 88267B89, oral interview June 13, 1952. Examined and authorized by the civil service commission, June 24, 1952.
5.	There is no record of Mr. Lee having subscribed to the oath of allegiance or oath of office.
6.	N/A.
7.	Under section 20, subsection 2, of the Civil Service Act. Technically, under section 42 of the Civil Service Act, Mr. Lee should not have received salary until the oaths were taken. It is possible that the records may be defective and that the oaths were in fact taken. It is also possible that a failure in the normal documentation procedures may have occurred.

Questions
8.	Wayne University, Detroit, B.A., 1944; English and history; no record. University of Michigan, M.A., 1949; archaeology, Professor James B. Griffin.



PAUL MCGOWAN, FORT WILLIAM  RADIO STATION LICENCE

Mr. Badanai: 1.	Was a radio licence awarded to Mr. Paul McGowan to operate a radio station in Fort William?
2.	If so, on what basis?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister
of Transport):
1.	No.
2.	See answer to No. 1.



NATIONAL MUSEUM


Mr. Argue: 1.	Is a Dr. R. A. MacNeish presently employed with the national museum of Canada?
2.	If so, has Dr. MacNeish done any archaeological or other scientific work in Mexico since his appointment?
3.	In what years has he done such work, between what dates of each year, who were the members of each expedition, what was their function, and with what organization were they conected professionally?
4.	What was the purpose of each expedition, the places investigated, and the results of each?
5.	What organizations sponsored this work each year?
6.	Did Dr. MacNeish receive any money payment from any organization for this work?
7.	If so, from what organization, in what year, what amount, and was this in addition to his salary from the national museum of Canada?
8.	Did the national museum of Canada pay any part of the expenses of Dr. MacNeish's work in Mexico at any time, or that of any member of the party?
9.	If so, what was the list of expenses submitted and paid by the museum in each year, and for whom and by whom were they submitted?
10.	Of what interest to Canada and Canadian archaeology is the work which Dr. MacNeish is doing in Mexico?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisier
of Norihern Affairs and National Resources):
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Dr. MacNeish led various expeditions in order to renew investigations in Mexico at the request of the director of the Harvard University botanical museum and with the approval of the then chief curator of the national museum of Canada. The work was done in the years of 1953, 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1959. During the fiscal years of 1952-53, 1955-56 and 1958-59, work was done wholly on Dr. MacNeish's statutory leave time. Seventy-four days outside duty was granted in 1953-54 and 66 days in 1954-55 in addition to Dr. MacNeish's annual statutory leave. Over the years hundreds of local labourers were hired in the state of Tamaulipas. The department has no record of the persons employed as the expeditions were not organized by the national museum of Canada.
4.	The purposes of the expeditions (which had started in 1945-46 and continued 194849) were, in general, to determine the prehistory in the state of Tamaulipas and adjacent parts of the state of Veracruz, Mexico. The specific purposes changed as information accrued. Notably after 1953, the purposes were to determine the origin, spread and the improvements in new world agriculture. The detailed purposes of each expedition, most of the places investigated and the results of expeditions will be found in the following publications by Dr. MacNeish:
(1)	An Early Archaeological Site near Panuco, Veracruz. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 44, pt. 4, Philadelphia, Pa., 1954.
(2)	Preliminary Archaeological Investigations in the Sierra de Tamaulipas, Mexico. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. 48, part 6, Philadelphia, Pa., 1958.
(3)	(Co-author with F. Peterson) Santa Marta Rockshelter, Ocozocoautla, Chiapas, Mexico. New World Archaeological Foundation.
(4)	Prehistoric Southeast Mexico Relationships in Light of an Archaeological Survey of Tamaulipas, Mexico. Dissertation for the degree of Ph.D. University of Chicago, library, 1948.
(5)	(Co-author with P. C. Mangelsdorf and W. C. Galinat) Archaeological Evidences on the Diffusion and Evolution of Maize in Northeastern Mexico. Harvard University botanical museum leaflets, vol. 17, No. 5, Cambridge, 1956.
(6)	Prehistoric Settlement Patterns on the Northeastern Periphery of Meso-America in Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the New World edited by G. R. Willey, Viking Fund Publication in Anthropology, No. 23, New York, 1956.
(7)	(Co-author with T. W. Whitaker and H. C. Cutler) Cucurbit Materials from Three Caves near Ocampo, Tamaulipas. American Antiquity, vol. 22, No. 4, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1957.
(8)	The Independent Investigator in The Identification of Nonartifactual Archaeological Materials. Ed. Walter W. Taylor. National Academy of Sciences-national research council, publication 565, 1957. Washington,

(9)	(Co-author with L. Kaplan) Prehistoric Bean Remains from Caves in the Ocampo Region, Mexico. Submitted for publication to Harvard University botanical museum leaflets.

(10)	A Preliminary Report on Coastal Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Antiquity, vol. 13, No. 1, Menasha, Wise., July 1947.
(11)	A Synopsis of the Archaeological Sequence in the Sierra de Tamaulipas. Revista Mexicana de Estudios Antropologicos, Sociedad Mexicana de Antropologia, tomo XI, Mexico, DF., 1950.
(12)	The Development of Agriculture and the Concomitant Development of Civilization in Meso-America, Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Philosophical Society year book, 1954, Philadelphia, Pa., 1955.
(13)	The Development of Agriculture and the Concomitant Development of Civilization in Meso-America. Tamaulipas, Mexico. American Philosophical Society year book 1955, Philadelphia, Pa., 1956.
(14)	Investigation of the Development of Agriculture in Light of Material from Caves in Honduras and Guatemala. American Philosophical Society year book 1957. Philadelphia, Pa., 1958.
(15)	Discussion of Ekliolm's Regional Sequences in Meso-America and their Relationships in Middle American Anthropology, Pan-American Union, social science monographs V, Washington, D.C., 1958.
(16)	Investigations of the Development of Agriculture in Light of Material from Caves in Honduras and Guatemala. American Philosophical Society year book, 1958. Philadephia, Pa., 1959.
(17)	Archaeological Discoveries in Northern Mexico. International News Service, New York, 1949.
(18)	Ancient Maize and Mexico. Archaeology, vol. 8, No. 2, Brattleboro, Vt., 1955.
5.	In 1949 the expedition was sponsored by the Wenner-Gren foundation for anthropological research, New York city, which made a grant of $3,000, to launch the expedition; $2,000 were contributed personally by Dr. MacNeish, who borrowed another $1,000 while $350 was contributed by the International News Service.
Questions
In 1953 the botanical museum of Harvard University paid Dr. MacNeish's travelling expenses ($400) during his annual leave so that he might visit Mexico during that time and do the preliminary work for the ensuing year's expedition. This sum was matched by Dr. MacNeish with his personal funds.
In 1954 the following made grants toward an expedition in Mexico led by Dr. MacNeish:
American Philosophical Society, $2,000; American Academy of Arts and Sciences, $2,000; The Botanical Museum of Harvard University, $2,000; The De Kalb Seed Company, $1,000; Time Magazine Inc., $300.
Dr. MacNeish contributed somewhat over $2,000 toward the expenses of the expedition out of his personal funds.
In 1954 the following made grants for the completion of the expedition's work up to that date:
The Guggenheim Foundation, $5,000; The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, $900; The American Philosophical Society, $860.
Dr. MacNeish contributed slightly less than $1,000 toward these expenses out of his personal funds.
In 1959 the New World archaeological foundation of California paid directly the expenses of an expedition in Chiapas, Mexico, which was led by Dr. MacNeish.
Dr. MacNeish contributed over $800 out of his personal funds.
6.	and 7. See answer to question 5.
8.	No.
9.	Not applicable.
10.	The expeditions opened new avenues of knowledge as to the origins, spread and improvement of agriculture and domesticated plants in the New World. Much of this information is of use today to plant geneticists both in understanding the process of hybridization and in increasing agricultural productivity. This is of direct concern to Canada's agriculture. It is also of concern to Canada as a nation which not only wishes to improve its own standards of living but to contribute to the world fund of knowledge and to understand the past in its relation to the future.

Supply-Items Passed
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
425.	Construction services administration, $2,809,785. Telecommunications branch-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
426.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $16,628,508.
427.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $14,044,100.
Radio Act and regulations-
428.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's share of the costs of the international radio, telegraph and telephone organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $2,645,708.
429.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $405,000.
Telegraph and telephone service-
430.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $264,867.
431.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $510,500.
Meteorological branch-
432.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including Canada's assessment for membership in the world meteorological organization, $12,299,325.
433.	Construction	or	acquisition	of	buildings,
works, land and equipment, $1,400,000.
Civil aviation branch-
434.	Control of civil aviation, including the administration of the Aeronautics Act and regulations issued thereunder, $2,298,239.
435.	Airports and other ground services operation and maintenance, including authority for payment of grants, totalling not more than $299,000, subject to approval by the governor in council, to appropriate church authorities at Gander, Newfoundland, for the purpose of relocating and re-establishing church activities from the airport limits to Gander townsite and to provide, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, that the treasury board may in the current and future years authorize arrangements to be made for the operation of hotel, bakery, restaurant, staff messing, staff accommodation and similar facilities at airports and authorize the disbursement of revenues derived therefrom and payment of deficits that may occur in the management and operation of these facilities, $18,878,041.
436.	Air traffic control, $5,559,348.
437.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works land and equipment, including construction work on municipal airports and payments to municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, and amounts to be paid in settlement of claims for compensation by persons whose property is injuriously affected by the operation of a zoning regulation made under authority of paragraph (j) of subsection (1) of section 4 of the Aeronautics Act and including authority to contribute up to $250,000 in 1959-60 to the province of Nova Scotia towards the construction of a highway providing access to the new Halifax international airport, $63,000,000.
438.	Grants for the development of civil aviation, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $599,400.
439.	Contributions to municipalities or public bodies for construction and improvements of airports on land acquired by such organizations including a contribution to an appropriate authority in respect of an airport at Lourdes-du-Blanc-Sablon, Quebec, $82,060.
440.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates, $90,000.
441.	Payments to other governments or international agencies for the operation and maintenance of airports, air navigation and airways facilities, including authority to pay in the amounts and in the currencies in which the assessments are levied and to authorize a grant in the amount of $122,500 to the South Pacific air transport council:	amount required in Canadian dollars,
estimated as of December, 1958, $274,820.
B-General-
Air Transport Board-
442.	Salaries and other expenses, including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $369,285.
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
443.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,112,773.
444.	Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund, $10,000,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
445.	Administration, $153,488.
446.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $5,553,500.
National harbours board-
447.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1959 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	 $ 933,500
Saint John	 830,000
Chicoutimi	 150,000
Quebec	 2,770,000
Prescott	 325,000
Churchill	 25,000
Generally-Unforeseen and miscellaneous	 200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds	 938,386
Total	 $4,295,114
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
482.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $30,000,000.
Canal services-
483.	Acquisition of land required in connection with the development of the 27 foot Cornwall navigation system, $180,000.
Air services-
484.	Acquisition of land for control of properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports to prevent the erection of hazards to flying, and for future development of new and existing main terminal airports including alternative facilities for relieving congestion threat, $4,000,000.
485.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $2,500,000.

National harbours board-
486.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1959 on any or all of the following accounts-
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Three Rivers	 $	525,000
Montreal	 24,484,200
Vancouver	 3,737,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds	 1,817,416
Total	 $26,928,784
A-Department-
584.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $54,120.
Canal services-
585.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $326,000.
586.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority - further amount required, $296,000.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
587.	Administration, operation and maintenance-further amount required, $2,878,600.
588.	Pilotage service-further amount required, $891,925.
Railway and steamship services-
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 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-
589.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals-further amount required, $412,000.
Strait of Canso-
590.	Transportation improvement and facilities, $28,000.
591.	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
Supply-Items Passed
be expended upon individual listed projects-further amount required, $1,000,000.
Air services-
Telecommunications branch-
Radio aids to air and marine navigation-
592.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $175,909.
Telegraph and telephone service-
593. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $26,000.
Meteorological branch-
594.	Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $170,000.
Civil aviation branch-
595.	Airports and other ground services-operation and maintenance-further amount required, $199,283.
596. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-to extend the purposes of vote 437 of the main estimates, 1959-60, to include the making of contributions during the current and subsequent fiscal years not exceeding in the aggregate $290,000 to the municipalities of Strathcona and Leduc and the town of Leduc, Alberta, towards the construction of a water main from Edmonton to Edmonton international airport, $1.
597.	Contributions toward airport development and other airport projects on cost-sharing basis, in the amounts detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $30,000.
Special-
598.	Gift of furnishings to the headquarters of the world meteorological organization at Geneva, Switzerland, $7,100.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
599.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $54,700.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
607.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve- further amount required, $22,500,000.
Air services-
608.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities- further amount required, $8,924,000.
66968-9-299
[Stage Direction]
U.S. Naval Forces on Great Lakes


[Stage Direction]
The ambassador of the United States of America presents his compliments to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has the honour to refer to the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817, which serves to guide Canada and the United States in matters relating to naval forces on the great lakes.
The ambassador wishes to state that the United States navy, in conjunction with the St. Lawrence seaway opening ceremonies and the Chicago international fair in July 1959, has proposed that its amphibious squadron eight (PHIBRON 8), with marines embarked conduct demonstration and training assault landings in the great lakes area. This project has been designated Operation Inland Sea. The location for the proposed landing area has not yet been determined.
The ambassador is authorized to extend an invitation for the Royal Canadian Navy to participate in this operation, thereby making it a combined Canadian-United States exercise, and to express the hope that the Canadian government will share the view of the United States government that this exercise would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817.
The ambassador would appreciate the consideration of the Canadian government with respect to this proposal.
Embassy of the United States of America, Ottawa, February 13, 1959.

[Stage Direction]
The ambassador of the United States of America presents his compliments to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has the honour to refer to the ambassador's Note No. 178 of February 13, 1959, concerning a proposal of the United States navy to have its amphibious squadron eight (PHIBRON 8), with marines embarked, conduct demonstration and training assault landings in the great lakes area.
In conjunction with this project, which has been designated Operation Inland Sea, the ambassador wishes to state that the United States navy proposes to send a task force consisting of about 28 ships including the heavy cruiser Macon on a tour of 24 United States ports in the great lakes area this summer. The cruise would begin shortly after June 26 and continue through July 27. Some of the ships would participate in the previously mentioned amphibious demonstration. The task force commander would be Rear Admiral E. B. Taylor commander of
destroyer forces Atlantic fleet. The task force would be composed of two destroyer squadrons one amphibious squadron four submarines, the heavy cruiser Macon and the frigate Mitscher (DL-2).
The ambassador would be most appreciative if the Canadian government would find it possible at an early date to concur in the view of the United States government that this good-will cruise would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Rush-Bagot treaty of 1817. In the event that the Canadian government concurs in this view the United States navy would plan to issue a press release in the near future along the above lines.
Embassy of the United States of America, Ottawa, March 9, 1959.
[Stage Direction]
The Secretary of State for External Affairs presents his compliments to the embassador of the United States of America and has the honour to refer to the ambassador's notes No. 178 of February 13, 1959 and No. 207 of March 9, 1959 relating to the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 and containing an invitation for Canadian naval units to participate in certain exercises being planned by the United States navy in the waters of the great lakes.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs notes that it is proposed that 28 ships of the United States navy carry out a good-will cruise of United States lake ports as well as demonstrations and training assault landing exercises in the United States waters of the great lakes.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has the pleasure to inform the ambassador that the government of Canada shares the view of the United States government that the naval movements required for these proposed operations would not be inconsistent with the intent of the Rush-Bagot agreement of 1817 whose application and interpretation are more fully elaborated in notes related thereto exchanged between the Canadian and United States governments on November 18, 1946 and December 5, 1946 respectively.
A further communication can be expected relating to the invitation, extended in the ambassador's note No. 178 of February 13, for Canadian naval units to participate in the proposed exercises.
Handed to Mr. Carlson on March 20, 1959
Ottawa, March 14, 1959
S.	E. S.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 15, 1959