1960-06-28

Mr. Speaker:: By leave, may I express on behalf of the house a welcome to a very distinguished visitor, Senator A. Bethouart of France, who is visiting Canada as president of the NATO parliamentary association.



MINES, FORESTS AND WATERS

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on mines, forests and waters-Mr. McQuillan.

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to announce the promulgation of revised mining regulations for the Northwest Territories, which are designed to ensure maximum benefit to Canadian interests and to make these regulations applicable to lands underlying territorial waters which are in federal jurisdiction.
The government's purpose in revising the Northwest Territories quartz mining regulations, which are now called the Canada mining regulations, is the same as in the case of the recently promulgated regulations applying to oil and gas. First, the revised regulations make provision for the disposition of mining exploration and development rights on federal land underlying territorial waters of Canada. Regulations covering lands not forming part of any province or territory have not existed in the past, presumably because the exploitation of offshore deposits has not been considered technically or economically feasible. Further, a convention adopted in Geneva in 1958 gave Canada the right to exploit the resources of its continental shelf. There are at the present time Canadian companies who want the right to explore on these lands. In this respect the present regulations do for minerals what the Canada oil and gas regulations do for the fossil fuels.
The second purpose of the revised regulations is to embody another step which the 79951-0-345
government is taking to ensure Canadians a full opportunity to participate in resource development. In the case of the oil and gas regulations the Canadian participation clauses become operative at the time an explorer for oil and gas converts a permit into a lease. This was the best time to apply this principle in the case of oil and gas, because in the permit stage a permit holder's rights are limited to the exploration and delineation of oil and gas resources. In order to exploit them he must have a lease.
However, in the case of minerals, the pattern of activity under the regulations which have been in force practically without change since 1932 allows not only exploration but also exploitation to be carried on before a lease is taken out. Under the regulations no one can acquire claims either by staking or assignment without holding a miner's licence. In order to be effective, therefore, the new Canadian participation clauses as applied to the present regulations must be applied from the outset as a requirement for obtaining a miner's licence. However, licences held by persons and corporations which cannot meet the Canadian participation requirement will remain valid until March 31, 1961.
I think I should make it clear that this requirement for Canadian participation at the exploration stage in mining is intended to be of interim application only. Officers of my department have for a considerable time been working on a general revision of the mining regulations with the objective of bringing them into line with modern prospecting and development techniques. During the next few months I will be holding conferences with representatives of the mining industry. Before the end of the present fiscal year I expect to formulate a completely new set of regulations suitable for modern times.
It is my intention to provide in the new regulations for a system similar to that now obtaining under the recently revised oil and gas regulations. This will make a clear distinction between the exploration and exploitation phases of mineral development, and will protect the right of Canadians to have an opportunity to participate at the ownership stage. Any person or corporation will be able to acquire a mining licence and to stake and develop mining claims. However, it will be necessary to take out a mining lease before a mine can be brought into

Inquiries of the Ministry production, and it is at this stage that the Canadian participation clauses will apply.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the house will have listened with interest to the minister's statement to the effect that new mining regulations have been promulgated. In due course, during the minister's estimates, we shall have an opportunity of questioning him on these regulations. Meanwhile, perhaps I may be permitted to say it is to be hoped that they are somewhat clearer than the oil and gas regulations were when they were first issued. I believe the minister himself indicated that they caused some confusion in his mind. I think he said that a good lawyer could drive a coach and four through them.
The minister has mentioned that these regulations will apply to land under offshore waters. This is a very important aspect of the regulations, especially as they extend the offshore waters out to the limit of the continental shelf. This is a matter that is of very great interest to the provinces, and I can only express the hope at this time that the provinces have been consulted in regard to this aspect of the regulations and accept this extension of the right of the federal government to the land under those waters.


Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we have listened with a great deal of interest to the statement of the minister which in our view deals with a matter of the utmost importance to all of Canada, the development of resources on the continental shelf. On the basis of the statement of the minister it is most difficult to go into details at the moment, but we do want to say, so important is the matter and so great our interest in it, that we hope to go into it in more detail and have a full discussion when the minister's estimates are before us, after having had an opportunity to study the statement the minister has made.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to ask permission to clear up a possible misunderstanding arising out of a statement by the Leader of the Opposition, to the effect that this action will have a bearing on the provinces. These regulations only apply to lands under federal jurisdiction.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will be delighted to realize from the


applause that his return is welcomed; perhaps I should add, Mr. Speaker, his return from Cutback. My question is, can he tell the house what are the plans with respect to parliament working on Dominion day?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, first I must express my deep appreciation to the opposition for the applause. This is one of those occasions when parliament is at its best, one of those occasions when, since the Leader of the Opposition has said that the applause was meant for me, I can say that it was well justified.
Having said that, may I say that on Dominion day there will be, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, a public function for the purpose of underlining and emphasizing Canada's confederation. So far as the house is concerned, discussion will be held through the house leader concerning the actual proceedings for the day, but having regard to all the circumstances I would think that if it is generally acceptable we might sit in the morning, because in the afternoon there are those functions designed to make Canadians as a whole more cognizant of the tremendous contribution of the English, French and other races to Canada, which can be done most appropriately on Dominion day.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Does the Prime Minister not agree that every opportunity should be given to all members of the house as Canadians to celebrate our national holiday? If it is planned to have the house meet only from eleven to one perhaps it would be better not to meet at all rather than for just a couple of hours, especially if during that short time very important legislation may be introduced concerning which other members might not have an opportunity to speak on the day of its introduction.


John George Diefenbaker: I can think of no better day to bring about the preservation and maintenance-


Mr. Habel:: Window dressing.


John George Diefenbaker: -of fundamental freedoms within federal jurisdiction than July 1. The hon. gentleman will recall that at the time of confederation it was generally believed that never again would there be the possibility, certainly within the federal realm, of any invasion of parliamentary freedoms. I offer no criticism of any party in the house, but in the intervening years it has been found that the aspirations and anticipations of the fathers of confederation have not always been met in that regard.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, believing that this day is one upon which it would most be expected that a bill of rights

should be introduced, that my remarks will be kept within that compass that will permit him and anyone else who chooses to speak on behalf of any group in the house the opportunity to have their views placed before the people at the same time, to the end that in a community of counsel, as it were, we shall do our part to assure the maintenance of those freedoms for generations to come.


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I agree with the Prime Minister that July 1 is the appropriate occasion to begin strengthening human rights and fundamental freedoms in this country. I agree also that it is time that was done, and I hope this will be an important step taken in that direction.
What I wanted to ask the Prime Minister was whether he could tell us what are the government's intentions as to the procedure that will be followed with regard to the discussion and consideration of the bill of rights. We were told by the Prime Minister in this house last year and again earlier this year that it was the intention to send the bill to a committee, to have witnesses called and organizations given an opportunity to present briefs. I am just wondering if the Prime Minister could say whether it is the intention to rush this bill through in the dying days of the session, or will an opportunity be given to organizations to present their views before a committee?


John George Diefenbaker: It is not the government's intention to rush anything through. Hon. gentlemen will have every opportunity of voicing their views. I think it is very necessary that this question should receive the fullest consideration, and so far as the government are concerned we are prepared to stay here however long in order to properly discharge this responsibility in connection with a matter which, in my view, is one of the most important pieces of legislation to come before this house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say whether it is the intention of the government to have the bill referred to a committee? And could he explain why it is being brought in now when it could have been introduced earlier this session?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to get into a controversial mood this morning, but I would say to the hon. gentleman that the legislation is being introduced almost as soon as it would have been possible to introduce it. If the hon. gentleman would speak to some of those who, to some extent, acknowledge his leadership, he might be able to bring 79951-0-345J
Inquiries of the Ministry about extra time that could be made available for discussion. In any event, whatever course is followed in that connection, we have lots of time. There is going to be no rush, and full opportunity will be assured so that when this measure does go on the statute books it will represent the consensus, within of course the limitations of the constitution.
In so far as a committee is concerned, there has been no change from what was expressed earlier.


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: May I ask
a supplementary question. In view of the fact that the bill will be sent to a committee, and in view of the desirability of giving all those in the country who have strong views on the inadequacy of this particular measure an opportunity to be heard, will the Prime Minister use his good offices to see that the committee is set up as quickly as possible after the general debate in this house, so these people outside parliament may be given adequate notice in order that they may, during this holiday period, attend here to express their views with regard to this measure?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, naturally the government is anxious to have an expression of view from all those organizations which have a particular interest in this measure. I am glad to note from the words used by the hon. gentleman that it is those outside the house who believe the bill will be inadequate, because I seem to recall during the years that when any reference was made to a bill of rights for Canada, some of the hon. gentlemen opposite were among those who said we did not need it at all. Now that the measure is coming before parliament it is the people outside who say it does not go far enough.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Since the Prime Minister observes so carefully the rules of parliament, does he not recall that the complaints were registered against the inadequate measure that he is introducing and not the more substantive measure?


John George Diefenbaker: That is a matter of debate. I think a reading of what has been said not only in this house but outside of it would indicate that I am maintaining the traditions of parliament, and would not substantiate the hon. gentlemen's suggestion.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. When he was unavoidably absent yesterday, we had a discussion on the motion with reference to additional sittings of the house. As reported at page 5408 of

Inquiries of the Ministry Hansard the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green) stated as follows:
I am advised that by the end of the week most of the committees of the house will either have finished their actual sittings or be winding them up. Of course some of them may not have brought in final reports, but the sittings of some will be concluded although there are four or five which will have to carry on next week and perhaps some of them until the end of the session.
In view of that statement the question that arises is this. Does the Prime Minister think that the kind of consideration which should be given to the important legislation on civil rights which he intends to discuss on Friday is possible in the light of the statement made by his colleague?


John George Diefenbaker: The statement to which the hon. gentleman alluded was this:
I am advised that by the end of the week most of the committees of the house will either have finished their actual sittings or be winding them up. Of course some of them may not have brought in final reports, but the sittings of some will be concluded although there are four or five which will have to carry on next week and perhaps some of them until the end of the session.
I see nothing there inconsistent with the statement I made a moment ago that this matter will indeed be submitted to a committee which as yet has not been set up. Therefore the words of my colleague are adequate.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is now in a position to answer the question I asked last Wednesday, and to make any comment on the report that the Vancouver city council had asked him to convene a conference on unemployment?


John George Diefenbaker: I will give an answer to that question tomorrow, and I think it will meet the needs of the hon. gentleman.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has he now received the request of the Ontario association of mayors and reeves asking for a full investigation by the federal government into the causes of and cure for unemployment in Canada? If so, what action does the minister intend to take with reference to it?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: No, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works whether he could give the house an interim progress report on the feasibility study of the Chignecto canal.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): In due course, Mr. Speaker, we will do so. That is something which will be quite a departure from anything ever done by the previous government.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a supplementary question. In view of the circumstances, does the minister not think that the federal government might be generous enough to pay the whole cost of this study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is asking about a matter of policy.



INQUIRY AS TO EFFECT OF NEW


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Concerning the announcement by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources as to the promulgation of the new Canadian mining regulations, can the minister give me his assurance that these regulations do not affect the provisions of the Yukon Quartz Mining Act and that those provisions will still apply to the staking of mineral claims in Yukon, and similarly with regard to the Yukon Placer Mining Act? Can the minister further give me his assurance that the regulations in fact do not apply in the Yukon Territory?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think that assurance can be given. The Canada mining regulations deal only with the Northwest Territories and the continental shelf off the shores of Canada.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of a statement reported to have been made by the president of the Retail Merchants Association of Canada, to the effect that the federal government would take steps

to guarantee bank loans to small businesses. Can the Prime Minister inform the house whether the substance of the statement is correct? Is it also the government's intention to create a municipal loan fund from which municipalities may borrow money to finance essential municipal projects?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not intend to comment on a statement made outside the house. In any event, these matters are questions of government policy and will be announced in the house if and when it is decided to do so.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Revenue. In view of the fact that the board of broadcast governors has completed its round of television licence hearings in the major Canadian cities, could the minister bring us up to date on the government's views regarding additional television station licensing in smaller cities which already have one station, such as Port Arthur, Sudbury or London?


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Minister of National Revenue):: I think that this is a matter for the board of broadcast governors. After the Department of Transport had considered from a technical point of view any applications which may be submitted to it, the board of broadcast governors would deal with them.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether he has seen a statement made by one of his colleagues in the house while he was absent; a statement by a Progressive Conservative member of parliament in which a return was urged of the old-time political patronage under which members of parliament could appoint civil servants in their own constituencies.
This is a statement which was made by the distinguished member for Stormont (Mr. Campbell), who added that while the civil service commission makes appointments on the merit system, individual members of parliament are entitled to be consulted. My
Inquiries of the Ministry question is, has the Prime Minister any comment to make on this? Second, is this the policy of the government?


An hon. Member:: He wants to go back to
the Liberal days.


John George Diefenbaker: May I say that my absence yesterday was noted by hon. gentlemen opposite-


An hon. Member:: And in the gallery.


John George Diefenbaker: -and by one of the hon.
gentleman's friends. I was speaking to the conference of United States governors, one of the best opportunities that could come to a Canadian and the first to come to a prime minister of Canada, to place before the people of the United States the views of Canada respecting certain phases of United States-Canadian relations.
With respect to the question itself, I do not intend to make any observations on the statements alleged to have been made. I have not had the opportunity of looking into them. But I may say this; I can understand how shocked the hon. gentleman must be. I in no way approve of any such suggestion as apparently was made, if the quotation be correct, but I am sure that any such suggestion would have shocked the finer sensibilities of the hon. member for Laurier.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure the Prime Minister did not want to reflect on me-


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, no.


Lionel Chevrier: -when he referred to his absence from the house in the earlier part of his reply, but I think all of us will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister goes to the United States from time to time and makes speeches about increasing the amount of goods that should be bought by the United States citizens from Canada


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege, or is he about to ask a supplementary question?


Lionel Chevrier: I was exercising the same latitude as the Prime Minister, and I was coming to the supplementary question. I was simply going to say that those sentiments were expressed by Right Hon. C. D. Howe many years ago, and it is not at all new that the Prime Minister should express them.


Mr. Fleming (Eglinton):: But how ineffectively.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly far more effectively than is happening at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member a question to ask supplementary to the one he

Inquiries of the Ministry originally asked? If he has, perhaps I may suggest that it is a question which is more properly one for debate than for the orders of the day.


Lionel Chevrier: It is a supplementary question, and I hope I shall be allowed to ask it. I have been interrupted continually.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member will put his question

*


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Prime Minister aware of the additional statement made by the hon. member for Stormont that the civil service commission are irresponsible-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. It is not in accordance with our practice to use the guise of a question in order to make a statement in the house. I am afraid it is not in order.


Lionel Chevrier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, have you not ruled on more than one occasion that while it is improper to use newspaper articles on orders of the day, this does not apply to statements made by members of our own house? That is the position I was taking. If it had been a statement by someone outside the house I know, of course, that I could not have put the question, but this is a statement by somebody within the house, and it seems to me that I am entitled in these circumstances to ask the supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I have not made myself clear. My point is this, that to quote someone for the purpose of putting his views before the house is only regular if out of that there arises a question of administrative responsibility. If it raises a matter of the minister's responsibility the question arising may be asked.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question arising out of the statement by the Prime Minister that he is the first prime minister to be asked to address the United States governors' conference.


John George Diefenbaker: To have spoken-


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: To have spoken to the governors' conference. I am sure all of us in this house are pleased that the Prime Minister was extended this invitation, but is he not aware that the Leader of the Opposition, when secretary of state for external affairs several years ago, was invited to speak to the governors' conference, and did speak there and made a great impression?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED POSTPONEMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Would it be possible for the minister to dispel the rumour which has been current since about 8 p.m. last evening that the federal-provincial conference is being indefinitely postponed?


Donald Methuen Fleming: This rumour has not reached my ear. It must have started somewhere much closer to the ear of the hon. member, apparently. As far as I am aware there has been no request from any party for the postponement of the conference, and I hope the hon. member is not going to sponsor, either directly or indirectly, a request for a postponement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was asking, as I properly should, not for the intention of someone else but for the intention of the government. Can the minister assure us that the government has no intention of postponing the conference?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government has invited the provinces to come to this proposed conference and there is no thought in the mind of the government other than to proceed with it. I pointed out that the provinces had accepted the invitation, and I am quite sure we are going to have a very useful conference.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of this assurance by the Minister of Finance, perhaps on his trip to Newfoundland tomorrow he might wish to call in at Fredericton and see his namesake and perhaps speak to him about the situation-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -and generally make an impression and seek to impress upon him-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member may have had a legitimate question somewhere in the back of his mind, but he was coming to it rather slowly. I should like to remind the house that all the provincial elections of which I know are now over.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION

[Stage Direction]
"CLOSE up"-REQUEST OF ONTARIO ATTORNEY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask

the Minister of National Revenue in his capacity as reporter to the house on broadcasting whether he has received a request from the attorney general of Ontario to divulge the name of the person who appeared as a professional corespondent on the C.B.C. program "Close Up".


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the attorney general of Ontario on that matter, asking that we give the information requested. I turned the letter over to the corporation. I have not been in touch with the president in the last few days because he has been attending meetings, but he assured me the information would be sent on to the attorney general.



INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARY COMMISSION


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of Slate for External Affairs) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-35, respecting the international boundary commission.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a short bill respecting the international boundary commission. It was introduced in the other place and there was given very careful consideration in a committee which proved to be unanimous. I do not intend to go back beyond the international boundary treaty of 1908, but those hon. members who are interested in the story of the various treaties under which the boundary between Canada and the United States was established will find the speech made in the other place by Senator Blois extremely informative and interesting.
The international boundary treaty of 1908 established the international boundary commission which is composed of two sections, a Canadian section and a United States section. By a further treaty in 1925, described as being to "define and complete the international boundary between Canada and the United States", the commissioners appointed under the 1908 treaty are responsible for continuous maintenance of the international boundary line, the boundary monuments and a cleared sky line vista along the line. The vista which of course is easily noticed when it runs through wooded areas is a strip 20 feet wide made up of 10 feet on the Canadian side of the boundary line and 10 feet on the United States side. Probably most hon. members will have seen portions of this boundary line in one part of Canada or another.
As hon. members are aware, treaties to which the United States is signatory are submitted to the United States Senate, and when
International Boundary Commission passed they become self-implementing; that is to say, they become the law of the land. In Canada the situation is different. Here, specific legislation is required if necessary in order to implement the treaty. This is the reason the present bill has been introduced. It will ensure that Canada is fully able to implement the 1925 treaty.
Hon. members may ask why it is necessary now, 35 years after Canada signed the international treaty, for it to receive implementing legislation. The fact is that during this period the Canadian international boundary commissioner has been able to carry out the 1925 treaty obligations because permission was asked before entering private land in the immediate boundary area, and because Canadian land owners were prepared to co-operate with him in carrying out his functions.
I should like to say at this point that the Canadian international boundary commissioner is an official of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. The annual expenses which represent Canada's share of the maintenance of the international boundary are included in the annual estimates of that department.
The increasing development and use of land near the international boundary from coast to coast has led with increasing frequency to proposed encroachments upon the boundary area by buildings and other structures. For example, the Great Northern railway proposed in 1954 that they would build a station right on the boundary line between White Rock, British Columbia, and Blaine, Washington, with half of the station on the Canadian side and half on the United States side. This proposal was objected to by the departments concerned at that time and nothing was done about it. Last autumn, however, there was a renewal of the suggestion that this station should be built straddling the boundary line.
The legislation now before the house seeks in no way to expropriate or remove buildings and structures now existing within 10 feet of the boundary line. There are some buildings already up which do stand on this 10 feet. On the contrary, this legislation seeks only to prevent enlargements of existing buildings and structures, and to avoid having new buildings and structures erected in the future.
We believe that this legislation is desirable in order that Canada may fulfill her treaty obligations, and also to provide adequate protection for the system of monuments. The commissioner is responsible for repairing and replacing monuments. For example, if the bank of a river were to fall in and carry a

International Boundary Commission monument with it, replacement would be the responsibility of the commissioner. The legislation is also necessary in order to give the boundary commissioner legal access to the boundary area; to prevent unauthorized encroachments in this boundary area, and to facilitate the application of customs regulations. I am sure the Minister of Finance will be pleased to know that the bill involves no additional financial obligations.
That is a brief summary of the bill. We believe that under present day conditions it is essential that the Canadian member of the international boundary commission be given the powers which are set out in the bill.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is a short, straightforward and, I think, non-contentious bill, and we on this side intend to support it. The bill itself and the remarks just made by the minister remind us that it deals with the boundary between Canada and the United States, the boundary to which it is essential to refer in every after-dinner speech as an undefended boundary; undefended, of course, in the sense that there are no fortifications on the border, but certainly not undefended when you try to get across it if you are evading customs, immigration or security regulations.
It reminds us, Mr. Speaker, that in the bad old days relations between the two countries were such that there was fear and hostility on the boundary and which in those days twice resulted in war. We Canadians with, of course, help from the mother country were more successful in defending our boundary in war than we have been successful since in defending it in peacetime against arrangements, agreements and arbitrations made by the mother country which at that time had responsibility for our foreign policy. In some cases the result of those arbitrations-and I do not know whether we could have done any better ourselves if we had been independent-so far as the boundary is concerned is obvious, if you take one glance at the map. It is obvious in British Columbia; it is obvious in New Brunswick and Quebec.
The boundary has been established by three major treaties; the treaty of Paris, which I think was made in 1784 and which brought to an end the war with the colonies; the treaty of 1818, which extended the boundary of that day to the Lake of the Woods, and the treaty of 1846 which I think completed the process of boundary delineation in a major sense to the Pacific ocean. But in addition to these three major treaties there have been a good many other treaty arrangements, as the minister pointed out. They were dealt with in a very interesting way in a debate


on this matter in the other house. It was shown in that debate, as indeed it is clear from our reading of history, that in subsequent arrangements and arbitrations, especially the arbitration referred to the emperor of Germany in connection with Pacific boundary matters, I think in the early part of this century that Canada did not come out very well. The Alaska boundary award of 1903 is one example in our history of an unfortunate boundary dispute with the United States; because, as hon. members I am sure will recall, that arbitration and the award from it which established the present boundary between Alaska and British Columbia was very much at the expense of Canada. As the records also make clear, if that award had not been accepted by the negotiators on the Canadian and British side, the president of the United States in those days, the redoubtable Theodore Roosevelt, was going to establish his own boundary. Perhaps if that contingency had arisen he would have been a little more reasonable, but it does remind us that we have not always been too successful in our boundary negotiations with the United States.
Perhaps the Panhandle may one day be, if not returned to Canada, but surely one of those days we shall be able to get access to the Pacific coast through it. As I understand it there is now no complaint between the two countries in respect of major boundary matters. For many years now there have been only minor differences, and they have all been settled peacefully. Indeed no question arises in our country as it might indeed have arisen in other countries in other parts of the world, of a terra uredenta.
This bill will facilitate the work of the international boundary commission and that, of course, is all to the good. Sometimes we forget-indeed we should remember-that while there have been complications as there has been work required in marking the land boundary between the two countries, a great deal of our boundary is through the middle of streams or lakes. That has its own difficulty and has brought about its own complications in our relations with the United States. There is no better illustration of that than in the negotiations leading up to the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. Hon. members know that in some parts of the country the boundary goes down the middle of a stream. That has had a very important effect on how the St. Lawrence seaway had to be built.
A good many Canadians-indeed, I have heard the statement made in this house, and I heard it made on television the other night by a professor of history and a great authority on United States-Canadian relations-have said that it would have been much better

if Canada had built the seaway alone, and that it was too bad we were not able to do so. The reason that could not be done without the approval of the United States lies in the nature of the boundary at that spot because the boundary runs right down the middle of the St. Lawrence. Because of that boundary line it would have been quite impossible to have built a purely Canadian seaway which included a power dam, because you could not very well have built a power dam half way across. The location of the boundary, quite apart from the effect of the treaty of 1908, made it impossible to build a seaway by ourselves alone, if the United States objected to it, as a national seaway by Canada, even without power development, if that work had any effect on the boundary water levels. Therefore, because of the nature of our boundary, it would have been impossible to build a St. Lawrence seaway alone if it had any serious effect on the boundary waters or if we wished to have a power development at the same time.
The minister has indicated that the boundary commission has been working since 1925, and indeed since 1908, without the necessity for this kind of legislation, and I think working very effectively. Perhaps I may pay my tribute to the work done on both sides by the commission. The United States side and the Canadian side have worked quite effectively together and have not for that purpose required legislation. But the nature of developments on the boundary, as the commission has pointed out, certainly makes it desirable now to facilitate that work, to make it easier and indeed in some cases I think perhaps to make it possible by establishing a legislative basis for it, by even at this late date, implementing the treaty of 1925. We on this side are very glad to support the bill for these reasons.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say first of all that I think the practice which has been established recently of introducing bills of this type in the other place is a good one. This is the type of legislation that the other place can discuss and deal with possibly to greater advantage than we can, and I think the minister is quite correct in referring, and wisely perhaps, in this house to the speeches made in the other place when this bill was under discussion. The information that one can gather from a reading of those speeches is such that he will obtain an historical background of the international boundary commission.
This is a strictly non-contentious bill as we see it in this group. It simply provides for
28, 1960	5471
International Boundary Commission administrative procedures on the part of the Canadian section of the international boundary commission.
The international boundary, particularly in the mountains, has always been an interesting subject to me. In the mountains one can see the 20-foot strip running up and down the hills, and I have followed the international boundary over one peak after the other in British Columbia. I have also read with great interest all the material I could get on the question of establishing the boundary as decided by the Oregon treaty of 1846.
Some years ago a very interesting thing happened in my constituency. A trunk was opened in a bank in Rossland. The trunk had been left there for 50 years, and in it were found copies of the original maps made by the surveyor who surveyed the international boundary according to the treaty of 1846. Apparently the other copies had been sent to the colonial office in Great Britain. Someone had left the trunk in the bank at Rossland in the early days of this century, and it was stored by the son of the original surveyor who did the work after 1846. Although the maps in question were quite correctly and properly sent to the archives of British Columbia, I was able to obtain photostatic copies. When one reads the notes in connection with the surveys made at that time it is a very interesting story indeed. I recommend it to anyone who wants a little relaxation from, shall I say, the whirlpool of the present. I am quite sure that the Secretary of State for External Affairs on occasion would find relaxation in literature of that type.
In listening to the minister I understood him to say that up to the present the commission has experienced quite satisfactory co-operation with the owners of property within the 20 feet along the international boundary from the point of view of administration for the purposes of the commission, and that this legislation provides for leaving present properties in place. There will be no removal of structures now in place, but the commission will have the authority to prevent any further encroachment or building on the Canadian side of the 20-foot strip which provides for the protection of the markers and monuments already erected and under the care of the commission. I am not quite clear whether the minister said that the legislation also provides for certain administrative practices in connection with customs.


Howard Charles Green: No; the work of the department will be facilitated. For example, if somebody is trying to cross the line a mile
5472	HOUSE OF COMMONS
International Boundary Commission away the officers will be able to see him because the trees will be cut down and the 20-foot strip will be clear.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the minister for his explanation. I was not quite clear on that point. I can well understand the necessity for that in mountainous and forested country. I know that on occasions even very law-abiding constituents of mine are inclined to go back and forth across the line. I have heard a very prominent Liberal express his sympathy with that practice, so I can well understand why the customs officials want to be able to look in every direction at certain points. Generally speaking, however, the arrangements are very satisfactory, and certain local inconveniences resulting from the geographical nature of the constituency 'I have the honour to represent are recognized by the Department of National Revenue which cooperates with the local people so as to prevent any unnecessary hardship or inconvenience.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I think it is a very good practice on the part of the international boundary commission to establish plaques or markers on roads at the point where they cross the international boundary. All I can suggest in that respect is that I hope the practice is continued and even extended, and that in some cases the plaques or markers may be of such a type as to be more easily noticed and recognized. I find that people are very interested in that sort of thing. I have travelled the road that enters the United States south of Rossland and on occasion I have noticed a dozen cars stopped because people wished to read the plaque near the boundary monument. These plaques or markers are of interest to both United States and Canadian citizens and to others, and I hope the practice is not only continued but extended. With these few remarks I will resume my seat.


Mr. W. G. Dinsdale (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to me to see this legislation come before the house today for the purpose of putting in statutory form provisions respecting the work carried on in connection with the international boundary between Canada and the United States since the year 1908. It seems to me it is rather unusual that we should have delayed until the present time the enacting of formal provisions respecting the activities of the international boundary commission, but I heartily endorse the procedure that is being followed in presenting this legislation this morning.
This is an occasion when we could indulge in speeches such as we often hear regarding the unique position of the Canada-United

States international boundary. Because of the nature of the relationships that have existed between the two countries down through the years there have been many interesting expressions with respect to those relationships and developments along the international boundary. I am delighted to see that arrangements are made in the bill to preserve the monuments and sites already established along the border.
In my own constituency a unique development took place in the 1920's which was spontaneously supported1 by people on both sides of the border, and has resulted today in a rather outstanding example of international co-operation. During the 1920's members of the national gardeners' association of the United States prompted by Dr. Henry Moore of Islington, Ontario, began to discuss the possibility of making use of the international boundary to emphasize the desire for peace that was felt so strongly following world war I. A decision was made to establish on the international border an international peace garden dedicated to the ideals felt so strongly at that time. In 1932, on the Manitoba-North Dakota boundary, the official opening took place of what has become known today as the international peace garden.
Very substantial areas of land in the Turtle mountain region were set aside in perpetuity by the Canadian government, the United States government and the state and provincial governments concerned, and the area has been marked by a monument suitably inscribed with these words:
We two nations dedicate this garden and pledge ourselves that as long as men shall live we will not take up arms against one another.
This is the kind of development, springing spontaneously from the hearts of the people themselves, which indicates that the work of the international boundary commission had sooner or later to become embodied in formal legislative form. Since 1932 there have been developments of many kinds on this significant site, which is strategically located. From the geographical standpoint it stands halfway between the Atlantic and the Pacific. It is also almost directly on the geographic centre of the North American continent.
Since 1932, in addition to the original cairn erected to commemorate the desire and striving for peace, a formalized botanical garden has been developed. A park area has been established with a very interesting arboretum. At the present time there is activity on foot to establish a peace chapel which will be erected on the highest point of the Turtle mountain area. It is reassuring to note that all these developments will be protected and preserved in the future by the passage of this legislation.

The government of Canada has expressed its interest in this development by financial support, as has the United States government, but I want to underline the fact that this support is incidental to the development of the gardens; because the chief support, both financial and in personal interest, has arisen largely from the voluntary efforts of organizations on both sides of the border. In recent years the daughters of the empire, service clubs on both sides of the border, women's institutes, the homemakers of America and others have all taken an interest in this development. During the past three years considerable cultural activity has emerged on the site of the international peace gardens, and it promises in the immediate future to develop into another school for fine arts located on the border. We have an international music camp, for example, that meets there every summer. Various international organizations are tending to concentrate their activities there, such as conventions and so on. We have a very fine international student discussion group which conducts a student seminar each fall on some aspect of international problems.
This is a subject on which 'I could spend some time this morning but I thought, Mr. Speaker, that the occasion of the introduction of this legislation in respect to the international boundary commission provided an opportunity to bring to the attention of the members of this house, as well as the people of Canada, the sort of work that has been going on spontaneously and voluntarily for two years and is now being recognized in this formalized way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
On clause 3-Commission's powers.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Clause 3 deals with the powers of the commission. I take it that these are all powers that the commission has been exercising under the treaty. There are no new powers?


Howard Charles Green: The commission has never been given the legal power to do these acts. Under the treaty there are certain obligations undertaken such as, for example, to keep boundary vistas open; to move boundary monuments to new sites, and to maintain at all times an effective boundary line between Canada and the United States and between Canada and Alaska. This work has been carried on without having any legislative sanction in so far as Canada is concerned. I understand that under United States law the very fact that
28, 1960
International Boundary Commission the United States implements a treaty means that the power to carry out what the treaty calls for is given. However, this is not the case in Canada. This clause 3, therefore, is designed to give the commission the power to carry out the acts which, under the treaty, it is set up to carry out.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Could the minister tell us who are the present Canadian commissioners?


Howard Charles Green: There is only one commissioner, Mr. Lambert. I should like to join in the tribute paid by the Leader of the Opposition to the commissioners who have carried out the work under this treaty, both the present commissioner and his predecessors, as well as their staffs. The very fact that there has been no friction or trouble arising between the two countries as a result of the work being done speaks volumes for the efficient way in which this commission has carried out its work.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
On clause 5-Permission required to construct or enlarge work near boundary.
Lester Bowles Pearson: This clause establishes certain offences and provides for penalties. May I ask the minister how the commission operated from 1925 to the present without these prohibitions and penalties? What happened under the earlier arrangements if these things were done?


Howard Charles Green: I presume the commission has been able to work by persuasion rather than being in a position to impose a decision on anyone. The Leader of the Opposition will have noticed that the bill is not made retroactive, and the restrictions do not apply to any buildings which have been erected at the time the bill becomes law. They apply only, for example, to a building which will be erected after the bill becomes law.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I take it what is happening now is that, in addition to persuasion, which has been effective in the past, we now have a $500 fine or six months' imprisonment.


Howard Charles Green: Yes, that is right. I pointed out, Mr. Chairman, one case which could be very worrisome; that is the proposal of the Great Northern railway to erect a station straddling the border. It might be a little more difficult to persuade the railway company without having a law which would give the commission the power to prevent such action.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It might be difficult to put them in jail, too.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 8, inclusive, agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
International Boundary Commission
On clause 9-Claims in tort against Canadian commissioner.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: For the benefit of a layman like me, will the minister explain exactly what this clause means?


Howard Charles Green: This clause is designed to protect the commissioner against damage suits. In other words he would not have to meet a judgment for any trespass committed or any damage done of a similar nature. It really puts the crown behind the acts the commissioner may do.


Lionel Chevrier: While I think the clause is perhaps a good one and should go in for the protection of the servant of the crown, the situation as it appears at the moment is this. I have no recollection of having seen this provision in any other statute, although it may be in other acts. I am thinking now only of the acts for which I had some responsibility in years gone by, and in them I never saw a similar clause. Does it not follow by the ordinary common law and, I take it, by the civil law also, that if a servant of the crown commits a tort while in the performance of his duty, the legal responsibility is with the crown if he is a crown employee? My question is this. Why has it been found necessary to put this clause in the act?


Howard Charles Green: I have not gone into that particular question myself. I would have thought the situation was as the hon. member for Laurier has suggested. Perhaps I had better get the officials down here on the floor and get that information from them.


The Chairman:: Shall clause 9 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Just a minute, please.


Howard Charles Green: Perhaps the clause could stand.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the matter is somewhat important. Perhaps we ought to have this information. We are now creating new offences for which a penalty can be inflicted. A commissioner has these new offences to face in coming years. I am not criticizing in any way the introduction of the legislation, because the minister has shown that conditions have now changed and that it is required. Nevertheless it is an important change to create offences which did not exist before this legislation was passed. We therefore perhaps ought to have this information.


Howard Charles Green: Of course this particular clause does not create any new offences.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


Howard Charles Green: It is merely protecting the commissioner. It is the other clauses which deal with offences.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I appreciate that fact. I am not a lawyer, and perhaps I should not be talking about this matter, but does the fact that we have created new offences now make it necessary to give additional protection to the commissioner? I do not know.


Howard Charles Green: May that clause stand, and may we take clause 10?


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 9 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 9 stands.
Clause 10 agreed to.
On clause 9-Claims in tort against Canadian commissioner.


Howard Charles Green: Apparently the need for this clause arises out of the fact that it is not necessary for the commissioner to be a civil servant. For that reason this protection must be provided. Of course there would be few similar situations. My officers cannot tell me at the moment of any provision of this type in any other legislation. However, that is the purpose of this legislation.


Lionel Chevrier: It looks as though this is a new clause and this is one of the first times, if not the first, that it has been included in any legislation. I am therefore prompted to ask this question. At the present time are there any commissioners who are not servants of the crown?


Howard Charles Green: There is another complication, namely that a civil servant may be appointed as a commissioner in addition to his ordinary duties and may not receive any pay for doing the work as commissioner. In a case of that kind he would not be protected against damage suits.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer my question, which was this. Are there now any commissioners who are not servants of the crown?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know of any.


Lionel Chevrier: Are these commissioners not appointed by the minister or by the governor in council? Are they so numerous that the information is not available? That is the point.


Howard Charles Green: No. The commissioner under the treaty would be appointed by order in council. In many cases commissioners do not have executive functions-for example, the members of the international joint commission-so that this problem would not arise in their case.
I understand that the clause in question has been drafted by the Department of Justice, or that it originates with them. As the

hon. member knows, that is practically always the case. I do not think he needs to worry about this clause giving protection where there is not a need for protection. The most likely situation would be for example, where someone in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys happened to be appointed a commissioner under this treaty but would receive his pay for his job in the department. Under those conditions he would not be protected against a damage suit unless there was a provision of this kind.


Lionel Chevrier: In the case of a commissioner who is not a civil servant, or who is a perfect outsider, does not the common law in most of the provinces and the civil law in the province of Quebec apply to protect him while he is acting within the scope of his employment in pursuance of instructions received from his employer? Is he not protected from liability notwithstanding the inclusion of this clause?


Howard Charles Green: Evidently the law officers of the crown considered that protection was not adequate in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than nine months the period during which the revised rates under the said act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional fifteen million dollars.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister make a statement on this?


George Harris Hees: The Freight Rates Reduction Act was passed last year, as hon. members will recall. Its purpose was to alleviate the burden of the 17 per cent freight rate increase that had been authorized in November, 1958. The act made provision for the board of transport commissioners to require reductions, during a period not exceeding one year, in the class and commodity rates, other than competitive rates, that were in effect and taking the 17 per cent increase when the act came into force on July 8, 1959. It also made provision
Freight Rates Reduction Act for payments to the companies not to exceed in the aggregate $20 million, as reimbursement for the resulting reductions in their revenues.
The committee will be interested to know what reductions in freight rates were accomplished under the legislation. The board required the companies to reduce, effective August 1, 1959, the 17 per cent freight rate increase by seven percentage points, that is to make it 10 per cent instead of 17 per cent on the rates affected. As figures of traffic actually carried during the year became known, the board determined that it could make a further reduction of two percentage points, bringing the 17 per cent down to 8 per cent, and this reduction was made effective on May 6 on traffic carried thereafter.
The freight rate reductions will expire on July 31 next, unless provision is made to continue them; and as the royal commission is still engaged in its inquiry respecting the railway situation the government has concluded that the benefits of the Freight Rates Reduction Act should be continued for a further period not exceeding nine months from July 31 next. The proposed amendments are for that purpose.
As the committee knows, last year's bill was considered very fully by parliament and was examined thoroughly by the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines of this house and also by the standing committee on transport and communications of the Senate. The proposed amendments will, as I said, extend the benefits of the act for a further period beyond July 31 next.
Mr. Chairman, at the conclusion of the debate on second reading of this bill I propose to move that the bill be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines for examination. Certain members of the committee have intimated to me that they would like this to be done, and I have concurred in their request.


Lionel Chevrier: My remarks on this resolution will be brief. The minister will remember that last year we on this side supported the bill which was submitted to parliament, the Freight Rates Reduction Act, and there is no reason why we should not give this measure also our fullest support. That we intend to do.
As the minister has stated, this provides for a reduction in freight rates over a period of nine months. The resolution reads:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act to extend for not more than nine months the period during which the revised rates under the said) act shall be applicable and to increase the authorized expenditure under the act by an additional fifteen million dollars.

Freight Rates Reduction Act
The two questions which come to my mind on reading this resolution are, first of all, why there should be this period of nine months and, next, why the sum of $15 million. I presume the $15 million is the proportionate part of the $20 million which would be required for the full 12 months.
Then there is another question which arises. This other question is that by virtue of the statement made by both the Prime Minister and Minister of Transport, freight rates have now become frozen in this country. I think the present position of the application for a general increase in freight rates made by the railway association of Canada is as follows, and if I am incorrect I take it the minister will correct me. The order of the board of transport commissioners was, I believe, dated January 13, 1959 setting a date for the hearing for final relief requested in the application of the association, which application was dated September 16, 1958. The date of the hearing was set by order for May 19, 1959, and April 10, 1959 was the date set for filing the supplement to the application specifying the amount of increase sought by way of final relief.
On April 8, 1959 the railway association, in compliance with the above order of the board, filed a supplement to their application seeking authority for a general increase of 12 per cent in the level of freight rates and 20 cents per ton on coal and coke. The railway association on April 10 applied for postponement of the hearing of the supplementary application and the board postponed the hearing sine die.
The question which arises is this. Does the statement made by both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport with reference to the freezing of freight rates apply to the application which was made for an additional general increase of 12 per cent? I think it would be important for us to know what the position is in that respect. If it does, does it apply during the period of nine months only?


George Harris Hees: May I answer that question now? The answer is yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. The other question that comes to mind is that of the royal commission on transportation. The minister should give us some information when he replies or on second reading, if it is not available now, on the progress that is being made by the royal commission on transportation. I believe this can be done without discussing a matter that is sub judice. It is not my intention nor have I any right to go into matters that are under discussion by the royal


commission on transportation headed, I believe, by Mr. MacPherson, but the committee would be happy to have an idea of the work that is being done.
When the Freight Rates Reduction Act was discussed last year the Prime Minister was under the impression that within less than a year the royal commission could report. Of course I questioned that because of the experience I had had with the Turgeon commission, which certainly took more than two years to report upon a matter of this scope and importance.
I believe the committee is entitled to know
(1)	what the commission has done thus far;
(2)	where the commission has held its public hearings; (3) whether any additional hearings of a public nature will be held, and (4) when it is expected that the commission will hand down its report. I do not think I should go any further than that. Certainly I cannot discuss the briefs that were submitted to the commission on a number of matters that are important to all of us who deal with these questions, and I have no intention of so doing.
The order of the board No. 98424 which came into effect on July 10, 1959 referred to the statute, chapter 27, 7-8 Elizabeth II, an act to make provision for the reduction of certain class and commodity rates on freight traffic. It made operative the terms of the statute. By virtue of this order it then became possible for the railways to file amended tariffs with respect to which the act came into effect.
The question that comes to my mind now is this. Will this bill, when it is passed, become effective in the same way as did the bill last year under chapter 27, 7-8 Elizabeth II? Will the board of transport commissioners be required to pass a similar order to put this into effect?
Of course the main questions that come to mind are these. How has the act operated during the 12 months? What has been the effect of it? The minister has given one effect, where the reduction has been down to 8 per cent, which is all to the good and, I am sure, helpful all across Canada. I believe we should be given additional information as to how the act has operated in general. What has been the effect of these reductions on class and commodity rates? As the committee knows, there is no reduction whatever in so far as competitive rates are concerned. What has been the effect on the uniformity of the reductions? I believe the minister was well advised to tell us that in due course he will move that this matter be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines so that we can obtain this information.

The minister was occupied with the whip and could not pay attention when I asked several questions earlier. I will simply repeat them quickly at this time. Why the nine months in the resolution, and why the $15 million? Again I say we are in full support of this legislation. We think it is good legislation, and that it will substantially assist those who are moving goods across Canada.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I could be permitted to answer the hon. member at this time.


Hazen Robert Argue: I do not wish to be rude to the minister, but he is a member of long standing and knows it is the practice to wait until all opposition members have spoken before replying. I want to be helpful to the hon. gentleman so we can get along with the business.
This resolution is made necessary because the royal commission has not yet reported on its inquiry into the freight rate structure and the question of equalization. Although the resolution will lead to the expenditure of another $15 million it will not mean any gain for the public by way of lower freight rates. It will merely mean that the present freight rate structure will be maintained for a nine-month period, presumably in the expectation that the royal commission will have reported by that time. Because this will prevent any increase in freight rates at this time we are pleased to support the motion.
This government has a varying record with respect to freight rates. It came into office on the definite commitment that under this administration freight rates would not be increased but would be equalized. I say that because of the repeated statements made by the Prime Minister and because of the action of the government before the 1958 election in disallowing a general 3.6 per cent increase in freight rates.
This resolution will continue the reduction by approximately 50 per cent in the last 17 per cent horizontal increase in freight rates. Even under the policy of this administration there has been an increase in freight rates. I have examined the result of general increases in freight rates since the end of the war, and have calculated that there has been a general increase of some 157 per cent.


Mr. Brunsden:: Which bureau did you use?


Hazen Robert Argue: I did not use the Martin bureau. I find the dominion bureau of statistics the most accurate. Failing that I would much rather rely on my own simple arithmetic.


Edwin William Brunsden: Simple minded?


Hazen Robert Argue: I would rather do that than take a chance on relying on the distinguished
Freight Rates Reduction Act hon. member for Essex East. Since the Minister of Transport is himself a good mathematician and has the further advantage of learned advice from important officials, I am sure he will correct me if my figures are too modest or if I have forgotten to take into account one of the many increases that have occurred over the years.
This resolution maintains the status quo with respect to freight rates, and presumably will enable the commission to make its report before any change in rates occurs. The people on the prairies and I think also those in the maritimes are fed up with so many horizontal increases in freight rates. They have spoken out very strongly in favour of equalization and in support of all legislation which will prevent further increases in freight rates.
A royal commission has been set up to inquire into the freight rate structure of this country. After this royal commission completes its work I believe the government should consider an inquiry into the railway services that are being provided in this country. Only time will tell whether railway freight rates in this country will in fact be equalized or at least made more nearly equal than they are now. If we as a parliament do everything we can by way of legislation, by way of a royal commission, by way of subsequent prevention of freight rate increases, and at the same time allow railway services to deteriorate, we may find that we have railway rates equalized or frozen and are in fact losing the railway services so essential to the country.
This may or may not, Mr. Chairman, be the most appropriate place to make this statement, but I feel the time has now come when there should be an exhaustive inquiry into railway services in this country with the object of maintaining services essential for the growth and development of this nation. As I see it today, railway services are getting into a terrible mess. Services are being curtailed at an alarming rate.
While it is exceedingly necessary to take this kind of action, which we in the C.C.F. support, we feel that other action to maintain the services of the railways is now urgently required. I would hope that when he replies the minister will be able to give the committee some indication of when the royal commission will be making its report. I should like him to tell the committee if he can what the royal commission is doing at the moment. Has it adjourned? Are its hearings being continued at this time? Can he give the committee some rather firm indication-I know this is always subject to further experience-of when, within what period, parliament can expect to receive this long awaited and much needed report?

Freight Rates Reduction Act


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Mr. Chairman, there are a few brief remarks I should like to make on this resolution. First of all I should like to point out to the hon. member that the 157 per cent increase was the figure given by one of the associations in our committee a year ago. There were a number of us who did not accept the figure because of the way it had been calculated.


Hazen Robert Argue: It was my own figure.


Mr.   Horsisr@Jasper-Edson: In any case, one of the associations had the same figure. They arrived at it by taking one of the figures as zero, and I did not think they worked it out equitably.
I want to commend the minister, as do those of us who live in western Canada and who are dependent upon the freight rate structure of this country, on his action in this regard. We are dependent upon the freight rate structure for all the goods we use; we in the agricultural industry and in the basic industries of the west are dependent on it. We appreciate the fact that this is the first time any government in Canada has done something about freight rates. We were very pleased when in May last a further reduction was made, after last year's legislation, lowering by a further 2 per cent the class and commodity rates. We hope this legislation will enable the board of transport commissioners to maintain the same rate for the remaining nine months period.
As the hon. member for Assiniboia stated- and I agree with him-transportation is of vital importance to us in western Canada, and we are watching with a great deal of interest the proceedings of the royal commission. We have great hopes in western Canada from the results of that commission.
When we speak of subsidies on freight rates generally, we in the west sometimes get the impression that a great many people in Canada feel that any subsidy paid to the railways is paid on behalf of the western Canadian farmers. We in the Conservative party from the west do not accept this premise at all. There is just as much reason for a subsidy to be paid on behalf of western farmers as for a subsidy to be paid on account of competitive rates in central Canada. We feel that any subsidy such as this one is of benefit to all Canadians, to the manufacturers in eastern Canada and in central Canada, to the people who are in business on both our coasts, to material and grain going east, and to the products of Canada's economy generally. We feel very strongly on this matter. We feel that any such subsidy should not be considered as a subsidy to the farmer of western Canada.

Unfortunately, as far as I can see this was the position of the hon. member for Laurier a year ago when we discussed this matter quite fully in committee. While he expressed some pious hopes that the Crowsnest pass rates would not be affected, he felt that the objective could be attained by a subsidy of some kind or another. We do not accept this at all. We do not accept the premise that a subsidy is paid on our behalf alone.
The other important thing about the reduction in the class and commodity rates is the beneficial effect it will have on our pulp and paper industry, on our feed grain going east and on a great amount of material coming out to western Canada. Certainly at a time when we are trying to do everything we can to meet the cost-price squeeze of the western farmer this is going to help along that line. It will also help to prevent the machinery companies from having any further excuse to raise their prices because of freight rates.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Hugh Macarthur Horner: Mr. Chairman, prior to one o'clock I had been trying to emphasize the importance of freight rates and transportation generally in western Canada. Perhaps one of the better examples of how freight rates affect us is the recent disappointing decision of the board of transport commissioners with regard to rapeseed. We hope that the appeal to the supreme court will be successful or, if not, that the cabinet will reverse the decision. Certainly here is an instance where the agricultural economy of western Canada can be diversified if we can have reasonable freight rates on the particular product. When a country like Canada is importing over $100 million worth of oilseeds yearly it behooves us to consider this problem very seriously.
Finally I should like to make one or two remarks about the railways themselves. It seems to me that they do themselves no credit if the only way they can economize is by discontinuing services. They are going into the trucking industry, and before they go into it they are determined to give away any business they did have. I refer to the recent action of the Northern Alberta Railways, which discontinued services that were important to the people there and failed to supply an alternative service. I am talking about cream cans and mail going into the Peace river country, and into my home area. The

railways tell us they are going into the trucking business and, as I say, they seem intent on giving away express and other business before they get into the trucking business.
I think the management of both major railways should have a very close look at some of the policies they are now following. With all their potential and the money they have behind them, they should certainly be able to find other ways of increasing their efficiency and economizing, if necessary, rather than just throwing up their hands and discontinuing services to people in various parts of the country. Again, sir, may I say we are very happy that the government is bringing in this measure to maintain the present freight rates which are so important to the people of Alberta and the rest of western Canada.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I have been waiting patiently for the opportunity to speak on freight rates in general and freight charges on rapeseed in particular. I do not have anything to add to what I have said already on the subject, but I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport the fact that the situation has deteriorated much more and is worse than it was a few months ago.
Within the last month the board of transport commissioners found it wise, for reasons best known to themselves, to not classify rapeseed as a grain. The best authorities on agriculture and the best scientists having to do with grain and cereal plants testified at the hearing that rapeseed is a grain. However, the situation being what it is, the rape-seed industry of the west is faced with a serious problem. This year more than ever the rapeseed grower will be faced with unfair freight charges of 80 cents per hundredweight while his counterparts, the producers of other grains, will have to pay only 22 cents or 23 cents per hundredweight.
This year we will see the rapeseed crop increased from half a million to a million or a million and a half acres because of the fact that the farmers could not harvest their crops last fall and had to wait until spring to harvest them before planting new crops. The farmers were very late in harvesting their crops, and the only thing they could plant at that time was rapeseed, because it only takes about 60 to 70 days for the crop to mature. As I stated before, all indications are that we will be faced with a million or a million and a half acres of rapeseed.
I should like to emphasize most emphatically that unless the government undertakes measures to alleviate the situation, this young industry may suffer a blow from which it will never recover. Since this is the second
Freight Rates Reduction Act time that the board of transport commissioners has refused to classify rapeseed as a grain, the only hope this young industry now has is that the Minister of Transport and the government will reverse the decision or will implement other measures whereby higher freight rates will not be charged on rapeseed than are charged on wheat, oats or barley. As the spokesman for a constituency in which half of all the rapeseed grown in Saskatchewan is produced. I should like to bring this point to the minister's attention again and appeal on behalf of the growers that action be taken to alleviate this serious situation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, we are strongly in favour of the bill. I want to take this opportunity to speak in order to correct the record. As the result of remarks on this issue that I made previously this session I have been accused by several union representatives of advocating compulsory arbitration in labour matters, because of my suggestion that ultimately the stage is going to be reached when a new formula will have to be found in order to take the railway wage problem out of the present jackpot in which it seems to be. In many people's minds, I think certainly in the minds of the western farmers, the reason for the Freight Rate Assistance Act and the problems that brought it about, was the result of the wage negotiations, the wage increase given to railway employees. This attitude is an understandable one in an economy such as ours, where groups tend to recognize their own interests and be critical of others.
This situation is very apparent, Mr. Chairman, in the negotiations that are now under way between the railways and the unions, with no one having any clear-cut idea how to solve the problem of this particular type of collective bargaining. I think it is going to be a long time coming, but sooner or later we must find a formula that will enable railway workers to have their legitimate bargain struck and at the same time put both the railways and the users of the railways in some position of understanding and appreciating just how much leeway should be given to railway management in making concessions to the unions in the bargaining process. I believe this situation will be a long time in coming, but we certainly need some kind of formula or standard.
There have been arguments in the past, Mr. Chairman, that the wage set-up in the white goods industry should be the standard; that has been the suggestion put forward quite often by dominion representatives. Recently the argument has been put forward by the company that there should be a completely

Freight Rates Reduction Act new basis. Sooner or later, because oi the interest that the government and the very-large government railroad have in this matter, and the way freight rates touch upon so many political, regional and industrial considerations, we have to find a way out of this dilemma.
The royal commission on transportation, as I have said before, needs our sympathies. I do not know what kind of recommendations it is going to make. This measure is a stopgap to give them a bit more time, which I know they need from being at some of their hearings and from reading reports. I suggest to the minister that he and his officials should be very much concerned with adumbrating now in their own minds a policy for the railways even before the royal commission report is in their hands, because it strikes me that the royal commission is quite limited in the scope of the recommendations it can make. The royal commission, in itself, is an interim measure. What we need is a long range or long term solution to this whole question of the position of the railways and their relationship to the treasury.
It is said that transport expenditures are beginning to shift more and more markedly in volume to the air rather than the rail field. We seem to have quite a bit of tidying up to do in the railway transportation field. We have a very large government railway with a substantial debt, and interest is not paid on that debt except in years in which the railway has a surplus. However, it does not appear as though that particular railway is going to reach a surplus position for some time. It seems to me it is the government's responsibility to arrive at a transportation policy that will enable the railways to go ahead. I cannot see how the royal commission is going to be able to do much more than make recommendations in so far as the Crows-nest pass rates are concerned.
I do not know whether the minister has noticed that the counsel for Manitoba, Mr. Morrow, has been going about to farm union groups and other groups on the prairies foreshadowing the solution to be arrived at by the royal commission. This seems to be that the Crowsnest pass rates will remain as they are but that the railways will be given a much freer hand in so far as the abandonment of lines may be concerned. There is a suggestion also that the railways should be given more scope in abandoning passenger services and other losing services of that nature. This procedure may commend itself to many members, just as the bill does, as a short-run solution to the problem, but it seems to me we have to arrive at something more substantial. In so far as abandonment is concerned,

we have to consider the plight of the people who are living along the lines that are to be abandoned.
The other question that is fundamental to the railway problem, and again it is tied up with this Freight Rate Assistance Act because here is where much of the pressures generate, is automation and the capitalization for mechanical improvements on the railways. Then there is the whole question of unemployment created by the railways because of these modern methods. The problem needs a bit of a Solomon, and I do not know whether the minister is that Solomon or whether his officials can be. Certainly a very great responsibility rests upon the cabinet in connection with this matter. The royal commission and this particular measure we are about to pass are both, by their very nature, interim measures for the railways.
It is apparent from the hearings that have been held by the royal commission and the number of considerations being taken into account that this problem affects every part of the country in some way or another. I only hope the minister is not taking it easy, hoping for the royal commission report to enable the government to make its next moves in this field. It certainly seems to me this is one field in which we need the very best contributions we can get from management, from labour and from the agricultural industry in particular, which finds railway transportation still so fundamental in bringing its goods to market.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, during the debate so far we have had very good contributions and a number of questions have been asked. I shall answer them as best I can. The hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia asked some questions about the operations of the royal commission. One question was, what is the commission doing at the present time? The answer is that there is an interval between public hearings. The commission is continuing its investigations, separate and apart from public hearings, and is considering the very voluminous submissions and opinions which have been received to date. Approximately 110 briefs have been received.
Another question was what further hearings, if any, are scheduled by the commission, and where will they be held? The answer is that the commission has held hearings covering 80 days at Fredericton, Charlottetown, Halifax, St. John's, Newfoundland, Winnipeg, Regina, Edmonton, Victoria, Vancouver, Port Arthur, Quebec city, Toronto and Ottawa. The commission will hold further hearings at Montreal commencing on July 7 and at Ottawa commencing on September 12. Hearings will be held thereafter as may be

necessary, but the Ottawa hearings are intended to be the final hearings.
The third question was, when does the royal commission expect to complete its work and make its report to the government? The answer is that the commission has not indicated to me how soon it expects to complete its work and make its report. I do know it is carrying on its investigations just as quickly as it can, and I hope there will be no cause for any undue delay in the completion of the investigation. It is my hope the work of the commission may be completed by the end of the year, and that I may receive a report very soon after that.
The hon. member for Laurier asked how the act has operated during the 12-month period which will end on July 31. Between August 1, 1959 and March 31, 1960, the first eight months of operation under the act, $11,349,362 was expended. If operations in the remaining four months were the same as the first eight months, that would require a further expenditure of $5,674,684 or a total of $17,024,044.
It became evident to the board of transport commissioners several months ago that the $20 million was not being used up at the rate that had been anticipated because of the fall off in freight traffic, and that a further reduction in the 17 per cent freight rate increase could be made for the last four months of the term. Hence this is how the money is expected to be spent during the last four months of operation. The overlap of July payments into August at the reduced rates, that is shipments made in July not reaching their destination until August, is expected to use up $900,000. The increase in reduction from 7 per cent to 9 per cent from May 1 to July 31 is expected to use up $1,277,400; and the addition of lake and rail traffic, that is the payments to steamship lines which all occur from April 1 to July 31, is expected to use up another $300,000, for a total of $2,477,400. This will leave a balance of approximately half a million dollars, it is expected, at the end of the 12-month period.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question there?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: While the board cannot go beyond the $20 million, apparently from what the minister says they can spend less than the $20 million. Is there a carry-over of the half million dollars he has mentioned?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I believe that amount can be carried over into the following year. As I think I indicated earlier, the board is intending to carry on the reduction at 9 per cent rather than the original 7 per cent for several months after July 31; for just how
Freight Rates Reduction Act many months is something that will remain to be seen, depending on the volume of freight traffic.
The hon. member for Laurier asked why this bill covers a term of nine months instead of twelve months. The answer is that we hope the commission will have completed its hearings by the end of the year, that the report will be received by the government shortly after that time, and that the government will have been able to formulate a plan for the future before April 1.
The hon. member for Laurier asked why the amount was $15 million instead of $20 million. I think the answer is obvious. The amount mentioned last year was $20 million for twelve months. At the same rate it would be $15 for nine months.
The hon. member for Jasper-Edson and the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort made useful contributions pointing out the position of those who grow rapeseed. I am pleased to tell them that I have taken careful note of the useful contributions they made in this debate.
I think I have answered the questions that have been asked. I want to thank the hon. members who have spoken for the useful contributions they have made.
If I may do so, I should now like to make the following suggestion to the committee. As I have indicated, I propose to move that this bill, after receiving second reading, should go to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where it will be thoroughly discussed. My officials and the officials of the board of transport commissioners will be there to answer detailed questions. Inasmuch as the bill, both in French and in English, is available at the present time, I wonder whether hon. members would agree to give unanimous consent to second reading to the bill and then to refer the matter to the standing committee in order that we might expedite the business of the house. I am in the hands of the committee; it is for hon. members to say just whatever they wish to do.


Lionel Chevrier: We on this side of the chamber have no objection to that procedure, on condition that the meeting of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be not called until one week from today so that those groups, associations or individuals who want to make representations may have plenty of time in which to do so.


George Harris Hees: I can assure the committee that will be the case. As I indicated yesterday, the chairman of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines will be asking his steering committee and the full committee to meet, if they consider it desirable to do so, a week from today in order to
5482	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act consider the amendments to the shipping act. This bill could not be considered until after that business had been disposed of.. I do not know whether the business before the committee will permit this bill to be heard on that date, but it would not be heard before that date. However, I am sure it will be heard as soon as possible.


Hazen Robert Argue: I expect the bill will be a simple one along the lines of the one a year ago, and in keeping with the resolution and the statement made by the minister. That being the case we are quite agreeable to going along with second reading of the bill today after it has been introduced. In keeping with the kind of co-operation the minister is now receiving from opposition parties, I hope he will be prepared to make one or two comments in reply to a couple of questions that I should like to put to him.
The royal commission has full authority to inquire into every aspect of railway operation affected by freight rates, and it has authority to inquire into the Crowsnest rates and how, if in any way, these rates have adversely the railway income. As far as I know, I think it is fair to say that the opposition of every political party in this chamber is that the Crowsnest rates should not be tampered with and that, no matter what the report may be, the producers who today receive the advantages of the Crowsnest rates shall not be adversely affected.
There may or may not be some alternative method decided upon to relieve any burden the royal commission may find flows from the Crowsnest rates. I am not suggesting in any way that the Crowsnest rates are a burden. I do not believe they are a burden. But this government is on record in the past as being not only fully in support of the Crowsnest rates but determined, as a matter of government policy, that these rates shall not be tampered with. Every time a railway company goes before the royal commission and attacks the Crowsnest rates there is a feeling of uneasiness on the prairies; and this bogey of interference with the Crowsnest rates is raised from time to time.
I think the minister would be doing a real service to Canadians in general and to the people of western Canada in particular if he were prepared at this time to reaffirm the policy and attitude of the government as far as the Crowsnest rates are concerned. I am not endeavouring in any way to imply that the government's position in this regard is weakening, or that the position of the government is not clear. But because of these persistent and consistent attacks in the press by railway companies and by others who have their own axes to grind with regard to


the Crowsnest rates I think it would be a service to parliament if the minister would reaffirm the government's position in connection with these rates.
There is a second question I should like to ask the minister, and that has to do with the recent decision of the board of transport commissioners with regard to rapeseed. I agree with the remarks made by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson in his reference to the way the railway companies have been allowed to reduce services with very little thought, in his opinion and also in mine, to the loss of revenue to the railway companies themselves and certainly without any consideration for the communities involved. We feel that the board of transport commissioners has been somewhat lax in allowing this wholesale reduction of railway services.
With regard to the freight rates affecting rapeseed, it has been contended, and I think rightly so, that rape should be considered a grain for the purpose of freight rates. This has not been agreed to by the board of transport commissioners. In other words the board has made an adverse decision on this point. As has already been stated, the government has it within its power to set aside, alter or change in any way any ruling of the board. I believe that power is contained in section 53 of the Railway Act. I would ask the minister whether the government is in fact considering the possibility of making any change in the ruling, either by setting it aside or by amending it. This government-and I give it full credit-has on at least one occasion found it desirable to set aside a ruling of the board of transport commissioners. That precedent is at hand. I hope it will be followed in connection with rapeseed so that producers of rapeseed may be on the same basis as producers of other grains in the province.
I have, then, two questions to ask the minister; first, whether he will reaffirm the government's position with regard to the Crowsnest rate, and second, whether or not the government has under consideration this decision of the board of transport commissioners concerning rapeseed, and when an announcement may be made as to whether the government is upholding this decision or taking action to set it aside.


Edwin William Brunsden: Would the hon. member permit a question? Was the hon. member in the house some weeks ago when the Prime Minister made a declaration with respect to the Crowsnest rates, in the course of which he said that those rates would be held inviolate? Perhaps if the hon. member was not in the house he has read the statement in Hansard.


George Harris Hees: I think that very well answers the question. That was the answer I was about to give. I believe that when this bill was introduced last year the Prime Minister was asked the very same question. He gave the house an assurance that the Crowsnest pass rates would not be tampered with, and when the Prime Minister gives an assurance that assurance stands.


Hazen Robert Argue: This session?


George Harris Hees: When the Prime Minister gives an assurance that assurance stands.


Hazen Robert Argue: It did not with regard to the introduction of the bill of rights.


Lionel Chevrier: What about unemployment?


An hon. Member:: "No one will suffer".


George Harris Hees: I think I have made myself clear. The Prime Minister said no one would suffer, and no one has-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hazen Robert Argue: I asked two questions. I think the minister sidestepped the first.


George Harris Hees: I got decoyed.


Lionel Chevrier: You certainly were decoyed, all right.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am certainly disappointed that the hon. gentleman did not make a definite statement at this time to the effect that it was the government's attitude that the Crowsnest rates would not be interfered with. Instead, he has taken the course of saying that the Prime Minister had stated at one time that it was the government's policy that they should not be interfered with, and letting the matter go.
My second question was whether the government had under consideration the decision of the board of transport commissioners with regard to rapeseed, and whether there is any possibility that producers of rape may have the same freight rates applied to their product as producers of other grains.


George Harris Hees: To come back to the first question, I think the hon member for Assiniboia is just trying not to understand what I said. I said that a year ago the Prime Minister stated in this house that the Crowsnest rates would not be tampered with, and when the leader of this party makes a statement, that statement stands.


Lionel Chevrier: That is not correct.


George Harris Hees: That is exactly the way the situation stands at the present time. The Prime Minister said they will not be tampered with, and they will not be tampered with.


Hazen Robert Argue: That is a little better.
Freight Rates Reduction Act


George Harris Hees: Regarding the question of rape-seed, I have listened very carefully on numerous occasions to constructive views put forward to me by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort. I listened this afternoon to the views put forward by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and other hon. members who have brought this matter to my attention, and I can assure the hon. member for Assiniboia that I have the matter under careful consideration.


Hazen Robert Argue: My question was, has the government under consideration the decision of the board excepting rapeseed from the benefits of the Crowsnest pass agreement? It was not whether the government has under consideration the whole general question of rape and the freight rate structure.


George Harris Hees: I think I have given a clear answer. I have said that the question which has been brought to my attention by hon. members who have spoken in the house is under my consideration at the present time. I cannot make it much clearer than that.


Hazen Robert Argue: Since I take it from the minister's statement that the government has under consideration the setting aside of this order -and that must be what the answer means, because the question I asked was in those terms-may I further ask, if the government has under consideration this question of whether or not the decision is to be set aside, whether the minister can say when a decision may be reached in this regard?


George Harris Hees: I am also advised that this rape-seed case is at the present time on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.


Hazen Robert Argue: Will the minister state whether the government has the setting aside of this order under consideration?


George Harris Hees: I have made the position very clear, I believe. I have stated that we have this whole question under consideration at the present time as put forward to me by a number of hon. members. I am giving it consideration. I do not think I can make it much clearer than that.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister said in answer to a question by the hon. member for Assiniboia that the matter was under consideration. How can it be under consideration when it is under appeal from the board to the Supreme Court of Canada?


George Harris Hees: I said that the question as put forward to me and put forward so well by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort, the hon. member for Jasper-Edson and other

Freight Rates Reduction Act people has for some time been under consideration by myself as Minister of Transport, the responsible minister.


Lionel Chevrier: What can the minister do with a matter, even if he considers it for a week or a month or more if it is on appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, before the ruling is handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada?


George Harris Hees: Would the hon. member mind explaining to me if there is any law against any minister giving consideration and study to an important matter? We on this side of the house in this government are constantly studying all important matters that affect the welfare of Canadians. I do not know whether the government of which the hon. member for Laurier was a member did so, but I doubt it, judging from the way it acted. I can assure the hon. member that the present government gives study and careful consideration to all important matters at all times.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister has asked me a question and I think he is entitled to a reply. Yes, I will tell the minister how I think a matter can be considered. A matter like this can be considered under section 52 of the Railway Act. Under that section an appeal may be made to the governor in council. I take it that that has not been done. The other manner of handling it is by appeal from the board of transport commissioners to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The minister, after having said he has given it consideration, rose and announced that an appeal was pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. For the life of me I do not see how both appeals could have been launched at the same time. One is a judicial matter.


George Harris Hees: Perhaps I can clarify this in the mind of the hon. member for Laurier. You see, Mr. Chairman, there is a great deal more closeness between our members of parliament and our members of the cabinet. Our members of parliament come to us very often and put propositions to us and explain situations in their ridings to which we give a great deal of careful study. It is a very simple procedure. The hon. member sits down in a chair and explains the situation. You sit across from him in your chair and listen very carefully to what he has to say. Then we give his proposal a lot of study, both by ourselves and with our officials, and do the very best job we can in terms of solving his problem. That is how this government works, and I believe that is the way any government should work. That is what I am doing in this case.


Lionel Chevrier: That is a weak answer to my question.


Hazen Robert Argue: The hon. member for Laurier referred to section 52 of the Railway Act. I do not wish to disagree with him, but I believe he had section 53 in mind. I have the revised statutes before me. Section 53 has to do with the powers of the governor in council. As I read the section the governor in council may act upon a petition, but one is not necessary if he wishes to act on his own motion. Section 53 reads as follows:
53. (1) The governor in council may at any time, in his discretion either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary, or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the governor in council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the board and upon all parties.
I asked if the government was considering setting aside this ruling. The minister may or may not argue that it cannot be done because there is an appeal to the supreme court.
I want to make my position clear. The government should act under this section. It should set aside what in my opinion was a wrong decision of the board of transport commissioners. The people who grow rapeseed are perfectly justified in asking this government to take appropriate steps to place them on the same basis as other producers of grain. I do not use the general phrases that have been used by others who have spoken in this debate. I do not ask the minister for general consideration, for his benevolent smile or pat on the back. I ask for action to correct what in my opinion is a serious wrong now being done to the growers of rapeseed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Hees thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-81, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times, and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


John George Diefenbaker: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a Department of Forestry which shall be presided over by a Minister of Forestry to be appointed under the Great Seal of Canada, to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees in the manner authorized by law, and to provide for the transfer of certain officers and

employees of the Departments of Agriculture and of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the new department; that it is also expedient to bring in a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide a salary for the Minister.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is preliminary to the introduction of a bill to set up a department of government. Possibly 1 might begin by referring particularly to the report of the standing committee on mines, forests and waters. I think this report deserves study on the part of all hon. members. It represents the results of a very intensive consideration of the problem of our forests, and is indicative of the favourable results which can be secured through the medium of committees which give to the consideration of the problems they have placed before them that care, acumen and attention which marked the investigation, hearing of evidence and recommendations of this committee.
I refer particularly to two of the recommendations in the third report to the house dated July 4, 1959. In paragraph 57 at page 1175 of the committee proceedings the following appears:
Your committee strongly recommends consideration of steps which would widen the scope of the forestry branch, increasing its status in such a way that a deputy minister would be in direct charge. The fact that such a status, comparable to that of a department does not exist now reflects a lack of appreciation of the importance of the forest industries to Canada, in the past, now, and in the future. Other departments of government are considered essential to serve industries or aspects of our national economy which are of much lesser economic consequence.
Then at page 1176 we find the following:
Your committee recommends that the entomological and plant pathology research relating to trees and forests, now under the Department of Agriculture, be transferred to and co-ordinated directly with the recommended and expanded forestry department.
Again, at page 1177 we find the following in paragraph 70:
Your committee feels that Canada cannot afford to ignore a potential so great for lumber and pulp sales as is offered in the Orient and, therefore, it recommends that these markets be approached on an open minded basis. Study should be made of our changing share of traditional markets in the United Kingdom and the United States of America. A marketing section should be created within the proposed department of forestry to aid the Department of Trade and Commerce in the merchandising of our wood products.
These were several of the recommendations which at least formed the basis for the introduction of this resolution, following the passage of which the bill in question will be introduced.
Department of Forestry
While all the recommendations cannot necessarily be accepted at this time, and while in no way suggesting that the Department of Trade and Commerce has not carried out fully its responsibilities in connection with the marketing of lumber and such products, I thought I should place these various recommendations before the committee so that the comprehensive consideration given by the committee to this matter would be within the knowledge of hon. members.
The present function of the federal government with respect to forestry consists of providing for good management of the forests under its direct control, the extending of financial assistance to enable the provinces to intensify their efforts in specified phases of forest management, and the conduct of research relating to forest management and the utilization of forest products. During past years and at the present time research activities relating to forestry have been divided between two departments. The forestry branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources is responsible for all aspects of forest management research except forest entomology and forest pathology, which are the responsibility of the research branch of the Department of Agriculture.
I might digress for a moment to say that this afternoon, by reason of my position, I am introducing this resolution, but the discussion and consideration thereof will be placed mainly upon the shoulders of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources under whose department this matter has been administered in the past.
A major reason for the establishment of the proposed new department is to bring together the research activities now conducted by two departments and thus to provide for better integrated and more effective research programs. In the past three years several of the provinces and many organizations representing various branches of the wood using industries have made urgent representations to the effect that the support being given to forestry and forest products research by the dominion government has not been commensurate with the significance of the forest industries to the national economy. When I mention the last three years I also know as a fact that similar representations were made prior thereto. From these representations and from other sources of information available to it, the government has concluded that the time has come when the dominion interests in forestry should be brought together in the hands of one minister.
I think I might commence by placing before the committee in summary form a few pertinent facts regarding the importance of
548S

Department of Forestry the forest industry to Canada. More than 40 per cent of the land area of the 10 provinces consists of productive forest land. This area, by way of comparison, is almost four times as great as the area devoted to agriculture, which in capsule form reveals the extent of our forest resources. The pulp and paper industry is Canada's largest manufacturing industry; the lumber industry still stands high on the list. These industries are distributed throughout the country from coast to coast, and in addition to producing products of great value they are among the major sources of employment. External trade in wood, wood products and paper yields a balance in Canada's favour far larger than that contributed by any of the other major commodity groups recognized in national statistics form. Furthermore, a very large proportion of that favourable balance becomes available in United States funds.
In the past two or three years there have been studies of the demands for paper products and various other products in general which have been projected for a period of from 10 to 15 years and beyond. These projections and forecasts indicate radical increases within the period of time mentioned. Further expansion of Canada's forest industry is certainly possible. We have the raw material resources, and given a sufficiently good standard of forest management, the expansion can be maintained on a continuing basis. However, if the drain on the forest is to be radically increased and, at the same time, forest devastation is to be avoided, there are serious problems in forest management and forest protection which must be overcome. All of this emphasizes the increasing need for research the aim of which would be the improvement in management and utilization of forest products. Such programs must be accompanied by more economic research in order to help ensure that Canadian products can be placed on world markets at acceptable costs.
The conduct of forest and forest products research has been for many years a function of the dominion government, which now has unusually well developed research facilities in this field, by a wide margin the strongest of those facilities. The research function is not the exclusive prerogative of the federal government but is shared by some of the provinces, the university forestry schools and the industry itself. I hope the new department will be able not only to intensify the efficiency of federal forest research but also help to bring about co-ordination of research programs conducted by other agencies. I believe this objective is necessary if Canada

is to meet the challenge which expanding world markets for forest products will present in the coming years.
I might point out that in September, 1959, the food and agriculture organization brought out a report dealing with paper and paper products which stated in summary form that while world demand for paper and paper products in 1955 amounted to 56 million metric tons, in 1965 it will amount to 88 million metric tons and by 1975 to 134 million metric tons. At the present time Canada supplies about 16 per cent of the world market. If we are to maintain this percentage it will be necessary to supply 14 million metric tons by 1965 or a 50 per cent increase over the basic year 1955. By 1975 Canada will have to supply 21 million metric tons or a 123 per cent increase over the basic year. Even though there is some unused capacity at present in this country there would seem to be good prospects for the Canadian paper industry to more than double its present production in 15 years.
I am not going to go into details as to the net value of the products of the forest and forest industries. I simply point to the general position of these industries as outlined in my remarks earlier. I think it will be generally agreed that these are industries which have inherent in them the possibility of vast developments over their situation today.
We now come to the question of responsibility. In no way is the government, having at all times stood solidly behind the need of preserving the constitution in its entirety, desirous of interfering nor would it for a moment countenance any interference or invasion of the constitutional responsibility of the provinces in this connection or in any other. We believe it is the duty of the federal government to provide for the best practical management of forests under its direct control, but the greater part of Canada's forests are administered by the governments of the provinces in which they are located. Section 92, subsection 5 of the British North America Act provides that the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws respecting "the management and sale of the public lands belonging to the province and of the timber and wood thereon". As I said a moment ago, this in effect gives to each province the exclusive right to manage publicly owned forests within its boundaries as it sees fit, and I reiterate and make it explicitly clear that the new department will in no way infringe upon or impinge on any of the rights and jurisdiction of provincial governments.
On the other hand, those federal activities relating to forest and forest products research

and the financial assistance offered to the provinces to help to improve the management of their forests are carried on primarily for the benefit of the provinces themselves and to help the forest industries. More specifically, research findings of the dominion government are made available to provincial forest administrators and industrial forest operators so that they may make such use thereof as they deem fit and proper.
The proposal to establish a department of forestry reflects the realization of the importance of the forest industries and the resource on which they depend for raw materials. It will provide for more effective use of the resources available for promoting better forest protection and management and better use of the wood that the forests grow, without in any way affecting the right and jurisdiction of the individual provinces to administer their own forests in whatever manner they deem fit.
So far as the bill is concerned, I, of course, am denied the opportunity to go into any particulars now, but I would say in summary that the purpose the government has in mind in introducing this resolution on which the bill will be founded is to provide for the conduct of research relating to the protection, management and utilization of the forest resources of Canada and the better utilization of forest products. To that end it will require the establishment and maintenance of laboratories and other necessary facilities for the attainment of these purposes.
We believe too that the federal government will thereby be able to undertake to promote and recommend measures for the encouragement of public co-operation in the protection and wise use of forest resources. We believe that provision should also be made so that the federal government may enter into agreements with the government of any province or with any person for forest protection and management or forest utilization and also for the conduct of research relating thereto, or for forestry publicity or education.
We believe too that there is a field for the federal government in the making of forestry surveys and providing advice relating to the protection and management of forests on lands administered by any department or agency of the government of Canada. Also, where any province desires the co-operation of the federal authorities and requests it, agreements may be arrived at for the protection and management of any of our forests in so far as research is concerned to the end that in co-operation we will be able to provide new opportunities for private enterprise to develop and expand, with the 79951-0-346
Department of Forestry government assuming its responsibility to provide the opportunity through research to bring about utilization in the most beneficial manner and to the maximum extent of these resources which constitute for our country one of its basic strengths and which, if properly conserved in a scientific manner, will permit and assure the perpetuation of this resource for all time to come.
That in summary is the basis upon which I present to the committee, and I trust it will be acceptable, a measure which I feel sure will enable a greater and more diverse use and utilization of these resources which are of such importance to the national economy and to the standard of living of our country.


Mr, Chevrier:: Mr. Chairman, with some of the things that the Prime Minister has just stated I find myself in complete agreement. With respect to others I will have to reserve my opinion until such time as I have seen the bill. When one looks at the resolution- perhaps I had better put it on Hansard since it is relatively short-one finds that it says:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of forestry which shall be presided over by a minister of forestry to be appointed under the Great Seal of Canada, to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees in the manner authorized by law, and to provide for the transfer of certain officers and employees of the Departments of Agriculture and of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the new department; that it is also expedient to bring in a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide a salary for the minister.
What I think are the governing words in this resolution, as the Prime Minister himself has indicated because of the stress which he has laid upon them in the early part of his remarks, are that this new department is to provide for the transfer of certain responsibilities now in the Department of Agriculture and in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the new department.
Before I discuss that, there are one or two things that come to my mind. The Prime Minister stated that this resolution is the result of a recommendation that came out of a standing committee of the house, which I believe was mines, forests and waters. He took advantage of the opportunity to speak in highly favourable terms of the work of that and other committees. While I am not a member of the committee in question, and while I cannot speak with authority about it, I must bring to the attention of the Prime Minister the fact that his over-all statement does not apply in any way to all the committees of this house. While all of the committees of this house have received work from here, either by way of bills or other matters, I do not believe it can safely be

Department of Forestry said that the idea which the Prime Minister has always had that committees could do a great deal of the work of parliament has worked out to the end which he had in mind when he made the statement earlier.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman will allow me to correct him, I did not say do a great deal of the work of parliament, but do a great deal of the work of investigations to assist the work of parliament.


Lionel Chevrier: If the Prime Minister wants it that way, I have no objection. The point I am making is that when most of the work or a large portion of the work is assigned to these committees in the dying days of the session it is impossible to carry out what the Prime Minister had in mind, as has been the case and as is the case now. Here we have been sitting now for approximately three weeks since eleven o'clock in the morning and beginning next week we will be sitting practically continuously from 11 in the morning until 11 at night, with an hour's adjournment at lunch, and I say this is not the time nor are these the circumstances under which the work which the Prime Minister and many of us on this side of the house had in mind can be properly conducted. However, that was not the purpose of my rising, that *was by way of an aside.


Mr. Fulton:: And out of order, too.


Lionel Chevrier: When my hon. friend, the Minister of Justice, says I was out of order, let me remind him that the Prime Minister was also out of order because he discussed this in the opening part of his speech. I felt I could make some reply to it.
The matter that is being discussed now is whether or not it is advisable for this house to consider the setting up of a new department. As I said at the outset, I am not rising to approve of the legislation, neither am I rising to oppose it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You must be in a very awkward position, then.


Lionel Chevrier: My friends laugh; they are accustomed to laughing at everything that is said from this side of the house. They have laughed about a number of things that have happened elsewhere in this country, but now they are laughing on the other side of their faces.
Let me go on. As I said earlier, we would like to reserve our position until such time as we see the bill. When we have seen the bill the Leader of the Opposition will make our position known on second reading. There is nothing the matter with that position. Our


friends have followed that procedure when they were on this side of the house, why should they laugh at me when I make that statement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: They were not around then.


Lionel Chevrier: Of course they were not. They are so numerous now that they think themselves infallible in making the statements that they make. It seems to me I should suggest to my hon. friends, with all the emphasis I am able to muster, that it would be much better for them if they gave those of us who rise on this side of the house to deal with matters of this nature an opportunity to be heard.
There are some questions that come to my mind in the course of the discussion concerning this new department. One of them is this: Why is it necessary to set up a new department for this purpose? I have looked at the division of the Department of Agriculture which deals with forest biology, and it does not seem to be a very large section of the Department of Agriculture. I have before me a listing of the division of forestry within the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources, and that division does not seem to be a very large one, either. It would strike me, at first blush, that there may be a better method-perhaps there is not-of bringing these two important branches of two departments within either the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources or some other department without establishing a new department.
I agree, as I said earlier, with what the Prime Minister has said with respect to the importance of the forest products industry. There is no one on this side of the house or, I believe, in any other part of the house, who will not be willing to admit that here is an industry which has taken on more and more importance as the years have passed. While it is desirable, I believe, and while we support the unification of such services as are to be found in the Department of Agriculture, represented by forest biology, and in the department of northern affairs, represented by the forestry branch, and that this will facilitate more effective co-ordination and prevent undue duplication, I wonder about the forest products division in the Department of Trade and Commerce. Has any consideration been given to taking that branch of trade and commerce and putting it within the new service in order to unify and strengthen them without, for that matter, establishing a department?
Mr. Chairman, I should like to say to you here that it is extremely difficult for me to carry on under these circumstances when on

my left is a continual mumbling and bumbling. 1 do not know what the hon. member is saying, but if he wants to ask a question, let him do so. It is extremely difficult for me to carry on under these circumstances.


Mr. Ricard:: To whom is the hon. member referring?


Lionel Chevrier: I am referring to the hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Pardon me, I have not said anything.


Lionel Chevrier: You have not said anything but you have been mumbling and bumbling during the whole course of my remarks.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I have not done any mumbling or bumbling.


Lionel Chevrier: I call upon you, Mr. Chairman, to have the rules of this committee upheld under the circumstances.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have never opened my mouth all afternoon. I have been listening to the hon. gentleman. I have said nothing at all. I apologize to the hon. member, but I have said nothing at all.


Edmund Davie Fulton: He is confused with the mumbling and bumbling coming from his own mouth.


Lionel Chevrier: We get some from the Minister of Justice.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Don't lose your temper.


Jacques Flynn: May I ask for the co-operation of all hon. members in order to give the hon. member who has the floor a chance to say what he wishes to say.


Lionel Chevrier: I have stated that we felt that consideration should also be given to the inclusion of the forest products division in the Department of Agriculture. We also support the idea of giving to forestry and forest products more prominence in the federal setup in order to attract more attention to the forest industries which are so vital to Canadian prosperity and development.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to interrupt the hon. member but he is following an interesting line and I should like to ask him to explain just what he meant by that last sentence.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the Prime Minister for the interruption and I shall be glad to do as he asks. I was going on to say that in this connection I thought the government should do much more than it has been doing recently with reference to the marketing of our forest products abroad. That consideration leads me to the point that I had arrived at, namely, 79951-0-346J
Department of Forestry as the Prime Minister has said, that the forest products industry area has extended tremendously, that the pulp and paper industry is one of Canada's largest industries, and that the timber industry is taking on greater and greater importance. There could be no greater agreement with the Prime Minister on that statement.
However, it seems to me that these forest products industries which have to export their products are in a difficult position having regard to what is happening on the continent of Europe. I refer, of course, to the great regional areas like the common market, the outer seven, the soviet bloc and the others that are being established there with a view to bringing about lower tariffs within their own confines where services, persons and capital can move as if there were no international boundary at all, with the danger-perhaps not clear-cut at the moment but to be foreseen in the future-of a tariff being established against those who live outside the boundaries of those areas.
The point I am trying to make is that everything should be done in that respect to assist that industry. I said-and I repeat it with deference-that I did not think enough was being done. For instance, what has been done by the Minister of Finance and announced in the House of Commons here on one occasion at least, if not more than one, with reference to liaison being established between Canada and the United States and these groups is not enough. It seems to me that is not enough. I think that a great deal more must be done. Particular proof that it is not enough lies in the fact that the attempt to bring the outer seven and the common market closer together in recent weeks has not been too successful.
We are opposed, however, to any move by the federal government designed to take over the jurisdiction the provinces have in this field according to our constitutional provisions. In that connection the Prime Minister has made the position, in so far as the government is concerned, quite clear, I believe. After having referred to the section of the British North America Act which gives to the provinces legislative authority with reference to public lands and the sale of timber thereon, the Prime Minister stated that there was no intention to countenance any invasion of the constitutional responsibility of the provinces. Those are the words he used, as I have taken them down. Again, at a later point he said that the new department will in no way impinge upon the rights of provincial governments.
That statement, of course, is a welcome and timely one, and it leads me to ask this question. Notwithstanding the statement made by

Department of Forestry the Prime Minister, has there been any discussion with the provinces in connection with this matter? It may be that the government, before introducing this legislation, should have waited to ascertain the outcome of the federal-provincial conference on natural resources. The Prime Minister said nothing in respect of that matter. When he closes the debate perhaps he would be good enough to deal with that problem. It seems to me that the government would then have been in a much better position to see what it could conveniently and properly do in this field in conjunction with the provinces.
The department, of course, will be an important one, because it will deal with one of the basic problems of the Canadian economy. However, it is bound to be a relatively small one if it does not invade the jurisdiction of the provinces; and the Prime Minister has indicated, of course, that there was no intention in that respect. It is for that reason that we are wondering whether it would not be better, more profitable or more practical to bring this new research service together with a similar one under the authority of only one minister. Under the circumstances which the Prime Minister has explained, that * this department will have to do with a great deal of research, is it wise to establish a new department? Would it not be better to bring under one minister these three various elements which have to do with the problem?
I am sure that 1 will offend no one when I say that we have the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, for instance, which is an important department in its own right. Would that not be the logical place in which to bring together all these research facilities and all of these various divisions which are being taken from other departments? It might well be that the department could be called the department of mines, forests and technical surveys. This suggestion may not be agreeable to the government but it seems to me that it is something which is logical. It is certainly something which could be indicative of the saving of large sums of money. I say that subject, of course, to what is contained in the bill which I have not yet seen, but if there is a logical place for all these forestry division to go, that would appear to me to be an excellent solution.
May I say to the Prime Minister that it appears to me that the number of ministers is already too high. In that connection a redistribution of functions and responsibilities between these departments would be highly desirable, and that would be met by the suggestion which I have just made.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the hon. gentleman, with the wide experience he has had

as a minister, tell the committee what would be the proper size? He says there are already too many ministers. It would be interesting to hear someone of his experience give the committee the benefit of his views in that respect, because we have not increased the size up to this time.


Lionel Chevrier: The Prime Minister has stated that he intends to set up a new department. I have said that I believe there are too many departments.


John George Diefenbaker: Too many ministers.


Lionel Chevrier: Too many ministers at the present time. Could that be met by the suggestion which I made earlier that these two services, which are going to be small divisions of this department, should be brought within the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys giving that department the responsibility for the research that you have in mind?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman-


Lionel Chevrier: I have no objection to this kind of interruption; I welcome it.


John George Diefenbaker: -but the opinions of a former minister can be very helpful. We have not increased the number of ministers up to now, and the hon. gentleman, who sat from 1945 until his appointment to the St. Lawrence seaway authority and who, after the conclusion of his services to that authority was again a minister, might perhaps be able to tell the committee to what degree and in what number there are too many ministers, because he is speaking of his experience when the number was the same as it is today.


Lionel Chevrier: It is obvious that all the ministers in existence today are not needed. I say that to the Prime Minister with deference, because it has been stated here by our members on this side, and in other places; and I do not want to reflect on any private individual; that is why I am very hesitant about replying to the Prime Minister, other than to deal with the question in a general way and say that surely the right hon. gentleman knows there are ministers who are not charged with sufficient duties or sufficient responsibilities. I do not want to go further than that. I do not want to offend any individual.
However, if this situation exists, I ask the question: why add another minister? I have put forward a suggestion for a solution. The Prime Minister may perhaps want to place these divisions under some other department, but it would strike me that mines, forests and technical surveys would be an ideal

place, because if a new ministry is to be established I doubt whether there is sufficient work in that context to justify the appointment of a new minister. If that is the case, why not expand within the department, within the department of northern affairs, if that would be thought advisable, within the Department of Agriculture, if that be thought advisable, or along the lines that I suggested earlier?
The Prime Minister said that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the conduct of research relating to the production and management of the various projects, including agreements with the provinces, for research relating thereto, and also for various surveys. All that is important, and I do not think anyone on this side would criticize the importance of those' duties, responsibilities and purposes. What is, I think, the subject of criticism is the fact that a new ministry is considered necessary for these purposes. Everything is contained within one or two or three ministries at most to centralize this research in connection with forests, lumber and other products. Those were the ideas I had in mind to express when I rose to discuss the resolution.
Again, I say it is difficult until the bill is before us to know exactly what is contained in it and to deal positively with it. With that end in mind, as I said earlier, the views of the opposition will be made known upon second reading of the bill when we have had an opportunity to consider it. What I have said is indicative of what we feel at the moment and can be summed up in a few words: there is unquestionably a necessity for greater expansion in the field of research, but I doubt very much whether there is a necessity to establish a new portfolio with that end in view, and it would strike me that the solution is to add the services which exist in other departments to those of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys and call it the department of mines, forests and technical surveys.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I listened with interest to the statement made on this resolution by the Prime Minister, and I was also interested to note that for the first time for some weeks there are ten or eleven cabinet ministers in the house in addition to the Prime Minister. So I judge that this matter is considered to be of great importance.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier and I must say that I was somewhat disappointed in his negative approach to this question and his waffling around, shall I say, with the federal-provincial rights question. Also, I think the hon. member lost a tremendous opportunity to
Department of Forestry score for his own province. Here is a department being established-a new department of forestry-in which his own province is greatly interested. This is of great concern to the province of Quebec. Here is a new minister to be appointed, yet I judge from the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier that he is willing to lock the door, according to his remarks, to the opportunity to get annother cabinet minister from Quebec into this government.
I was surprised, also, to hear the hon. gentleman rise and say that at this stage of the proceedings he and his supporters were neither for the measure nor against it. One of the functions of parliament in my opinion is to convert the forest fires of ideas and discontent into a central heating unit of effective legislation. We in this group have supported for years the idea of the establishment of a department of forestry.


Mr. Bigg:: There were too many clinkers around.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There has been considerable discontent among some employers and employees in the forest industry that this important segment of the Canadian economy was not recognized by a separate department in the federal government with a minister in charge. Therefore we view this measure as a legislative heating unit to which we give whole-hearted support.
For years various organizations and persons representing the industry have urged the necessity for a federal-provincial conference to establish a national policy with respect to principles for the administration of our forests and the need for a federal department. This was stressed by the Canadian forestry association in representations to the government, at conferences and so on. It was strongly and unitedly urged by representatives of the British Columbia forest industry. I expect we will hear from the hon. member for Comox-Alberni on this subject. The hon. gentleman is eminently qualified to speak about the forest industry with knowledge and experience. It has been urged by universities and I have read many editorials across Canada urging this proposal. Last year the report of the committee on mines, forests and waters included the recommendation to which the Prime Minister drew attention. I must say if there is one place I feel at home it is on this subject and I will probably get lost in the woods for 20 minutes.


George Harris Hees: Oh, no.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I love being lost in the woods at times. I was a student of forestry in 1909. Although very young I owned a timber holding which I still own. I am proud to

Department of Forestry say I have more timber on the same land than I had 50 years ago with an average rate of growth of 500 board feet per acre.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: You are a capitalist.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I say this because when I rise to speak hon. members on the other side sometimes look at me as though I did not know what I was talking about. However, I speak with confidence on this resolution. I have been interested in this subject since I was a young man. In my own way I have always done what I could, as have all hon. members of this group, to urge upon the federal and provincial governments the need for the policy I have mentioned.
There have been many resolutions from organizations across the country urging the very course indicated in this resolution. We were pleased to hear the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources announce a federal-provincial conference on resources for tomorrow or for the future, whatever the term is.
The previous federal ministers concerned have hesitated' to take action in this field because of fear of transgressing on provincial rights. From our point of view there was no necessity for this fear. We all recognize provincial rights in this field. What will be done under this legislation and as a result of a dominion-provincial conference will be done through agreement.
I will briefly outline the evolution of ideas in connection with the motion before us. Progress has been slow both in Canada and the United States. These ideas have been brought before the public only as the result of the action of a few devoted organizations and individuals. Here are the highlights. The former United States president Teddy Roosevelt sparked the development of conservation policies in that country. The first evidence of action was the establishment of a school of forestry at Yale in 1900. These growing interests developed' in Canada. The first forestry congress was called in 1906 by the governor general of the day and the then prime minister the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier. In 1907 we saw the establishment of a school of forestry in Toronto. In 1907 there was established a royal commission on conservation the reports of which may be found in the library. The chairman was the Hon. Clifford Sifton. A member was the father of the present Minister of Justice, the Hon. Frederick Fulton, formerly commissioner of lands in British Columbia, if I remember correctly.
In 1949 we witnessed the introduction of the Canadian Forestry Act as the result of activity on the part of various organizations. Good work has been done under the act with


respect to grants to the provinces for forest inventories which are essential and with respect to the approach to the insect pest question and so on. In 1954 a resources conference was held in Ottawa sponsored by the Canadian forestry association, the agricultural institute of Canada and other organizations. In 1955 the commonwealth conference on resources was held in Canada. Meetings were held in various places in the country and the operation of the industry in various provinces were visited. In 1956 a second resources conference sponsored by the Canadian forestry association and others was held in Winnipeg. In 1959 we had the announcement of the plan for a federal-provincial conference on resources for the future. Today we have before us a resolution to establish a department of forestry.	.
I hope I am not too boastful but I am proud of the part the people of British Col-lumbia played in the development of public opinion and climate with respect to the value of our forests and the need for their conservation and development.


Mr. Brooks:: Mr. Chairman, could I interrupt the hon. member for just a moment. In outlining the history of the development of forestry in Canada the hon. gentleman neglected to mention the fact that the first forestry school in Canada was established at the University of New Brunswick in 1906.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I apologize for that oversight. Now that the minister has drawn it to my attention I remember it. I drew up these notes rather hastily. I am not in the habit of thinking in terms of maritime history and I must apologize for my oversight. Anyway, in British Columbia we had the first royal commission established in Canada to examine into all aspects of the British Columbia forest industry. British Columbia was the first to establish a forest management and sustained yield policy. While we in this group differ with some aspects of the terms of tenure that are being given effect on a large scale in British Columbia, we do wholeheartedly support the sustained yield principle.
British Columbia was the first province to establish and hold an annual conference on natural resources, which was organized as a result of co-operation among the industry, universities, labour organizations, and the officials of the government department directly concerned. The industry in British Columbia was the first one in Canada by resolution to urge the necessity for a federal-provincial conference to establish a national policy for the conservation of natural resources and it was the first to make representations to the federal government urging the establishment of a department of forestry.



I960

[Stage Direction]
I am very happy to say that last year the first lady to graduate in forestry graduated from the University of British Columbia. I mention this just to indicate that the industry, employees and the people in British Columbia in general have taken a very progressive approach to this problem.
I cannot leave this question without saying that the party to which I belong has also taken a very active part in promoting those ideas and in promoting the general acceptance of the policies that I spoke about previously. From the time the C.C.F. elected members to the legislature in British Columbia-and the hon. member from Vancouver East can tell you all about that-one of the first major policies presented to the legislature on behalf of the C.C.F. was the need for a sustained management policy in the forests of British Columbia and that is our policy today. We all know also that the government of Saskatchewan has done a magnificent job in dealing with the forest resources of that province which, when they took office, were being depleted at a rate which would have meant the disappearance of the major forest resources within the foreseeable future.
Private industry in Canada has also played a very important part in the development of the ideas that are being put forward this afternoon and in the development of research, particularly the pulp and paper industry of this country, and other industry organizations.
For a moment I wish to draw to the attention of the committee the position of Canada in relation to the present world situation so far as the forests are concerned, and to indicate that this is a world problem, and we are dealing with a segment of it in a very intelligent way this afternoon. I intend to quote from a recent report of the food and agriculture organization which indicates how world-wide this problem is and what a responsibility we have not only to the people in Canada but to the world as a whole to conserve our forests. The dispatch is from Rome, dated June 5, 1960, and reads as follows:
Mankind is felling the world's forests dangerously fast, according to the United Nations food and agriculture organization here.
Sixty per cent of forests under exploitation, 3,620,000 acres, are being felled in such a way as to make the future of the world's present timber supply uncertain, declares the FAO's third world forest inventory. And, it adds, because man is not replacing what he takes from nature, the future of about 25 per cent of the forests in use today is in doubt.
The probability of reaping a new crop of timber from a further 35 per cent of the forests now in use is "only reasonably favourable", the FAO says,
Department of Forestry adding that only 40 per cent of the world's forests under exploitation have an assured future through reafforestation.
I just quote from this dispatch to indicate that this is a serious problem for mankind as a whole. We in this group think that Canada is at the turning point. It requires action on the part of the government to give leadership, which I trust the establishment of this department will facilitate, and more co-operation between governments, between conservation minded organizations, between the industry and the people, including the young people in the universities and schools across this country.
In our opinion this new department will face vast and urgent tasks. It also faces a glorious opportunity to do something very substantial and concrete for this industry. It is going to take a dynamic and imaginative approach on the part of the minister who is concerned with the problem and dedication to the cause of the conservation of natural resources and the development of the forest industry.
I suggest there are four major tasks that the new minister will face in this new department. The first will be to promote a successful federal-provincial conference on resources for tomorrow. I think that is necessary in order to make this new department successful and, shall I say, show to the provinces that the result of this department's work will be brought about by co-operation with them without any transgression of their jurisdictions.
The second task is the promotion of the establishment of national principles and policies for the conservation of land, forest, water and other renewable natural resources.
I think the third task is going to be the expansion of research related to the forest industry. I might say at this point that, I was glad to hear that the research work being done by the Department of Agriculture for the forest branch will now be transferred from the Department of Agriculture and come under the jurisdiction of the new ministry. I pay every tribute to the good work being done under the science branch of the Department of Agriculture in this respect. However I and the members of this group for years have contended that it was a somewhat illogical division of responsibility, and we are quite pleased to see this work being brought under the jurisdiction of the new department.
We recognize the excellent work of the forest products laboratory on which I understand we spend approximately $1 million a year at the present time.
[Stage Direction]
Department of Forestry
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: About $2,-
500,000.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: About $2,500,000 a year while at the same time-and I am glad we do-we spend about $30 million a year on research in agriculture. We need the research in agriculture but I mention these figures to illustrate the gap between the amount spent on research in connection with these two fundamental industries. We recognize the good work being done in research on insect infestation and plant diseases that affect forests. What is required at the present time are more funds for the forest products laboratory to begin with because there is a need for expansion of research owing to the change in the types of equipment and in the type of logging and mechanical operations in the woods. This is the type of research that the forest products laboratory has not had the opportunity to go into to the extent required at the present time because of lack of funds.
In this connection I must mention to the committee that we should not consider ourselves right in the forefront in connection with research so far as the forest industry is concerned. We had a delegation which went to Russia in 1958. It consisted of persons interested in the forest industry and some officials of the forest branch of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. They had an opportunity to see the operations of the forest industry in the Soviet union with respect to logging operations, milling operations, manufacturing aspects and also with respect to research. I have in my hand a small booklet which was issued by the forest products laboratory of Canada in 1958. It is entitled, "A Canadian's Impressions of Russia's Forest Industries", and is written by J. H. Jenkins who is head of the forest products laboratory and whose good work we all recognize.
I am not going to read extracts from the booklet but it clearly indicates that the Russians are looking forward and are well up with us so far as manufacturing is concerned and possibly with regard to woods operations. However, I have also learned from other sources that they are far ahead of us with respect to the amount of money spent for research in connection with the forest industry. I am not quite sure what the figure is but I understand that they spend several times as many dollars per unit of production on research in the forest industry compared with the amount of money spent by us. I understand they spend close to ten times as much in relation to total production compared with the expenditure by the government of Canada.

In view of the present situation with respect to world markets and the developments in techniques of production I suggest it would be a very good investment for the federal government to spend much larger sums on research related to the forest industry. In addition to expansion of the forest products laboratories we believe there is need for even greater expansion in several very important fields related to forest management into which fields we have not entered to any great extent up to the present time. There should be greatly expanded research into forest management, tree seed production and collection, the development of strains of trees best suited to geographic climate and soil conditions, the suitability of species to site, plant ecology and methods of fire protection.
These are not just my ideas, they are a composite of ideas put forward to the committee by representatives of the forest industry in the various provinces and suggested by various authorities in the universities, by the Canadian forestry association and the Canadian institute of forestry. Therefore I want to stress the need of establishing a program for a great expansion of forest research that immediately envisages the doubling of the professional staff engaged in forest research within the next few years. We think that would be a good investment for the federal government on behalf of all the people of Canada.
Finally, we suggest there is a great opportunity for the federal department of forestry and the minister in charge of the department-a great deal depends on the activity of the minister and his interest in the matter-in the direction of education and publicity. An informed public opinion is required to support a policy of sound forest management. It is very necessary and to a great extent it is now lacking. There are probably few undertakings that have so many amateur advisers whose opinions are often based on sentiment without any knowledge and with little experience. We have got to get the truth and the facts before the Canadian people.
On the other hand, a public consciouness must be developed that the protection of the forests from fire is everyone's responsibility. In that respect I think that in some sections of Canada, particularly the urban areas, the understanding is far less than it should be. The federal government, through its own actions and through the subsidization of properly constituted public information organizations, can help to correct this apparent lack of appreciation on the part of the public of the need for sound, economic management of the forest resource and of the great hazards of forest fires.

In concluding my remarks at this stage I say that co-operation and co-ordination in the development of educational and publicity programs between the federal government, the provincial governments, industry, interested organizations and the schools is one of the tasks that the new minister and department should undertake. Let us mobilize all the people, all the governments, all the agencies, all the organizations that are interested in this problem in support of a national forest policy for Canada, for as the old scripture writer said in Deuteronomy, chapter 20, verse 19, "The tree of the field is man's life".


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, it is not too often that I find myself on the same side of a question as the hon. member for Kootenay West, but I certainly appreciate the fact that he is supporting the resolution. There is an old saying that birds of a feather flock together and there is a certain similarity between our feathers. He said something a few moments ago about the wonderful sustained yield operation he had in the Kootenays involving 500 board feet per acre per year natural increment. I added this up and I think he has quite a few thousand acres. It comes to quite a tidy little sum and I think the hon. member has a very nice little interest in forestry.
To use British Columbia coastal logging parlance, I am sure glad to hear that the Prime Minister is going to open another side. This step is one that has been advocated for many years by the forest industry and by those who appreciate the present and future economic potential of our forests. I must say that when the hon. member for Laurier was speaking I began to realize why there was so much frustration and disappointment among those connected with the forest industry at their failure to be able to impress the federal government for so many years with the importance of their industry and the need for attention to their problems. But after listening to him this afternoon I began to understand why we made no progress in the industry over those many years.
Considering the importance to Canada of its heritage of forests and productive forest land, it is a sad reflection that in forestry research and forest management we lag far behind many of the countries with which we have to compete for world markets. This sad situation can probably be attributed to the fact that, except for a small section of the prairie provinces and the barren lands, our country is a forested area. Many take the attitude that we have plenty of trees so why worry? This has probably been the reason why we have been so slow in approaching the 79951-0-347
Department of Forestry problem in its proper light. It is probably the reason for the lethargy that has been displayed by the general public and, in some cases, by senior levels of government toward facing the reality that there is a challenge in the field of forest conservation and in preserving the economic solvency of one of our greatest revenue producing basic industries.
Torrents of words are spoken in this house each session about matters that are of infinitesimal importance compared to forestry problems. If one looks through the Hansard for previous years he finds few references to our forest resources and their problems. Agriculture seems to be the predominant interest at all times, and yet the two resources have many common problems and are closely comparative in their economic importance. Canadians seem to be a race of farmers at heart. Certainly one cannot help but come to this conclusion if our parliamentarians represent the thoughts and interests of the people.
I was looking through the proceedings of the 1959 committee of the other place on land use, and it is informative to note that one meeting only was devoted to land use for forestry purposes, despite the fact that for every acre of land in Canada suitable for agriculture there are many acres that could be used for forest production.
I should like to suggest now a few fields to which I feel the new department should give its attention immediately. First among these is the need for greater efforts toward forest fire prevention and control. This is a problem with which we will always be faced. Great efforts and great strides have been made by both provincial and federal forest fire prevention agencies, but there is much to be done yet. Of course, forest fire prevention is largely a matter of public education so far as man-made fires are concerned. However, as long as we have man he will be responsible for a number of forest fires. In addition, of course, we will always have the problem of lightning fires. These often occur in the remote and inaccessible areas and have been responsible for terrific losses. Two years ago we had a terrific loss in the northern part of British Columbia in a very inaccessible area. It was almost impossible to get men and materials in there to control that fire.
The greatest hope for controlling and extinguishing forest fires seems to be in the development and use of aircraft fire control techniques and, perhaps, the development of chemical aids. Much promising technical information is already available, but the cost of experimenting to adapt this information to a practical use is often too high for individual companies and, in many cases, for provinces.

Department of Forestry A number of companies recently banded together in British Columbia to purchase surplus Mars flying boats for use in forest fire fighting. It is an interesting experiment and is being closely watched by everyone all over the world interested in forest fire prevention. These aircraft are capable of carrying several thousand gallons of water and have been equipped for fast reloading. The project is an expensive one, and the companies involved are to be commended for embarking on this venture. Of course, the companies concerned are going to give priority to their own forest holdings. However, if the experiment is successful or shows merit, I suggest that a national aerial forest fire fighting force, adequately equipped and with highly trained personnel, should be an objective of this new department. Such a force could be of material help to the provinces in attaining an objective of a minimum of forest losses through fire.
Emergency fire danger conditions, as a rule, do not extend through all provinces at the same time, and the cost of equipping and maintaining an efficient aerial fire protection unit is beyond the means of most provinces. The federal government derives large amounts of revenue from our forests. It is only right that they should accept a fair share of the cost of their protection.
There is also the question of insect infestation, an ever present threat to our forests. Efforts toward the control of this threat have thus far been directed toward meeting emergency situations only. As a rule a dangerous situation is allowed to build up and become a real emergency before concerted efforts are made to control the threat. I think prevention, in this case, is the sensible course to pursue and I say that should be the policy of this new department. Of course we all know of the work that has been going on for many, many years in the forest products research laboratory, which has made tremendous contributions in the field of forest products design and production.
I believe that one of the primary fields and the field that offers the greatest promise for this department is the field of forestry silvacultural research. We spend annually many millions of dollars on our agricultural experimental stations across Canada. Of course this is as it should be. However, a comparison between these expenditures and those made in forest research is, to say the least, discouraging to anyone who recognizes the importance of the forest industry to our economy.
I think I can best sum up the need for forestry research with a few quotations from eminent authorities. I am going to read a paragraph from the 1959 annual report of


Resources for the Future, Inc., which is a United States organization. Many of the resource problems in the United States are similar to our problems. This report states:
By 2000 our forest lands-
They are referring of course to United States forest lands.
-might well be producing double their present output. New strains of trees can be selected or bred, just as new varieties of crops have been bred, which will be much more productive than the usual ''wild'' strains. Quicker replanting, to obtain a full stand of trees when natural reseeding methods fail or are slow, will speed up output. All sorts of cultural measures are possible; fertilization of forest lands may well become feasible at some future date. Adequate road systems, continuously maintained, will facilitate not only fire control but also disease and insect control. The possibilities of intensive forestry have scarcely begun to be tapped.
Then again in the final report of the royal commission on Canada's economic prospects reference was made to the same subject. I should like to read a bit of it. Speaking of forestry research, they say:
The logical starting point for such research activities is at the source of the raw material and comes under the heading of "forest management". Stated most simply, it is the object of such management to increase yields in the best and most accessible locations, thus to make possible more intensive operations without impairment of-indeed with improvements to-the preferred stands. The advantages are obvious: reduction of the onerous transportation costs associated with long hauls, and reduction of high labour costs associated with high labour turnover and low productivity. Year-round logging from permanent campsites or town-sites and increased mechanization are the means toward these ends. Control and reduction of forest losses, already referred to, are also a vital part of the management function. Encouragement should be given to tree farming. The farm woodlot generally has the advantages of good location and in addition has a ready labour supply in the farmers themselves. We are not yet at the stage in Canada where we can say simply, "All our forests should be brought under management". The areas involved are too large and much of the area is too remote; the cost burden too high. In order to obtain ample returns for the costs involved, intensive management should be concentrated on the proximate forest areas; in the more remote areas, the emphasis should be on protection with preservation as the primary objective.
There were further references by witnesses before the mines, forests and waters committee in 1958 and Mr. Mahood from British Columbia explained the importance of this type of research. It was also stressed by Professor Love, associate professor of forestry of the University of Toronto at the mines, forests and waters committee meeting last year.
I think this is a most important field of endeavour and one on which the new department should lay the greatest possible emphasis because I think our ability to maintain

our position in world markets in the sale of our forest products will depend to a great extent on forestry research.
Once again may I offer my congratulations to the Prime Minister for the introduction of this motion and assure him that to date I have heard only one person question the advisability of setting up the new department of forestry and that was in the house this afternoon.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Unlike the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Kootenay West, I cannot speak on this resolution with the degree of expert knowledge they possess. I speak in the light of the important place that the forest industry occupies in the economy of my own riding and that of the province of British Columbia as a whole. It was only necessary to hear the delegation that came before the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last year to realize the pre-eminent position the forest industry holds in the economic life of Canada. It is inherent in this resolution that the government recognizes that place and is prepared to take action that will be of benefit to an industry that sustains so much of the economy of the country and that provides a livelihood for so many Canadians.
Because of the large contribution the forest industry makes to the welfare of the Canadian people I was astonished at the extraordinarily indecisive approach of the hon. member for Laurier this afternoon. I could not help feeling that by taking that indecisive point of view and perhaps, in speaking for his party he had failed to recognize to what degree so much of Canada is entirely dependent on a prosperous and developing forest industry.
In British Columbia there is no need to remind any citizen of his debt to the forest industries or of how much he is dependent on them. If anyone has any doubts he need only refer back to the testimony the British Columbia forest industry gave to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters last year. In the final report of the committee, in paragraph 55, there is an extract from the representations made by the forest industry which, in order to emphasize its case for increased federal government action, states four points:
(1)	The production of forest products is, by a wide margin, Canada's largest industry.
(2)	It is an export industry vital to the national welfare which must meet highly competitive conditions in price and quality on the world market.
(3)	As a natural resource industry it is an industry in which government policies have a decisive role.
(4)	It is an industry with a high employment potential, capable of substantial expansion.
79951-0-347J
Department of Forestry
Of those four points there are two in particular which emphasize the importance of the establishment of a department of forestry in the federal government. First, it is a national resource industry in which government policies have a decisive role. This is not just an observation made by somebody who has come in off the street. It is an observation made by some of the most qualified and highly competent men in the forest industry in Canada.
Second, it is an industry with a high employment potential. In view of the debates that have taken place in the House of Commons during this session and in view of the interest which the hon. member for Laurier and others have taken in this subject of unemployment, here is a justification for the federal government's decision that this industry requires and deserves a department of government to create policies and to give leadership for the development and benefit of an industry with a high employment potential. Not only is it now employing one in every twelve Canadians employed in the production of goods, but there is a further potential that can be exploited. This matter is of the greatest consequence to Canada at the present time. The information I am using is available in the minutes of the mines, forests and waters committee of last year. All of it is available to members of the House of Commons. But my own particular interest lies in the fact that of the forest production in my own riding, and in so many ridings surrounding it, 70 to 75 per cent of it goes into the export market, very largely to the United States. This is a very high proportion of the production of any single industry to be going into the export market and it is a very high proportion of our people who are dependent on the health of our export position for their livelihood. Therefore, when the Prime Minister in his opening remarks mentioned the emphasis of the committee on the requirement for a marketing section, I realize what value could be derived from the creation of this department by the section of the country which I represent and where the export market is of such immense value to an industry that is sustaining a large proportion of the population.
It was also impressive to me to recall that in the testimony before the committee on mines, forests and waters last year submissions of the British Columbia forest industry indicated that Canada's share of the export market had been declining. They pointed out that while the physical volume of sales, particularly in pulp and paper, have been increasing and that the physical volume of

Private Bills
sales proportionately in lumber have been increasing, our percentage share of the available market had decreased.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the house to proceed with the consideration of private and public bills in pursuance of section 3 of standing order 15.



PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, the house will now proceed to the consideration of private and public bills, the former having precedence, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15.


Mr. McCleave:: I think there is agreement among the parties that second reading be given to certain divorce bills, with the exception of one standing for second reading on which there has been an amendment, and that the house then would be agreeable to resuming the debate on this resolution. The only point that arises-and I have just found out about it-is that it is possible that the debate on the resolution will conclude before six o'clock and that the Minister of Transport would not be ready to proceed with his estimates until eight o'clock, so that it may be necessary to return to divorce bills.


Mr. Churchill:: He will be ready.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the house give its consent to the proposed proceedings which are to deal only in this appointed hour with the divorce bills standing for second reading, excluding Bill No. SD-320? Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: I move that the bills all be considered en bloc. I refer to order No. 434 to No. 447 inclusive.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that all the said bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-456, for the relief of Raymond Faucher.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-457, for the relief of Alexander Bleziotis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-458, for the relief of Ralph Gatis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-459, for the relief of Diana Elizabeth Wilson Ronalds.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-460, for the relief of Parthenope Eftichidou Economou.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-461, for the relief of John Edward Anderson.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-462, for the relief of Claire Viger Marcil.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-463, for the relief of Denise Claire Lescarbeau Sarroino.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-464, for the relief of Carolyn Louise Atwood Leslie.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-465, for the relief of Sophia Kaloutsky Kachur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-466, for the relief of Rosaire Armand Falardeau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-467, for the relief of Philippa Osier Day.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-468, for the relief of Mary Rebecca Pittman Lawrence.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-469, for the relief of Frances Cohen Salsky.-Mr. McCleave.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the following resolution-Mr. Diefenbaker-Mr. Rea in the chair:
That it is expedient to present a bill to constitute a department of forestry which shall be presided over by a minister of forestry to be appointed under the Great Seal of Canada, to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council and the necessary officers, clerks and employees in the manner authorized by law, and to provide for the transfer of certain officers and employees of the Departments of Agriculture and of Northern Affairs and National Resources to the new department; that it is also expedient to bring in a consequential amendment to the Salaries Act to provide a salary for the minister.
Donald Methuen Fleming: To
resume the comments I was making, may I point out that the percentage of the Canadian share of the world market has been declining despite the increase in the physical volume of exports, and that this decline has been taking place as world markets have been increasing. We are losing our position, not through a decline in the volume of exports but through a decline in the percentage of the market we have retained.
If such a situation as this exists, and if measures are to be found to assist the industry in Canada to overcome the present difficulties, then a department of government charged with responsibility in this connection seems to me to be the logical and best method of achieving the result desired. I gather that over the years, beyond my experience in this house, requests for government intervention have been made, requests for leadership in the adoption of policies which would provide the Canadian forest industry with an ever-increasing opportunity of expansion and an ever increasing opportunity to make greater employment available so that these greater opportunities might contribute to the general economic welfare of the country.

The contributions made by, among others, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for Kootenay West fully recognize the value of the step which the government proposes to take. This is something which has long been needed. If this department is created, if there is imaginative leadership, and if it can bring about the co-ordination of the best work that is being done in the provinces and in industry to contribute to the general welfare of the forest industries of Canada, the benefits which will finally accrue to the people of Canada will be beyond measure.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, there are only two measures which have been introduced by the government this session which in my opinion have been completely acceptable. One is the measure by which they managed to reach agreement to bring grants to the universities of Quebec, and the other is this present measure. I approve of them both from the party and from a personal point of view.
My constituency probably creates more revenue from forestry than any in Canada since from its watershed come products enough to keep 11 pulp and paper mills going, almost all of whose production goes to the United States market. I know from my own experience of forestry that the industry has looked forward for a long while to a move of this kind in the hope that it may lead to a consolidation and invigoration of our policies in this field.
The qualification mentioned by the previous speaker with regard to imaginative leadership raises one of the most important questions. We all know that cabinet ministers vary in the impact that they make, and I can only appeal to the Prime Minister, since it is within his province to lead in making the selection, that he should give this new department to a minister who can make a real impact upon the industry and upon the country as a whole, including the trade side, the marketing side, the research work and the relationship with the provincial authorities. We need a diplomat; we need a hard driver; we need someone who knows something about the industry, or, if he does not, a man who can get on top of the job in a short time.
I think this is probably going to be one of the fundamental departments in the next decade. If hon. members will look at the report of the royal commission on Canada's production prospects, or at other publications or books on the Canadian economy, they will see that the fundamental factor in our whole future is the forest industry. For that reason I think the government is to be commended on the move it proposes.
Department of Forestry
I do not want to go on any further into the nature of the bill. I will just say this; that in so far as the administration of the department is concerned I suggest to the minister, whoever takes over this portfolio, that he will very quickly need to establish at the head of his civil service a number of young, aggressive people. I say this in no criticism of the members of the present forestry branch, but in general they are not too far away from retirement in so far as both the forestry branch and the forest products laboratory are concerned. I hope this will be one of the young and interesting departments to be in, and I hope that some one will go out and recruit staff if necessary outside the present service to make sure that we have a young, go-ahead group at the head of affairs.
I should also like to suggest that the sooner this department is set up the better, in view of the conservation conference we are holding next year. I think that conference will give the first opportunity for us to judge what the calibre of this department is going to be and what conception this government has of its operations, because if the conference is to be as wide-ranging as has been suggested by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, then the federal department must play a very large part. That conference, it seems to me, will be a proving ground, and I hope by the time it meets next year we shall have a vigorous and, I hope, a young minister in charge of the department and that there will be a relatively new and dedicated civil service leadership.
We are very happy about the bill, and we hope it presages great things for the forest industry in Canada.


Edwin William Brunsden: Those of us who live on the Alberta prairies are supposed to know very little about trees, but we do know that if we wish to raise a tree on the prairie we have to carry water to it. Those of us who have been here since 1958 as new members have gained some appreciation of the importance of the timber industry in Canada through our association with hon. members from other provinces, and on that basis it seems to me that the introduction of this resolution is most commendable and that the Prime Minister is to be congratulated.
It is not my intention to take the time of the committee except to express one thought -that trees and water, as I indicated in my introductory remarks, are very closely related. We who live in Alberta know something about the east slope of the Rockies and the waters that come from that east slope. We know of the inter-relationship between forestry and irrigation, and between domestic

Department of Forestry water supplies and power development; we know of the problems of irrigation extension, which go back to water, and I would hope that in the next few years-not initially, perhaps, but in the next few years-there may be a widening of the work of the committee of the house in which the new minister will be particularly interested until it becomes what I might term a conservation committee rather than a forestry committee. Although I admit the predominant position of forestry, and the importance of the industry, I feel there could be interrelated in this department the questions of land use, water development, power development, irrigation extension, and so on.
The hon. member for Laurier this afternoon expressed criticism of this resolution. The hon. gentleman expressed the view that he was for it and that he was against it. As a signature tune he concluded on the note that this could be worked into the Department of Agriculture.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I suggested that it could be worked into the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys.


Edwin William Brunsden: I understood the hon. member to say something about agriculture. In any event let me say this. This nation is emerging as one of the leading powers of the world. Our greatest assets are our national resources and our people. It seems to me that a department without the pressures of executive work each day, considering dispassionately the development and expansion of our resources including our forests and waters and taking into account the growth of our populous areas will have a tremendous task before it.
My only thought in rising was to commend the government for introducing this resolution. I heartily endorse it. On behalf of those who come from the prairie provinces I express the hope that the field of service of this department may widen in the very near future.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, politics is a weird and wonderful thing. This has been demonstrated in the past few weeks in the provincial elections held in Saskatchewan, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Politics bears some relationship to the last heavyweight championship bout in that you can never tell what is going to happen. You may be elected once or many times.
I am very happy to be a member of this committee today and present in this chamber to witness the introduction of this resolution to establish a department of forestry. This is one of the happiest days I have had during the 27 years in which I have been an elected

member. I say that as one coming from British Columbia, to the economy of which province forestry means a great deal and where vast difficulties are being faced. I believe had a department been established heretofore some of those difficulties might have been averted.
I have spent 20 years in British Columbia and could speak at considerable length on this subject but I will not do so. In the operation of the department many difficulties will be encountered with respect to jurisdiction, jurisprudence and administration.
I have severely criticized this government in many fields but this resolution in my opinion represents one of the finest forward steps ever taken by a federal government. I welcome the establishment of this new department and wish it every success.


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my hearty approval of the resolution before the committee at this time. I do not propose to speak in detail because many hon. members have already done so and, frankly, I took advantage of the throne speech debate earlier this year to discuss in detail and substance the question of forestry.
It is with a certain amount of regret that I draw to the attention of the committee the fact that so few hon. members from the provinces of Quebec and Ontario have participated in this debate. With so many hon. members from the west coast addressing themselves to this question the impression could be created that this department will serve primarily, if not solely, the needs and requirements of the forest industry of British Columbia. Nothing could be further from the truth. This industry is first in terms of employment in the whole of our national economy. It represents the greatest volume of export dollars to the nation and has for many years. The well being of forestry generally depends on complete co-operation and understanding between all levels of government and certainly requires, on the federal level, a department which can undertake many programs such as those of a long range scientific research nature which cannot be undertaken by the industry or the provinces at this time.
In stating the importance of this industry to the nations economy I wish to impress most strongly upon hon. members that, while the contribution of the forests to the economy of British Columbia is greater in percentage terms than the contribution our forests make to the economy of the other provinces, it nevertheless represents the greatest earning and employment factor in the economies of Ontario and Quebec as well.

The need for this department is amply demonstrated by the dependence of our lumber markets today on exports to the United States. Many Canadians are not aware of the standards now established by our neighbour to the south with respect to federal housing authority requirements in relation to the standardization of lumber. No agency exists today in Canada which can, in a co-operative way, establish in the Canadian industry national standards which will meet those demanded by our great southern neighbour. Should anything happen to that export potential Canada will dearly suffer.
I was somewhat appalled to hear the distinguished hon. member for Laurier suggest that the forest industry, which is Canada's greatest single employer and export dollar earner, should be dependent upon a federal department such as mines and technical surveys. In saying this I am not in any way being critical of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys. For the last three sessions I have had the honour to serve on the committee of mines, forests and waters along with many of my colleagues from British Columbia. It is a self-evident fact that the hon. member for Laurier did not serve on this committee for had he, he would not overlook so many basic requirements of the forestry industry.
It is a fact that forestry operations are far different from mining operations. In the one case you have Canada's greatest recurring, renewable resource. The forests, if forestry is properly practised, with proper scientific guidance, the resource will renew itself. With mining you have an intrinsically different problem. In mining you are extracting a depreciating resource. The basic, fundamental thinking in the operation of the mines department is completely and utterly divorced from the thinking required for the function of a properly constituted forestry department.
I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on this most worth while measure. I will further say that so far as the economy of this dominion of ours is concerned, if during the term of office of this government no other measure is brought forward, this measure alone will justify the accolade and the support for years to come of the people of Canada.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I, too, am very pleased and wish to congratulate the government upon the setting up of this forestry department. However, I should like to express a fear that I have. I hope that this department will do more for forestry than the mines branch has done for mining. If it does not, I think probably we should leave it the way it is.
Department of Forestry
The forest industry is different from other industries. Hon. members from the west have raised one problem. We in the east have a different problem entirely. We are not so concerned with the renewal of our forests. I keep thinking of the years that I spent in that industry where we were continually told how much reforestation was being done by the companies that were doing the reforestation. Yet as you went through the country you were continually faced with the problem of mills closing down and mills with only a life span of another five or ten years, and no more trees to replace those that had been cut down.
I was very surprised in negotiating with management of particular companies in the white pine industry to find out during the negotiations that they were not particularly interested even in continuing their operations at that time because they said that in another five years they would no longer be operating their mill anyway; that their limits were completely exhausted. I, being naive, as the Canadian people are in many instances, suggested that it only meant starting back where they had originally cut on the old part of their limits. I said that since they had been on the limits for 40 or 50 years the trees in the old areas would have grown up and be ready for cutting. I was informed that it would be 90 or 100 years before there were any trees of commercial value on those limits.
Therefore, I have some doubts when I hear people in this house tell us that reforestation has taken place, or reforestation is being done at a satisfactory rate. That may be true in some sections of the industry but it is certainly not true in the Ottawa valley and in the upper Ottawa. I keep thinking of the Swedish scientist who came out here many years ago. He looked at the white pine industry in the Ottawa valley. He travelled throughout the valley and inspected the industry. When he returned to Sweden he told his people that there was no point in their continuing their lumbering operations; there was no point in their continuing to build toward the future in the lumbering field and in the field of wood products because in Canada we had enough timber to supply the needs of the world in perpetuity.
Well, Mr. Chairman, on the Ontario side of the Ottawa river at the present time you can count the white pine trees growing naturally in the Ottawa valley. Any reforestation that has taken place has been done in the main in areas where one would not expect to see any reforestation at all. The Ottawa valley is denuded completely of the white pine industry which gave to Ontario and to all of Canada the early impetus and

Department of Forestry assisted in the growth that has taken place in this area. The industries that are now in existence are not cutting white pine logs; they are operating mostly in provincial parks or in Quebec Where the rate of cut has not been as great as it has been on the Ontario side of the river.
This department can assist in setting up reforestation. It is all well and good to say that regeneration takes place naturally. These things can be accepted but when you go out into the forests you find that many of the species which are supposed to regenerate themselves do not do so. In Ontario, and particularly in northern Ontario, you can check this at any time. You will fly over vast areas, mile after mile after mile, where there is no green foliage at all and where a tree does not exist.
We shall have to give consideration to the policies which have been in vogue in the last 50 years in relation to our forestry industry. I wish to congratulate the Prime Minister on making this division in the department and setting up this new forestry branch because it has a role to play in Ontario as it has in other parts of Canada. It has a role to play which can only be played if we get started and do something to solve the problems connected with forestry.
In the main, in northern Ontario no reforestation is taking place. Some of the companies do spasmodic replanting, but this is only of recent date. So far as I know, even a company the size of Abitibi does such little reforestation that you can count on your fingers all the trees that they planted 20 years ago. I know of only one small piece of reforestation on the Abitibi limits. There may be more; I may be wrong in saying there are not. To my knowledge the only reforestation is taking place behind a small mill of Abitibi. There is an island behind the mill and 40 or 50 years ago reforestation was practised there as a hobby, and a number of trees of fairly good size are growing, and some are ready for cutting. In the main, mile after mile after mile of the area of Abitibi, an area as large as the British isles, is in this position.
For years and years they cut the trees and did no worrying about the future generations who were to depend on those areas. Over 50 years ago, and probably a few years before that, when the early lumbering industry, the early sawmills and loggers, went into Timiskaming, the area was covered with white pine, and beautiful stands of timber they were. Because this was a profitable enterprise, because it had something that the west did not, you could go into northern Ontario and homestead for the first years. You cut the trees, you sold the lumber off the land,


you sold the pulpwood, and you as a homesteader were able to make a living in those areas by utilizing the trees in that way. Many homesteaders did that. They cut all through northern Ontario; they cut over land that had been logged by large logging operators previously. They cut the lumber and they cut the pulpwood that had been left and they were able to open up the land and to clear a great deal of the area.
This operation was carried out in years gone by, especially north of Cochrane and up through the great clay belt of that area. It was found afterwards that much of the land that had been cleared, after they had taken off the first few crops, was not suitable for agriculture and should not have been turned into agricultural land. Now areas such as these lie abandoned. No trees are growing on them except tag alders and willows. It has no commercial value and no value as agricultural land. In a small way the Ontario government has gone into that area and established a survey group to ascertain what should be done with the land. It would seem to me that they will probably finally decide to put it back into forest by planting the type of trees that were originally there and that we will grow trees like we grow grain and other products. At the end of the year we will know how much we have for the years to come and how much reforestation must be done to take care of the growing markets we will have.
Only last week end we had a flash flood in Timiskaming. I am informed that creeks and farm lands were flooded where there is never any water except in the spring. Some of these little creeks, which are completely dry all summer and have hay growing in them that is used for pasture purposes, had seven to eight feet of water in them. I understand that the water crossed the road in front of my house and took out a six foot culvert. It cut a 20-foot path through the roadway and carried a steel culvert, not corrugated iron, over a wire fence and down the creek. Flash floods of this type usually do not bother us. I do not remember such flood conditions even in the spring.
This department is going to have to give consideration to the problems that have been caused by the elimination of the forests. In lake Timiskaming and the Ottawa river not only in my area but right outside the parliament buildings we are continually having flood problems and later in the year there is not enough water power to operate our industrial and hydro installations. It seems to me that one thing this department must concern itself with is reforestation in order

to protect the watersheds because we depend on the water being available for commercial, hydro and pleasure uses.
The provincial governments have done something along this line, as have the municipalities, but so far the federal government has done very little. I was surprised to find there is a survey team in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. I had the opportunity of flying to the mari-times with one of the officials and he told me about the work that is being done in the maritimes with respect to assessing the potentialities of the watersheds in that area. I think the Canadian people generally should be told that this service is available and it is time that people like those I represent in northern Ontario found out what the potentiality is, what reforestation is necessary to protect the watersheds and how we can overcome some of the problems we have created for ourselves by eliminating forests completely, particularly in those areas where we have no trees and have not been able to make any use of the land.
Reforestation in order to serve the purpose will have to be planned to meet the needs of the particular area. I am sure that these needs will be assessed and leadership will be given by this department. In my opinion the reforestation that has taken place on the provincial level has been spasmodic. I have seen better reforestation that has been done by some of the old municipalities that decided 20, 30 or 40 years ago to plant trees on land that had been repossessed for non-payment of taxes. Around Kemptville and in Dufferin, Wellington and other communities you can see much better reforestation programs than anywhere in northern Ontario where it is natural for the people to assume that reforestation is an industry and not just a pastime.
I am told that reforestation will pay off if governments go into it and that there are municipalities adjacent to New York where the citizens live free of taxes because of the revenue received through reforestation done on a continuous basis over the years. I think the Canadian people want to leave their children, not with the heritage in the forest industry that was left to us but with the same situation that prevailed when our grandfathers and great-grandfathers came to this country. The forests are a renewable resource. They are not like mines where the natural resource is taken out of the ground and can never be replaced. If we use common sense we can have more trees and a bigger forest industry in Canada in the future than we have today.
I think this department will give great leadership with respect to a problem that
Department of Forestry also plagues us in relationship to pollution and other ills suffered, not only because of waste dumped into waters by sawmills and paper companies but other pollution. I think this matter will certainly have some relationship to the department of forestry if it is going to be successful and fulfil the needs of the Canadian people.
In setting up the department I hope the government also has in mind the problem of research into the forest industry and the marketing problem. I have represented for a number of years workers in the lumber industry and I am well aware of the problems facing the workers and those that face the industry with relation to markets over which they have no control. We in Canada have a limited opportunity to expand our markets beyond those that are traditional. When our traditional markets in England and on the continent were affected by stiff competition from Russia we were forced to send our products to eastern Canada and to the south. They entered markets that were highly competitive and in many cases we were not able to compete. We also found great difficulty when western producers undertook a crash program whereby they shipped lumber billed to Chapleau, for example, and other points in northern Ontario without any sales having been made. They shipped this lumber in bankrupt lots and it had to be cleared out at any price to meet the demurrage costs at the distribution point. Eastern producers had to compete with this bankrupt stock and this in turn created havoc in our traditional markets in eastern Canada.
The western producers are not to be blamed to any extent because they were faced with a difficult problem in the face of imports from Japan and other countries that were competing on a basis that we could not meet. They had the ability and the research knowledge to develop veneers 10 to 20 times as effective as ours. They had the methods and the machinery to cut veneers 10 to 20 times as thin as ours. They were able to import not only from other countries but from Canada the logs they required, particularly birdseye maple, and to return the veneers to Canada at a price with which our producers were not able to complete.
Therefore I hope the department will give serious consideration to doing research on an industry-wide basis so that all segments of the industry will be able to take advantage of the latest developments in technology. Many of our small mills and plants are not able to compete because of the advances in technology today and they are going to have to have assistance to modernize their mills

Department of Forestry and to develop procedures and methods of production which they are not now capable of undertaking.
In closing, I should like to point out that many of our mills are operating at a very low rate of efficiency. They are operating on an efficiency of 35 per cent to 40 per cent. These mills are in competition with mills in countries like Sweden and Norway which are operating on an efficiency of 80 per cent or 90 per cent. While many of our mills are only taking the choice cuts from sawmill logs and the choice grades of lumber, the mills in these other countries are bringing in the whole tree and processing everything but the leaves. We are operating in a manner that leaves waste wood in the forest and have not been taking full advantage of the abundant growth we have had in this natural resource.
I believe this is a very opportune time for this government to set up the new department. I feel that a great deal of co-operation can be obtained from labour, from management and from conservationists throughout the country to the end that every year Canada will become richer in these various products and our forest industry will contribute more and more to our general economy.


Mr. Murphy:: I wish to make a few observations on this resolution, inasmuch as I happened to have the honour of chairing the committee which brought in the report about which we have heard so much today. We have heard representations from many hon. members of that particular committee who contributed a great deal to the preparation of the final report and who knew a great deal more about the problems of the forest industry than the chairman. I was very pleased today to hear the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay West and others in his party who are supporting this resolution. I am going to have something to say before I close about the remarks made by one of the Liberal speakers who did not happen to be a member of that committee.
I do appreciate-and I am sure the members who were on that committee and who contributed so much to the final report must be gratified-the commendation that has been given the work of this particular committee. I do not recall, during my experience in this house even as an opposition member, when a resolution received so much commendation on such a high level. It is not often that the setting up of a new department of government receives the support that this move has received today. It does involve the necessary expenditures connected with a new department and its staff.
I believe, that as chairman of that particular committee I am expressing the opinion

of every member of the committee when I commend the government for taking action so quickly, less than eight months after the report was submitted. I am sure that the reaction throughout the country will be most favourable to the government because of the importance of the forest industry to the economy of Canada. I should like to say to hon. members who were not members of that committee that all they need to do to become impressed with the work of the committee is, for instance, to read the list of witnesses who appeared before the committee. It is no wonder that those who were members of the committee spoke so effectively. We did not take one glance at the problems of the forest industry. We had some 40 or 50 representations made to the committee and the various witnesses were given all the time they required to make those representations. In the main, they were all sound and very effective.
I do not intend to repeat what has been said today by other speakers on this resolution. Needless to say, this is one of the most important industries in the Dominion of Canada, and I think it will continue to be so in spite of the increased demand for our oil and gas. It is a renewable industry. It is not like mining. In 1958 the total exports of wood products were close to $1.5 billion or about 29.36 per cent of our exports in that year. The thing that amazed me was that the previous government, with all their administrative staffs of technicians and advisers, did not realize the importance of the forest industry to this country. The industry was allowed to wobble along like a lame duck for many years without proper guidance. In my opinion the press of this country will react favourably to the establishment of a forestry department because of the importance of this industry. There are other matters which I believe could be incorporated within this department, but I will not deal with those at the moment.
As I said a moment ago, I do not intend to repeat what was said earlier. Many of the briefs presented to the committee came from British Columbia because the forest industry is of great importance to that particular province. We did receive some representations from Quebec and Ontario as well as other parts of Canada. I should like now to quote from page 1175 of the committee report where it states:
Your committee strongly recommends consideration of steps which would widen the scope of the forestry branch, increasing its status in such a way that a deputy minister would be in direct charge. The fact that such a status, comparable to that of a department does not exist now reflects a lack of appreciation of the importance of the forest industries to Canada, in the past, now, and in the future.

I suggest that is a very important conclusion to be drawn by any committee. When we made this report we made it in the way we thought it should be made. We were given an assignment and this is the report that was tabled in this house. The report contains other recommendations to which I could refer, but I shall not do so at this time.
I must say, in conclusion, that this particular industry is so important to our economy, and will continue to be so important that I am highly appreciative of the government's move to establish a separate administration to take care of the forest industry in this country. As I recall, there were 27 Conservatives on that committee, seven Liberals and one C.C.F. The C.C.F. member made an excellent contribution without any doubt. When we made our report it was unanimously adopted. In view of the fact that many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee suggested that a new department of forestry should be established, and in view of the fact that every member of the committee wanted the forestry branch to have a higher status, I was amazed this afternoon to hear a most distinguished Liberal member, one who is recognized all over this country-I refer to the hon. member for Laurier-


Mr. Hodgson:: Oh, he does not know anything about the lumber business or about forestry either.


Joseph Warner Murphy: He did not happen to be on our committee, unfortunately, although I would have welcomed him. However, without any hesitation he seems to disagree with the Liberals on the committee. We had a good representation of Liberals on that committee and they were unanimous in the report. I wonder where the logic comes in when the hon. member for Laurier seems to hesitate about the need for or the requirements of this new department. Just because the previous government, of which he was a member, did not see fit to have a new department or even to have a deputy minister in charge of this important industry is no reason why today he could not revise his thinking and at least agree with the members of his own party on that particular matter.


The Deputy Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Edward Rea: Shall I report the resolution?


Lionel Chevrier: Is the Prime Minister going to reply to some of the questions?
Supply-Transport


John George Diefenbaker: I really see nothing to reply to, except to thank hon. members for the contributions they have made. It has been a helpful discussion which has been marked by contributions by hon. members who knew what they were talking about from personal experience. They placed their views before the committee and gave it the benefit of them. As to the hon. member for Laurier, he has asked for an opportunity of seeing the bill. After the bill had been seen and, when we come to second reading, I think there may be a discussion on these matters that have arisen.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the Prime Minister permit a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Surely.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the Prime Minister tell us whether the new department will take over all of the forestry and forest products activities now under the other departments of government?


John George Diefenbaker: I think that question had better be answered in the manner in which the hon. gentleman approached the whole situation. He said, "I want to see the bill". When he sees the bill, he will have an answer to all the questions he has raised.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Diefenbaker thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-82, to constitute a department of forestry.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the consent given earlier today the house will now resolve itself into committee of supply.

House again in committee of supply, Mr. Rea in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
555. Departmental administration-further amount required, $68,350.
Charles Edward Rea: This item will be found on page 8 of the supplementary estimates for 1960-61, the details on page 19.


Mr. Marlin (Timmins):: It appears that I am always able to get the floor about five minutes prior to the time for adjournment. With that consideration in mind, Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I could call it six o'clock.
The Depuiy Chairman: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

Supply-Transport AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 8 p.m.


Murdo William Martin: When the committee rose last night I was just warming up in my description of the mess we had got ourselves into on a national basis with regard to our transportation, a position where we are subsidizing our railways in almost every way possible while at the same time subsidizing transport on our highway.
A further point we must take into consideration is the terrific loss of life we experience on our railroad crossings. I realize that efforts have been made to overcome this danger, particularly in the past number of years, and that millions of dollars have been spent recently in an effort to eliminate some of the hazards which present themselves in connection with railroad crossings over our highways. Unfortunately as fast as we eliminate some of these dangerous crossings our efforts are offset by the increase in road traffic and we find that the situation is no better than it was in spite of the millions of dollars which have been spent.
Another thing we have to take into account is the terrific loss of life caused by the presence of big transports on our highways cluttering our roads. Any motorist who has had the experience of driving over roads where these big boxcars block the traffic, travelling at high speeds downhill and at very slow speeds uphill, will understand what I have in mind. A frustrated driver in a desperate effort to get by takes a chance, pulls out and another fatal accident occurs. This is no criticism of the drivers of the transports because I think that but for the ability and courtesy of transport drivers in general the toll of human life would be greater than it is. However, the present situation emphasizes the fact that our highways are no place for boxcars.
Today we see another situation developing. The railway companies are getting into this field of transport. They are buying out the transport companies and then they find themselves in the fortunate position of being able to make a profit on their road operations and obtain a subsidy with respect to their railroads. As I pointed out the other day, the only reason why they can make a profit on their transport undertakings is because we are subsidizing transport also by building the roads for them.
It is no use hon. members who support the government pointing out, as they have done before, what a wonderful example of private enterprise the C.P.R. represents and comparing it favourably with the C.N.R. Looking back at the history we find that the story
[The Deputy Chairman.]
does not stand up to examination because the Canadian taxpayers have subsidized the C.P.R. in the way of grants, land grants and so on far more than they have subsidized the C.N.R.
What we need in this country, and what we need more urgently every day is an overall transport policy, something we have not had up to the present time. We must have some leadership from the federal government in order that we may be able to make the best use of our railways and our air and road services.
Today we find that men are being laid off by the railways by the thousand after having 30 or 35 years of experience. They have no training which would fit them for any other job but despite this they are just being turned out on the labour market. Many of these men are in no position to afford to train themselves for other jobs because they have to look after families and cannot spare the money necessary to train themselves to take up other occupations. They find that after 20, 25 or 30 years of service there is no more use for their skills and they have no qualifications to take other jobs.
We have proof in the past that the government can do a job. At the end of the last war hundreds of thousands of ex-servicemen were trained to fit themselves into society on their return from the services. But hon. members must realize that some provision was made for the families of these men, if they had families, so they themselves could obtain the training which was necessary before they could become re-adapted to the needs of society. The result was that not only did they benefit by equipping themselves with new skills but the country as a whole benefited by the training they had received.
I suggest that the time has come when the government should take a close look to determine whether it should not take over both the transcontinental railroads and whether it might not be in the interest of all concerned for them to find out in which areas it is most economical to use rail and which areas it might be more successful and more economical to tear up those tracks and turn them into transport roads, thus taking the heavy transport vehicles off our highways. There is one thing that should be kept in mind: if the government should begin such a program it must accept its responsibility for training people to make the necessary change, and avoid the dislodgement which is occurring today across the country from coast to coast. Let us think for one moment of the savings which could be made in connection with the upkeep and maintenance of our highways once

these big transports have been taken off the road and put on a road which they maintain and look after themselves.
I recall talking not too long ago to an old foreman from the town of Foleyet which at one time was a railway centre of considerable importance. As time went on and automation took over the job this man had was discontinued, but he had enough seniority; he was able to bump into another job. He bumped right up to yard foreman, and then they abolished the yard, and after 32 years he was turned out on the street with a very small pittance of a pension. After 32 years he was considered of no use in the line of work which he had carried on all his life.
If this over-all transport policy is undertaken and put into effect it may not mean the dislodgement that some people fear it would mean. The car shops could be converted into transport garages. The express and freight people could transfer to handling the freight and express now handled by the railways. There would be no need for a change in the personnel we have in this field. This is something the government should take into consideration. It is time for bold leadership in this field. The government should take the lead in studying this field and implementing policies that would lead to greater efficiency and economies. The government could create order out of the chaos that now exists. Perhaps most important of all it could give those employed in this field some idea of what is ahead and not leave them waiting as they are now from day to day to see when the axe is going to fall.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. Broome:: Oh, no, not again. Lay off, old boy.


Hazen Robert Argue: I see that the hon. member for Vancouver South is interrupting. I thought I would have had the pleasure of hearing from him at this time. I heard it rumoured that his name was on the list. Since it is not, I am forced to speak on this item because my remarks would probably be out of order on a detailed item.
I do not intend to cover the ground I covered last night but I wish to elaborate on what I said last evening.
For all practical purposes the railway companies have become a law unto themselves in their operations and in their abandonment and curtailment of essential services. I said last night that the board of transport commissioners have shut their eyes to the needs of the public and are passing in a wholesale manner the applications of the railways for reductions of service. Our railway facilities
Supply-Transport
are in great danger of being torn down by the very people who are managing the companies. It is a shame that thousands of railway employees are being summarily dismissed after 25 or 30 years of service with no visible means of support. The minister may not consider this a serious matter. I do not think he does. The hon. gentleman has done nothing to relieve the situation. I feel it is a blot on the record of our country that thousands of employees are being put out on the street after a lifetime of service in their occupations.
We have asked the government to take action but the minister pleads that he is powerless, that the management of the C.N.R. is beyond his control or influence. The minister alleges that he has consideration for the hardship that results to these employees but states that after having discussed the question with the C.N.R. nothing has happened. The hon. gentleman alleges, too, that the C.N.R. management is sympathetic to the situation of these employees. They have a strange way of showing sympathy. I think the management has one object in mind and that is to curtail services, bring about so-called modernization as rapidly as possible and to look solely at the balance sheet of the company without any thought whatever to the welfare and suffering of the people who worked for the railway company.
If the minister did not agree with the policy he would change the management of the C.N.R. If the minister disagrees with the policy that is what should be done. The minister, of course, agrees with the policy. The president of the C.P.R., the president of the C.N.R. and the minister are co-operating in what is taking place.
Earlier this day we took steps to continue the freeze on freight rates. This is interference with the railways and the way in which they receive part of their revenue. The government has gone so far in its interference with the railway companies that it has announced a policy to the effect that there will be no further increases in freight rates pending the report of the royal commission. When it comes to a question of freight rates the government interferes directly but when it comes to the welfare of the employees the government refuses to interfere and allows this deplorable condition to continue. The minister and the government take a cruel and callous attitude toward the employees of the railway companies.
I suggest to the minister that for a period of time there should be a freeze in the staff of the railways. There should be a halt to the dismissals now taking place. I believe there are good arguments for putting this forward at this time. We have decided as

Supply-Transport
a parliament that there shall be a freeze on freight rates pending the report of the royal commission inquiring into this question. I suggest there is need now for a royal commission to inquire into the operations of the railway companies as they affect the livelihood and welfare of their employees. The present royal commission investigating freight rates could be reconstituted on completion of its task and be instructed to inquire into the operations of the railway companies as they affect their employees and the public services. We are witnessing wholesale dismissals of employees and a sharp curtailment of services. The public have a right to a full inquiry into what is being done.
Rumour has had it-and the rumour has found its way into the public press-that there is likely to be a curtailment in the present transcontinental passenger service of the two major railways. This kind of rumour going around further demoralizes the employees. This kind of rumour does nothing to build passenger confidence in those railway services. If the railway companies of this country had embarked on a deliberate policy of curtailing and discontinuing further passenger service in this country, then they would have been following their policy very successfully in recent years because apparently this must be what is in their minds when they talk of the discontinuance of those main transcontinental passenger runs.
With all these problems it is important that a halt be called to any further curtailment of service and any further dismissal of employees. In the light of the current unemployment situation in Canada I say it is of no help to our nation to dismiss countless employees of railway companies merely to have them added to the unemployed rolls in our nation. Until such time as this whole situation is clarified I feel that such a freeze in employment levels on the railways is a just thing. I would ask the minister to give consideration to this proposal; I would ask him to make some comment on it and say whether the government would consider the suggestions that I have put forward, to consider a royal commission or some other appropriate study into the policy being followed by the railway companies in this country with particular emphasis on the need to maintain essential railway services for the public and to protect the welfare of company employees.
With respect to a freeze as far as the present personnel of the railways is concerned, I do not have in mind an arbitrary rule that would force the railway companies to maintain their employment levels at the current rate. Such an order, in my opinion, should allow for normal retirement of employees and,

therefore, for a normal or a regular reduction in staff at this rate if this seems desirable from the standpoint of the railway companies. This would be a brake on the wholesale dismissal of employees.
Every few days members of parliament get communications from sections of railway workers across this country, telegraph operators, workers in the car shops, whether they be in Winnipeg, Montreal, London or in some other part of the nation, complaining that their jobs are in jeopardy, that there have been wholesale dismissals and that they are in a very uncertain state of employment because they do not know from one day to the next when their jobs may end. I ask the minister to make some further comment on this question and to hold out, if he can, some hope to the railway employees of this country that these wholesale dismissals will not be continued, and that the type of agreement which has given some stability of employment to the firemen for a period of time may be considered for other sections of railway employees.
Some members may argue that what I am saying would increase or maintain the cost of railway operations, therefore it is a disservice to the users. I do not think we need to play one off against the other. Parliament has acted to protect the public against further increases in freight rates at this time. I think that parliamentary action to protect employees who have spent their lives working for those companies would be an appropriate parallel action at this time.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman, when the committee was discussing this vote on Friday, June 10, I spoke of the injury which had been inflicted on my home town of Cornwall through the closing of the Cornwall canal, and the hon. member for Laurier immediately rose to reply to me and directed his reply almost entirely to the question of pollution. His reply contained a number of errors and I feel I must rise again to offer my reply to him. He cited certain legislation and certain treaties which I have subsequently taken a hard, long look at, and I wish to inform the committee at the outset that it is not for any personal reason that I rise on this occasion but because, as I shall presently show, expenditures of large sums of money without any justification in either substance or law were made at that time.
First, let me refer to another matter which I should like to correct. Last night the minister commented, I believe, that the report of January, 1951, of the St. Lawrence seaway authority on the economic prospects was laid before the house by Mr. Howe. I can find no evidence of that report having been

made public. In fact, Mr. T. M. Bell filed a notice of motion for the production of this report on June 2, 1954, and as far as I can determine, that was refused.
To get back to the other matter of legislation, may I call the attention of the committee to two sentences in the speech by the hon. member for Laurier. He said, and I quote from page 4785 of Hansard of June 10:
In 1951 an application was made by the government of Canada and the government of the United States to the international joint commission for the development of power in the international section at Cornwall. At that time the Canadian government agreed to build all the canals on the Canadian side of the line.
Now those applications to the international joint commission were not made in 1951; they were made on June 30, 1952. It is important to get that date correct. The hon. member for Laurier should remember it quite well. He was the minister of transport at that time, and he went down to Washington in order to be present at the signing of that application and also at the signing of the note of the Canadian government by the Canadian ambassador to the United'States, Mr. Hume Wrong, to the United States government on the very same day.


Charles Edward Rea: I wonder whether we might have a little quiet in the committee so that hon. members will be able to hear the hon. member who is speaking.


Grant Campbell: The hon. member for Laurier may have had some share in the completion of those negotiations which led to the signing of those Canadian documents, I do not know, I was not there. He has never told the house a single word about those negotiations; he has never offered any explanation of the extraordinary character of this Canadian note. A few moments later the hon. member for Laurier went on to say:
At that time there was an agreement-
By which he obviously meant July and August, 1954. I continue:
-between Canada and the province of Ontario whereby Ontario was to build and maintain 14-foot navigation facilities. When this agreement was brought about there was, therefore.-
He is speaking here of an agreement between Canada and the United States dated August, 1954. I continue:
-no longer any obligation on the part of the province of Ontario to fulfil that covenant.
The hon. member for Laurier is also a member of the legal profession and perhaps for this reason I should be very careful to refer to him as the hon. and learned member for Laurier. I have always understood it to be a most binding obligation on the part of members of the legal profession when
Supply-Transport
making reference to a statute to make such reference complete and accurate.
What did the hon. and learned member for Laurier do? He referred to the Canada-On-tario agreement of December 3, 1951, and here again I emphasize the date. That agreement related to the development of the power in the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river. That agreement was ratified by the International Rapids Power Development Act which was passed and made law before the end of the same month, December 1951, and the full text of that agreement is appended as a schedule to the provisions of this act. The hon. and learned member for Laurier should be well acquainted with the terms of both the agreement and the act because as minister of transport at that time he introduced the bill and piloted it through this house. I shall now read article II of that agreement, omitting some incidental words. It reads:
Canada will do all in its power ... to obtain the approval of the international joint commission ... of works to develop the power resources of the international rapids section of the St. Lawrence river to be undertaken by Ontario concurrently with the undertaking of complementary works by an appropriate authority in the United States of America, in accordance with the plan known as the "Controlled Single Stage Project..containing the features described in the annex to this agreement with such modifications as may be agreed upon herein or by Canada and Ontario.
Now I come to the annex of the agreement in which the main features of the project for power development are recited. I find as feature number (7) the following:
The necessary works to permit the continuance of 14-foot navigation on the Canadian side around the control dam and from the pool above the Long Sault dam to connect with the existing Cornwall canal.
Thus far the hon. and learned member for Laurier and I are in complete agreement, I trust. I am especially grateful to him for his acknowledgement in his speech of June 10 which I have just quoted that this obligation on the part of Ontario to make provision for the continuance of 14-foot navigation was still binding upon Ontario in August, 1954.
Now let me go further into the Canada-Ontario agreement of December 1951, much further than the hon. and learned member for Laurier went. In article XI of the agreement, which is quite a lengthy article, Ontario undertook to give all necessary assistance to the government of Canada toward the construction of a deep waterway on the Canadian side of the international rapids section. Article XII of the agreement I must, however, quote in full.
If the construction by Canada of the locks and works mentioned in article XI-

Supply-Transport
That is to say, the locks and works of a deep waterway on the Canadian side of the river.
-renders unnecessary the construction by Ontario of the works required to permit the continuance of 14-foot navigation as described in paragraph seven of the annex to this agreement, Ontario will pay to Canada a part of the cost of such locks and works equivalent to the cost of the works that would have been required to be constructed by Ontario to permit the continuance of such 14-foot navigation.
Upon the basis of the unit cost levels of December 1950, the cost of new provision for the continuance of 14-foot navigation around the control dam at Iroquois would be about $1 million, and the cost of similar provision at Cornwall of about $16 million, a sum total of a little more than $17 million in all.
Now I come to a point about which I am considerably perplexed. Section 2 of the International Rapids Power Development Act, 1951, reads as follows:
The agreement dated the 3rd day of December, 1951, between the government of Canada and the government of the province of Ontario is approved on behalf of and is binding on the government of Canada and all things to be done by virtue thereof are approved and authorized.
Section 5 reads:
This act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation.
The necessary proclamation to bring the act into force was not in fact issued until May 18, 1953, and it brought the act into force on May 20, 1953.
Can we say, then, that the act was in force on that most important day to which I have already called attention, June 30, 1952, the day of signature of the Canadian application to the international joint commission and of a Canadian note to the United States government, the day of one of the felicitous visits to Washington of the minister of transport? I And it hard to say whether the act was in force at that time. Yet since it had never been amended before it was proclaimed I find it even harder, very much harder, to say that it was not.
Now I come to the documents that were signed on June 30, 1952, four in all, two by the government of Canada and two by the government of the United States. Two of these documents were applications to the international joint commission by the two governments, on behalf of their power developing entities, for permission to develop the power of the international rapids section in accordance with the controlled single stage project. The Canadian application further declared that the government of Canada would construct, maintain and operate all such works as might be necessary to provide and maintain a deep waterway between the
[Mr. Campbell (Stormont).j
port of Montreal and lake Erie, and that such a deep waterway would be provided as nearly as possible concurrently with the completion of the power development works. The application from the government of the United States declared that it was filed with the understanding on the part of the United States that the government of Canada would engage in this work.
Here we have, then, an undertaking by Canada and an understanding by the United States that the deep waterway would be carried through the international rapids section on the Canadian side. And upon that undertaking and that understanding, the recital in each application of the main features of the work included the following provision:
(g) Navigation facilities-provision will be made for the continuance of 14-foot navigation throughout the international rapids section during the construction period.
That is to say, that upon the completion of a 27-foot deep waterway on the Canadian side, this provision of 14-foot navigation would cease. That would seem sensible enough. I think the hon. and learned member for Laurier will agree with me in this. Then, under the terms of the Canada-Ontario agreement of December 3, 1951, which the hon. and learned member for Laurier in his then incapacity as minister of transport helped to negotiate, the provision of article XII, which pledged Ontario to pay to the government of Canada the sum of $17 million dollars or more, would come into effect. That is what the agreement, which was ratified by acts both of parliament and of the legislature of Ontario would seem to require as a simple, straightforward matter of law.
Now I come to the substance, the astonishing substance, of the note that was signed on behalf of the government of Canada in Washington on June 30, 1952, and was presented to the government of the United States on the very same day. The note first stated that it appeared impossible to obtain congressional approval in the near future for United States participation in the construction of deepwater navigation facilities in the international rapids section and that, in consequence, the Canadian government has, with parliamentary approval, committed itself to provide and maintain whatever additional works may be required to allow uninterrupted 27-foot navigation between lake Erie and the port of Montreal. It then proceeded to inform the United States government of two points on which, so it stated, the Canadian government is now prepared to agree. These are points of such cardinal importance that, for

the sake of the record, I find myself compelled to quote them in full. They read:
(a)	that the amount to be paid to Canada, as specified in the agreement of December 3, 1951, between Canada and Ontario, in lieu of the construction by the power developing entities of facilities required for the continuance of 14-foot navigation, be excluded from the total cost of the power project to be divided between the Canadian and the United States power developing entities, in consideration of the fact that the actual replacement of 14-foot navigation facilities will be rendered unnecessary by reason of the concurrent construction of the deep waterway in Canada, and
(b)	that the authority to be established pursuant to the provisions of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act, chapter 24 of the Statutes of Canada, 1951 (second session), contribute $15 million towards the cost of the channel enlargement which the power developing entities must undertake in the St. Lawrence river, as set out in paragraph 4 of the annex to the Canada-Ontario agreement of December 3, 1951, and in section 8 of the applications to the international joint commission, in consideration of the benefits which will accrue to navigation through such channel enlargement.
In short, the Canadian government, by these two concessions, surrendered an asset, an obligation due to it, of at least $17 million and accepted an obligation of $15 million. This was a sacrifice without any authorization or justification, of a sum of more than $28 million, a sum that would be more than sufficient to erect two new government printing bureaus on top of the one that is already there.
A note in reply, signed by the secretary of state of the United States and delivered to the Canadian ambassador in Washington on June 30, stated, first, that, and I quote:
My government approves the arrangement set forth in your note-
That is to say, Canadian construction of the deep waterway on the Canadian side of the international rapids section, and agreed to the two financial concessions offered in the Canadian note, repeating them in the identical words which I have read. According to the significant word in the International Rapids Power Development Act, 1951, an agreement between Canada and Ontario was already in effect and was binding on the government of Canada, and all things to be done by virtue thereof are approved and authorized. Upon a reading of the act, the national government was bound by that very law to hold Ontario to its obligation of payment. Since the act did not, perhaps, take effect in any way until it had been proclaimed, it might be argued that the national government was still free in June, 1952 to come to any terms with the United States government that it might like. The act was, as I mentioned before, proclaimed in force on May 18, 1953.
Supply*-Transport
It would, of course, have been possible for the government to regularize this agreement with the United States either before or after the date of proclamation by the passage of an appropriate amendment to the act. But nothing of the sort was ever done and, accordingly, I submit to the committee that the obligation of Ontario to provide for the continuance of 14-foot navigation through the dikes at Cornwall and to pay the cost of construction of a lock for 14-foot navigation at Iroquois is still in force. The legislation creating this obligation has never been rescinded or modified.
I would go even further than this, by reminding the committee that there exists a common law public right of navigation of the waters of the St. Lawrence river and, by the Department of Transport Act, a statutory right of navigation of the Cornwall canal, with a specific duty laid upon the Minister of Transport to make provision for the exercise of that right.
I come now to the other obligation that Canada assumed, the obligation to be carried by the seaway authority to pay $15 million to the power developing entities as a contribution to the costs of channel enlargement. First let me call attention to the exact words of the undertaking. They are that the authority shall contribute $15 million toward the cost of channel enlargement which the power developing entities must undertake. It is not a payment for any additional channel enlargements, it is a payment for some part of the work that would have to be done anyway to ensure the development of power, no matter whether the deep waterway would be built or not.
I know it may be argued that in spite of the wording of this second Canadian concession the provision of deep water navigation would in fact necessitate some additional channel enlargement at additional expense. I propose, therefore, to meet this argument in advance. The international joint commission held hearings on the Canadian and United States applications in various places. At the hearing in Albany, New York, on September 3, 1952 a representative of the United States corps of engineers presented an estimate for the cost of the channel enlargements required for a development for power alone, without any provision for deep-water navigation, at $71,867,000. This was on the basis of unit cost levels of December, 1950. A corresponding Canadian estimate put the cost of the appropriate channel enlargements at the still higher figure of over $82 million. I challenge anyone who is acquainted with the details of the estimates for the cost of an all-Canadian seaway to put the costs of the necessary

Supply-Transport
channel enlargements in the international rapids section at any higher figure than that.
Thus far I have tried to show just this, that the first of these two concessions by Canada was a contravention of a national law, and the second unwarranted in fact. But what should be said about them as obligations binding upon Canada in relation to the United States? The Canada of June 30, 1952, informed the United States of its intention to proceed to the construction of the deep waterway all by itself, and the reply of the United States declared its agreement with that intention. As I said before, there was a Canadian undertaking and a United States understanding, and both the Canadian concessions rested upon this reciprocal proffer and acceptance. In fact, however, Canada has not by itself constructed an all-Canadian seaway. In consequence these two concessions, as formal commitments to the United States, simply fall to the ground. It is possible, since Canada did build one lock in the international rapids section at Iroquois that some alternative concessions to the United States, on a very much smaller scale, might be negotiated instead. Certainly, for my own part, I see not the slightest reason even for this.
The hon. and learned member for Laurier seems to take some pride in the fact that a concrete structure has been inserted in the line of dikes at Cornwall in preparation, as he put it, for future 27-foot facilities on the Canadian side. I have described that structure as a concrete wall 80 feet high. This is exactly what it is. I think the hon. and learned member for Laurier, who seems anxious to claim at least a share of the credit for it, should actually feel nothing but shame. In fact, he is entitled to all the credit for it. He was born and brought up in Cornwall. He has been trained as a lawyer; he has practised in Cornwall and surely he, of all people in this house, should be most keenly aware of the statutory right of navigation through the Cornwall canal. He, of all members in this house, should be the very last to procure the destruction of that right by even thoroughly legal means, yet he, in fact, of all people has deliberately approved of such destruction and that by wrongful means.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the hon. gentleman from Stormont a question?


Grant Campbell: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask him if he is correctly quoted in the Globe and Mail of June 27 as having said during a panel discussion at Manotick, Ontario-


Grant Campbell: This is not the
subject matter with which I was dealing.


Lionel Chevrier: You have allowed me to ask you a question. Did he state, "There is insufficient liaison between cabinet ministers and the backbenchers"?


Grant Campbell: And also insufficient liaison between members and their constituents. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question regarding the matter I have already brought up, I will be pleased to do what I can to discuss it with him.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not intend to delay the estimates, but after this harangue that we have had from the hon. member for Stormont I think it is quite clear that the statement which he made in Manotick is accurate. It is evident from the manner in which his constituents have been treated and the manner in which his constituents are suffering that there is not the slightest liaison beween the cabinet and the backbencher that he is. Proof of that lies in the statement which he has just made to this committee. Apparently he is not conversant with many of the things that he has affirmed in the statement which he has just-


An hon. Member:: Read.


Lionel Chevrier: Read, yes.


Mr. Lamberi:: What about your own
speeches?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend says, what about my own speeches? Let me say this to him, most of my own speeches are not read in this house. All he has to do is sit in the house from time to time and he will discover that.


Norman Platt Lambert: Watch the big typewriter.


Lionel Chevrier: Again in answer to the hon. and learned parliamentary secretary who rises at times to interrupt, let me draw his attention to the fact that many ministers as it is their right, very often read at great length from statements in the house.


Mr. Martineau:: May I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, of course.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I just want to know
whether the hon. member is asking a question or making a speech.


Lionel Chevrier: I was answering the parliamentary secretary. But since I have been interrupted by the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister perhaps I can ask him a question to which he refused to reply not so very long ago.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I should like the hon. member to answer my question.


Lionel Chevrier: It is in connection with a matter that affects the St. Lawrence seaway indirectly in which he advocated at great length the deepening of the Ottawa river as a project which would connect with the St. Lawrence seaway. My question is this: Does he think that with locks at the Carillon dam of nine feet depth that will provide navigation facilities that will look after 14-foot ships on the Ottawa river?


Norman Platt Lambert: That is no worse than your provision for the Welland canal.


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently my hon. friend is not answering the question so I will now return-


Paul Raymond Martineau: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the hon. member a question and he has not replied in a satisfactory manner.


An hon. Member:: Not satisfactory to you.


Paul Raymond Martineau: I am not engaged in a debate. I think we should get back to the order of business before the committee, namely the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Harold Edward Winch: I rise on a point of order Mr. Chairman, and it is this. After this quarrel between the three hon. members, may we now get back to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport?


Paul Raymond Martineau: I agree.


Lionel Chevrier: Not before I have had an opportunity of making some comment on the nonsense which has been given to the committee by the hon. member for Stormont who knows very little about the circumstances surrounding the power development and the navigation facilities in his own section of the river.


Grant Campbell: I was not there at the time.


Lionel Chevrier: It is evident he was not there at the time, and it is evident that he is not there now; because if he were there he would deal with the subject in a far more enlightened manner than that in which he dealt with it during the course of his remarks.
I wish to say just one or two things. The first is that the negotiations are covered by agreement between the two countries. They are there for anyone to see, and I put them on record the other evening. Next, there is an agreement between the province of Ontario and the federal government which, I repeat, in so far as the maintenance of 14-foot navigation is concerned, has lapsed because of the fact that it was impossible for Ontario Hydro to abide by the terms of that covenant at that time. Instead of that, they built a
Supply-Transport
structure in the dike. That structure in the dike, as the premier of the province of Ontario has said on more than one occasion -and he has taken credit on more than one occasion for its construction-will provide for future 27-foot navigation facilities on the Canadian side of the fine.
However, my hon. friend, in many of his statements, has been attacking not only the Ontario government but also Ontario Hydro. In that respect I do not imagine he can expect many favours from that body, particularly in the constituency from which he comes, when he takes issue with Ontario Hydro as he has done from time to time. But there is one other thing of which my hon. friend apparently is not aware and it is this. All you have to do is to look at a map of the international section in order tc see that right in front of the city of Cornwall there are 27-foot navigation facilities. If my hon. friend does not want to look at the map and if he insists that these facilities are not there, then all I need to say is that it is hard to make to see those who will not see.
However, he has had confirmation of that fact by the application which was made by his own constituents the other day to the Minister of Public Works to extend the dike at the east end of the city of Cornwall a few hundred feet-I believe it is for 500 feet-into deep water, something which indicates that deep water facilities are right at the door of his constituency. If he had only taken the trouble to look not so much at the agreement as at what is being done by the federal government-and I refer to the previous government as well as the present government-he would see that 27-foot facilities lie right at the door of the city of Cornwall. The industrial development body which has been established-the official corporate name of which I forget at the moment-deserves a tremendous amount of credit and should be commended for, and congratulated upon the efforts they have made with regard to extending this wharf to deep water. My only hope is that the Minister of Public Works will go far beyond what he has already done in an effort to give these people the port facilities that are required for industrial development in that area.


Harold Edward Winch: We have in the House of Commons a simultaneous translation system. On my desk I have a switch. I want to say that no matter how I worked that switch I could not understand what was being said by the hon. member for Stormont either in English or in French.


John Whitney Pickersgill: You are not unique.

Supply-Transport


Harold Edward Winch: Nor can I understand the incensed remarks of the hon. member for Laurier.


An hon. Member:: You are in a bad way.


Harold Edward Winch: If I might be given the privilege of doing so, I should like to come back to the item under discussion, namely the matter of item No. 1 of the estimates of the minister and briefly ask him whether he can give me an explanation as to what is the policy of his department having regard to statements made by those in control of harbours. Under date of June 17 I understand the Minister of Transport received a telegram from the Canadian director, E. C. Sims, with regard to a stoppage of box car deliveries of grain to the port of Vancouver.
I asked a question on that matter and I want to thank the Minister of Transport for his co-operation. He asked me to see him in his office to discuss the matter and he made an appointment for me with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners. I want to say that the co-operation I have received on this most important matter from the minister and from the board of transport commissioners is something for which I am grateful. It is the greatest co-operation I have ever received during any of my time here in Ottawa. Of course, as you know, Mr. Chairman, the best way in which to get things done is to give compliment where compliment is due. I want to say that I have received from the minister and from the chairman of the board of transport commissioners the finest of cooperation. I understand that everything is now functioning very well and that grain is now going through the port of Vancouver.
However, the point I want to raise is this. This entire story is an intriguing one in that it appears that there was a stoppage in the shipping of grain to Vancouver because of reports that there was an impending strike in Vancouver. All my information shows that there could not have been an impending strike in Vancouver because the two unions concerned had gone to federal conciliation. To the best of my knowledge no federal conciliation award has yet been made. Therefore up to the present moment under the law both federally and provincially there is no impending strike.
The point I want to raise with the Minister of Transport is this: I have here a photostatic copy of a column published in the Vancouver Sun on June 8. The Minister of Transport did not know of this situation until he received a wire on June 17, and I know, because of the courtesy granted to me by the chairman of the board of transport commissioners, that they did not know about that on June 21,

and yet I read in this photostatic copy from the Vancouver Sun the headline:	"Strike
Threatens Grain Shipments. Port Manager says danger of Losses through Labour Tied Up." And then the report goes on to say:
Threat of strikes by two waterfront unions is causing concern in the continuing drop off in grain shipments through British Columbia ports, Vancouver port manager Captain B. D. L. Johnson said today.
Then there are a number of statements which are not in quotation marks. I want to draw the attention of the minister to the last paragraph in this report from the Vancouver Sun which says:
Captain B. D. L. Johnson summed up the situation this way: "There can be no doubt that the threat of a labour tie-up along the Vancouver waterfront and at other British Columbia ports is having the effect of diverting grain to eastern ports for overseas shipment.
Nobody wants to store grain here that they may not be able to sell or remove.
Mr. Chairman, I say through you to the Minister of Transport that that is in the Vancouver Sun of June 8 a statement in quotation marks by the manager of the port of Vancouver. Yet the minister himself I know to my own knowledge was not aware of any trouble until he received a wire on June 17, and the board of transport did not know anything about it until the hon. gentleman made an appointment for me to see the chairman on June 21. As I have said, I want to thank the Minister of Transport for the cooperation he showed me. I also want to thank the chairman of the board of transport commissioners for the co-operation he extended to me. I want, further, to thank the board for the speed with which they got results. Grain is moving to Vancouver.
However, I do want to ask the minister in view of what I have said-and I would be glad to give him the entire file-to tell the committee what is the policy and what are the orders of his department when we read that on June 8 the Vancouver port manager issues a press release in quotes saying there is going to be a tie-up of grain because of a threatened strike in Vancouver when there is in fact no strike in Vancouver and no threatened strike in Vancouver because the conciliation awards have not yet come down for consideration.


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East may I say I have been very interested to hear what the hon. member said about this telegram. I am not aware of the telegram or of the press release which the gentleman in question is said to have made and if the hon. member will send the file over to me I can assure him I will look into it thoroughly and right away.

With regard to the question which was put to me by the hon. member for Assiniboia, I have listened very carefully to what he has suggested and I will give the matter serious consideration. I am afraid I cannot give him a more definite reply than that, though he would probably like one. But I can assure him I will give this matter serious attention.


Hazen Robert Argue: I thank the minister very much for his answer and I am sure railway employees will be glad to note that the minister has undertaken to give this difficult subject his earnest consideration. They will also look forward to the results of that consideration.
I wonder if the minister could tell the committee whether or not the Department of Labour in co-operation with the Department of Transport has looked into this problem at all? As I see it it is a very serious problem, and I hope that if some kind of special study is not yet under way, some such study, either in the minister's department or in the Department of Labour, will be undertaken prior to opening the kind of thorough inquiry of which I have spoken.


George Harris Hees: I feel sure that the Department of Labour has given consideration to this matter, but I shall be glad to discuss it with my colleague the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: It seems to me that it is the disposition of the committee to get on with this item which has been pending for some time, and since the minister is in such a good mood I, too, would like to thank him in anticipation of what I am going to ask him now. It is this: I have raised on a number of occasions during consideration of the estimates, both of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys and of the Minister of Transport, the question of the Autair Helicopter Services and I have no intention of repeating what I said on those occasions. But since the minister is in such a good frame of mind I wonder if, having regard to what has already been put on record in Hansard and having regard to the fact that when I did raise the question the minister did not have the opportunity to reply, the hon. minister would not consent to ask the air transport board to make an investigation into, not only the complaints and the charges which were made in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned but also in so far as the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys is concerned. If the hon. gentleman accedes to that request I will be the first to thank him.


George Harris Hees: I shall be very glad to look into the question which the hon. member for Laurier has brought up. We shall be very glad to look into these matters.
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: I want to thank the minister for that reply.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I ask the minister if he is now in a position to give an answer to the question I raised as to whether or not the national harbours board designs its structures according to local building bylaws? I heard unofficially that the minister took the matter very seriously and sent someone to Vancouver to investigate and explain the situation to the authorities in Vancouver. Could the minister give an answer?


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to, Mr. Chairman. The answer is that the national harbours board designs the structures for the various harbours according to the latest national codes and standards and, in most cases, local building bylaws conform to these codes. In a few cases the local building bylaws might not agree with the national standards and, in such cases, if the local authorities present objections these are thoroughly investigated and if they appear reasonable steps are taken to conform to the local bylaws.
The designs used by the national harbours board are more or less standard and have been developed by the board's engineers from many years of experience on harbour works from coast to coast. On all important works there is a qualified resident engineer and inspection of materials is usually carried out by private inspection companies.
It is the board's practice to have all services installed to the satisfaction of the local authorities and as an example of this the following clauses were contained in the specification covering the construction of transit shed No. 2, centennial pier, Vancouver harbour:
Workmanship (re plumbing). The workmanship and method of installation shall conform to the best standard practice, to the entire approval of the engineer and shall be in accordance with local plumbing bylaws.
Inspection and Testing. All work included in the sprinkler system layout throughout the transit shed will be inspected and tested by and shall meet with the approval of the British Columbia underwriters association in all respects.
I trust that answers the hon. gentleman's query.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I shall read a resolution sent to me by the Trail chamber of commerce and ask one question. The resolution reads:
Whereas the federal government has stated as one of its policies the development of the northern part of Canada and the construction of a railway, and
Whereas the Hon. E. D. Fulton has recently reiterated the government's promise of such a railroad, and

Supply-Transport
Whereas the construction of such a railroad would speed the development of the northern part of Canada and add a substantial direct and indirect increase in the gross national product of Canada by the development of the vast lead-zinc deposits at Pine Point, together with other natural resource developments in the Northwest Territories.
Therefore be it resolved that the Trail chamber of commerce urge the federal government to make an immediate start on the promised construction of a northern development railroad to connect Pine Point in the Northwest Territories with a presently constructed railway system, and
Be it further resolved that copies of this resolution be forwarded to the Right Hon. John Diefen-baker, Prime Minister; the Hon. E. D. Fulton, the Hon. George Hees and Mr. H. W. Herridge, M.P.
In view of this understandable concern will the minister indicate what the government proposes to do?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps the hon. member was not in the house approximately two days ago when the Prime Minister was asked a question by, I believe, the hon. member for Mackenzie River. The Prime Minister replied that he had not as yet received the report from the royal commission investigating the routes. The hon. member for Kootenay West will of course realize that until the report of the royal commission is received by the Prime Minister no study can be made and no decision taken. The hon. gentleman will realize that the Prime Minister works on these reports very rapidly once they are received. When the report is received it will be given serious study by the government and as soon as possible a decision will be made. I can well understand the hon. member's interest in and anxiety about this and the interest and anxiety of those he represents. I can assure him that no time will be lost in giving this matter serious study as soon as the report is received from the royal commission.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give us an assurance that the promise made by the Prime Minister in St. John's, Newfoundland, in 1957 that there would be a standard gauge railway across that province will be implemented in 1961?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I was not there. I did not hear the promise nor have I heard that such a promise was made but I can assure the committee, and as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate knows very well, that when the present Prime Minister of Canada gives a promise he keeps that promise.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be happy to send the minister clippings from several newspapers. At least the newspapermen who were with the Prime Minister thought he gave that promise and the minister surely should have studied it by this time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as always when I receive anything from the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I will give it close and serious study.


Hazen Robert Argue: In answer to the question posed by the hon. member for Kootenay West the minister mentioned a question I asked the Prime Minister the other day to which I received an answer. I am wondering if there is any possibility that the Minister of Transport has received the recommendations of the commission studying the routes?


George Harris Hees: The answer is, no.


Mr. Hardie:: I am also wondering whether or not the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Trail, British Columbia, has made recent representations to him concerning the building of this railroad?


George Harris Hees: The answer again is no.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
Aids to navigation-
411. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,844,830.
Mr. Howard:: On page 521 of the details there is shown a total sum of money for construction or acquisition of buildings, works, lands and equipment. Would the minister consider in the preparation of this and similar items relating to airport construction and other things including a more complete break-down as it done in the case of the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


George Harris Hees: The answer is no, because the items are too small and too numerous. This year we have commenced tabling the items of $100,000 and more and giving details with respect to the larger items.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not ask for complete details of every project but for a break-down on major undertakings in the preparation of future estimates.


George Harris Hees: As I mentioned, we have given much greater detail this year than formerly and we shall be very glad to discuss this possibility with treasury board, and if it can be agreed with them to have a further breakdown of those items in the future we shall endeavour to do so. We have considerable detail here and if the hon. member wishes to come over-I have the books here showing a great deal of detail regarding the particular area with which he is concerned-I shall be very glad to show him all the information we have. If there is anything that he wants information about that we have not in the books at this table I shall be glad to give it to him tomorrow.



I960

Charles Benjamin Howard: I appreciate the minister's offer. I have not had any difficulty in the past in obtaining such information from the department or from the minister about specific items. I was thinking about a further explanation and clarification of some of these things for the general public and for other hon. members who may obtain these estimates, so that they could use the information to better advantage. The minister might take this under consideration and if he could give us some more detail it would be advantageous to everybody.


George Harris Hees: I should be very glad to look into it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before this item passes may I make an appeal to the minister to have a look at the rock outside Wesleyville harbour and see if a light could not be put on it.


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


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
412. Nautical services including Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol: grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates: rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidy to a salvage company; and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $604,524.
Harold Edward Winch: I do not wish to hold up the estimates but this is the only item that I can think of on which I can ask the minister what is the policy of the government as regards a coastguard service in British Columbia. This is, I think, one of the most intriguing and important points on our entire coast. It means very much to the fishermen and the entire services on that coast. Can the minister give us a complete picture of its status?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We have appointed two co-ordinators, one on the west coast and one on the east coast, and we are in the process of appointing a co-ordinator for the central region of Canada. The co-ordinator has been appointed on the west coast and has taken office. He is now in the process of interviewing various groups on the west coast, the purpose of which is to find out how all of the marine services in that area at the present time can be best co-ordinated and used in the same way as the coastguard is used in the United States. We believe that with the equipment that is available, the ships and planes that are available, the main thing is now to have training and co-ordination. The working of all those groups in operation will, we feel sure, produce the equivalent of the United States coastguard.
I quite agree with the hon. member and with other hon. members who have brought this matter up in the house and have talked
Supply-Transport
with me personally that there is tremendous need for such a co-ordinated service in our waters, whether they be coastal or inland.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say one word in connection with this and a brief one at that. I have read the press release issued by the Minister of Transport in connection with the coastguard service and the appointment of Captain Brand as director of marine operations. I think that was an excellent appointment but the minister will not mind my saying that I do not think a great deal has been added to the co-ordination as it existed prior to his press release. I say that because the significant point in the release is that there seems to have been no co-ordination in the Canadian coastal marine services of any vessels other than those operated by the Department of Transport. In other words, no new elements have been added. All that seems to have happened is a change in the name. It is a step in the right direction, of course, to co-ordinate the establishments of the Department of Transport; but if there is to be a proper rescue service and coastguard operation from one end of the country to the other, particularly on both coasts, this should be co-ordinated with the Canadian coastal marine services.
The minister will probably recall that the hon. member for Oxford was very keen about this from time to time and repeatedly complained that there was no suitable service on the great lakes. From the press release it did appear to me that there was really not much of a change in the search and rescue operations on both coasts. However, I may be mistaken here. I bring it to the attention of the minister because I think proper coordination should take place not only within the department but also outside of it.


Harold Edward Winch: I know the minister realizes how important this is to us on the west coast. He said that a co-ordinator had been appointed on each coast. He also said he thinks there will be on the coast of British Columbia a service similar to and as good as the coastguard service of the United States. What is the authority of the co-ordinator? If you are to have a coastguard service on the coast you must gave co-ordination and the co-operation of fishing boats, of the navy, of the R.C.A.F., of all weather, radio and other stations. What is the authority of the coordinator to bring them all together? Who has the say?


George Harris Hees: Under our direction the co-ordinator will have the authority to co-ordinate those various groups in search and rescue efforts. His job at the present time is to make a survey of the situation and report

Supply-Transport
to us what he considers is needed and then we will proceed to work on plans for training and co-ordinating the various vessels, government vessels and private vessels, so that they can be used in search and rescue work, which is the main objective of this exercise.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have one small question I would like to ask the minister. It relates to the information in the details on page 523 under "nautical services". On this page are listed grants and contributions to mariners' or seamen's institutions, such as the navy league of Canada, Sydney, Nova Scotia, the seamen's mission society, Saint John, New Brunswick, and so on. Can the minister indicate what is the basis for these grants and what these particular missions, sailors' clubs or institutions do in so far as their assistance, if that is the proper name to give it, to seamen is concerned?
Then, there is an item "British Columbia towboat owners' association", toward which a grant is not required this year. The sum of $15,000 was granted to this association last year. Can the minister indicate what the $15,000 was for, and also what is the $75,000 item which is called a salvage subsidy to Foundation Maritime Limited, Montreal, Quebec? These amounts all come under the same item.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the grants to institutions are for welfare work with sailors and maintaining hostels and things in ports where these sailors can go to. The $15,000 is to pay an adviser, one of the representatives of the tugboat owners, who co-ordinated certain rescue operations last year; and the $75,000 is to maintain a stand-by salvage tug in the gulf of St. Lawrence and the Atlantic waters area.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Just one other point. I understood the minister to say with respect to the $15,000 to the British Columbia towboat owners' association that this was a payment to a member or someone within that association who co-ordinated with or did some co-ordination work on search and rescue operations. Did he do somewhat similar work as will now be performed by the person the hon. minister referred to a while ago who will be appointed as co-ordinator?


George Harris Hees: In a much more limited field; only in regard to his own association.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Could the minister indicate what the results of this co-ordination were? Was the $15,000 well spent; did we get value for our money; and did anything concrete come out of it so far as sea rescue is concerned?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the work done by the person was quite helpful but we considered it was not enough. That is why we have gone in for our own co-ordinator and embarked on this new plan.


Harold Edward Winch: I understand that money is paid for a standby tug for sea rescue work on the Atlantic coast, but there is no stand-by tug on the Pacific coast; is that correct?


George Harris Hees: It is a salvage tug on the Atlantic coast.


Harold Edward Winch: But not on the Pacific coast?


George Harris Hees: We did pay a similar subsidy for a salvage tug on the west coast, but I am advised that this was discontinued because there are a large number of salvage tugs on the west coast who perform this same function.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
415. Steamship inspection service including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,099,578.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask what is the present position of the conference on the safety of life at sea and load lines. I understand there are meetings from time to time outside of Canada and that the department sends representatives. If I may say just another word about it, how much of this vote is assigned for that purpose and what is the present position of the convention? Is there any intention of amending it and bringing it before parliament at a future date?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the convention is over. Our representatives have just returned and we have not yet received their report, so I am afraid I cannot answer that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, while dealing with the steamship inspection service I wonder if I could ask the minister what has been the experience of this service in inspecting ships of Northland Navigation Company on the west coast? Are any of the ships of Northland Navigation Company restricted from entering into certain waters, or are they sufficiently well built and in sufficiently good shape to travel to any point on the west coast? Are there any restrictions against any of the ships, and, if so, which ones?


George Harris Hees: I am afraid this is a question which calls for a little more detail than we have available, but I will be glad to get the answer for the hon. member and give it to him as soon as possible. I would be glad to give it to him tomorrow.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If I may be permitted to clear this up, there are some ships which are not able to travel to certain parts of the coast of

British Columbia. If such is the case-I do not know whether it is or not-under a subsequent vote, namely the Canadian maritime commission vote for subventions, depending of course upon the information which I receive from the minister, perhaps I could relate this to the subventions which are paid. In that case I would not ask that this particular vote stand, but if we do get to the Canadian maritime commission vote before the hour of ten o'clock, I wonder if at that time the minister might allow that particular vote to stand?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, much as I would like to get to the maritime commission vote before ten o'clock, I am afraid there is not one chance in a thousand that we will. If we did, I would certainly hold it up, but I can assure the hon. member I will get the information for him and I will answer the question when the maritime commission vote comes up.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
418.	Contract dredging including acquisition of land for ship channel improvements, $3,272,903.
Mr. Villeneuve:: Mr. Chairman, I will not be very long. The year 1908 was when the last survey was made of the Ottawa river for navigation purposes, and the associated boards of trade in eastern Ontario are very much interested in this question. First of all it is necessary to have the survey completed, and in the face of that survey being made and the economics of the situation, I wonder if this could possibly be done. As the minister is well aware, the Carillon power development dam is building a lock, as I understand it, in the face of the dam and one of the first essentials is to see that it is of the proper dimensions to meet present day demands.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Chairman, just on this item, I think the hon. member for Laurier asked a question concerning that and, as I recall it, when I mentioned this in the house some time ago he was the first member to congratulate me on the project.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised by my officials that the key to this whole plan is the bridge at Ste. Anne. I am advised that there is no object in devising a plan for changing the lock until there is a plan for changing this bridge. But the lock is designed so that it can be enlarged.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister this question. But first, has the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott finished?


Osie F. Villeneuve: Yes.
79951-0-348
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: What I was going to ask the
minister was this, and it was apropos of the interruption I received from the parliamentary secretary to the Prime Minister when he referred to his speech in connection with the development of the Ottawa waterway. I think that is a very commendable project, but at the time it was not known what the depth of the locks over the sills would be. I put a question on the order paper, which I have here some place, and the answer given was that the depth over the sills would be nine feet. This means that the navigation depth is nine feet.
I do not see how the project of the hon. member, laudable as it might be and which I would be quite willing to support to the fullest extent, would be practical if ships of nine-foot draft only could be moved up and down the Ottawa river.


George Harris Hees: The nine-foot sill is correct, but the lock is constructed so that it can be deepened.


Mr. Bell (Carlelon):: I should like to say a word or two in relation to this matter. I agree with the minister that the bridge at Ste. Anne's is the key to the whole situation. I would hope that resulting from the discussions, which will have to take place between the government of Canada and the government of Quebec in connection with a new bridge which will leave the west end of the island of Montreal, there would be assurance that the bridge would be a high level bridge to make it possible for the Ottawa deep waterway to be constructed. I think it would be most unfortunate if we were to permit a new low level bridge to be built at the west end of the island of Montreal which would in any way prevent the future development of the waterway.
My understanding of what has taken place at Carillon in respect to the present construction is that while there are presently nine-foot sills to be put in, none the less the plans do call for the eventual deepening of these to 14 feet, and that there is no problem in relation to that being done under the existing plans, and that in the present power development there is by no means foreclosure of the eventual, and I hope fairly soon, achievement of the Ottawa deep waterway.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to add one comment. I am glad the hon. member for Carleton did make the interjection which he has. I have seen the plans on two occasions, and they are extremely interesting and intricate. Following the viewing of these plans and discussions of them with certain engineers I put a question on the order paper for the Minister of Public Works which, unfortunately, I have not got with me now.

Supply-Transport
However, the plans as they now stand provide for nine-foot navigation. It may be that in the future it will be possible to deepen the sills to 14 feet, but at increased cost because if there is to be 14-foot navigation the plans should be drawn now for that purpose. The plans are complete for the elevation of the bridges from the Ottawa-Hull area right down to the outflow of the Ottawa river into the St. Lawrence at Cascades. There can be no doubt from what I have seen that unless these plans are altered they provide at the moment for nine-foot navigation. Let me tell my hon. friend that in his anxiety to see the Ottawa waterway developed he will find support for it from this side of the house because I think it will be all to the good if there is an additional 14-foot waterway which flows into the St. Lawrence. But if that is to be done the plans will have to be altered.


George Harris Hees: Before the item carries I should like to assure the hon. member for Carleton that I agree with him in principle. If a new bridge is to be built, it should be a high level bridge.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
419.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $59,800.
Lionel Chevrier: I am not rising at this time to complain about the railway cars. This would be the last thing in the world which I would do, notwithstanding the fact that the minister's colleague, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, used to complain repeatedly about these amounts and once voted to remove one of these cars. Be that as it may, I am perfectly happy with this arrangement and I think it should remain as it is.
I rise to inquire about the Pelee island ferry service which comes under the steamship services. I asked this question on the supplementary estimates at the beginning of a session and the Minister of Finance, when he was dealing with the supplementaries, replied as follows, as reported at page 2114 of Hansard for 1959:
This is the way the operation was carried on previously. The ship had been operated before under just such an arrangement in the hon. gentleman's time when he was minister of transport.
I have since learned that statement is entirely inaccurate. The ship that is now being operated in the Pelee island service is not being operated by way of subsidy. This is a new ship and a departure has been made from the ordinary contract and policy of the department whereby instead of paying a steamship subvention a new ship is being
[Mr. Chevrier.3
purchased and turned over under certain terms and conditions to the company. Furthermore there has been a curtailment of the service. Whereas, in the first place, the S.S. Pelee operated not only between the mainland and Pelee island but also made daily calls at Sandusky, Ohio, in the United States, the United States portion of the trip has been cancelled. This was, I understand, the profitable part, the operation into the United States, and the other part was unprofitable.
I should like to say at once that nothing I have said is to be construed as criticism of the charming sponsor of the ship who I note, according to a press release, was the spouse of the hon. member for Essex South.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised, and I remember it well now because I think it was the first item I dealt with in the department when I took over in 1957, that the decision to build this ship was taken by the previous administration. It was to replace a ship that had worn out which, I believe, had been built in 1912 and had been classed as unsafe. It had been decided by the previous administration to build a new ship and that decision was carried out by this administration. The ship was for island-mainland service only and not for the United States and that decision, I am advised, was taken by the former administration and was carried out by this administration.


Lionel Chevrier: Was the decision made
earlier for the new ship as well?


George Harris Hees: Yes, it was made in 1956.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not contesting the minister's statement, but I should like to look into it. Perhaps I will have more to say when we come to the item of the maritime commission.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I just followed what the hon. member for Laurier had to say about these official railway cars. Undoubtedly an explanation has been given a number of times in the past, perhaps by the present minister, as to what these official railway cars are for and who uses them.


George Harris Hees: Two of these cars are used by the Governor General and three are for general use by the government, including ministers and the board of transport commissioners. The number in use has been decreased by two from the number previously in use when this government took office. At the present time I am considering making a study to see if one more of these cars can be eliminated.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It seems to me that perhaps there should be a reduction in the number

of railway cars. From what I can gather they are not used very often and consequently sit there perhaps as museum pieces more than anything else. With the advent of air transportation and it being increasingly more available to society and also to the cabinet perhaps in the near future we might not have such an item listed in the estimates.


George Harris Hees: The Governor General uses his two cars a great deal. The board of transport commissioners use one of the three remaining cars a great deal. As I say, I am now studying the possibility of eliminating another of the cars at present in use. As I mentioned earlier, we have reduced by two the number of cars that were previously in use.
I now have the answer to the question asked a few moments ago by the hon. member for Skeena. The answer is this. All ships of the Northland Navigation Company have been certified for service on the west coast as requested by the owner, with the exception of one passenger conveying vessel which was restricted to the number of passengers permitted on the certificate because its subdivision-that is the number of transfer bulkheads fitted-is below regulation standards.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is for service on the west coast?


George Harris Hees: Yes; coastal waters.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to argue with the minister but my recollection is that when I held the position which the minister now holds there were five private cars and no more, namely two used by His Excellency the Governor General which were in constant use; one to the board of transport commissioners; one which was assigned to the minister of transport and one which was assigned to all the other ministers. That is the recollection I have. I may be in error.


George Harris Hees: I am glad the hon. member for Laurier has corrected me. We have eliminated not two cars but one car and at present are studying the elimination of another.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
420.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals. $2,299,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister tell us something about the Prince Edward Island car ferry and what the present situation is?


George Harris Hees: Yes. We are at present building a new car ferry to supplement the three at present in use. We are marking time on further consideration pending the decision on the Prince Edward Island causeway.
79951-0-348i
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister give us any confirmation as to when that progress report will be turned into an actual report on the causeway?


George Harris Hees: No. I am afraid I cannot do that. However, I know my colleague the Minister of Public Works is working night and day on the matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is he working on it personally?


George Harris Hees: I am sure he is doing so because all of the ministers in this government work on these problems personally.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That answer does not give me much hope.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have just one question to pose to the hard working minister on item 420, although I think perhaps I shall be obliged to make reference, for the sake of comparison, to one of the other items, namely item 427. I notice that on page 75, item 427 relates to an amount of $209,000 and it is listed as "deficit, 1960". However, in the details of the estimates both item 420 and item 421 are listed as deficits but not so on the first page. I wonder what this means? Why is this listed as a deficit?


George Harris Hees: This represents an operating loss on the service.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Apart from that matter I have some other thoughts to express on this item. It seems that there is a total-and this is only rough figuring-of some $15 million represented in a number of votes for car ferries and terminals, strait of Canso transportation improvements and facilities and so on, all of which relate to the east coast. I wonder whether the minister could explain the reason for these amounts being listed here under the federal department. Is it because they relate in some cases to interprovincial travel? Why are the provincial governments-or in this instance Prince Edward Island particularly-not involved in building terminals or car ferries?
I ask this question as a result of comparing the situation with that in British Columbia where we also have ferry systems in operation between the mainland and Vancouver island and in some cases between points on the mainland. In so far as I know, all of them are operated under provincial government auspices. I wonder what the reason is for the difference there. Can the minister explain that matter to me?


George Harris Hees: Yes. These subsidies result from either the terms of union or confederation agreements between ourselves and these different provinces. They are of long standing,
5S22

Supply-Transport
with the exception of the agreement with Newfoundland which of course extends back only about 10 years. These services are operated on our behalf by Canadian National Railways.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Are all these votes in accordance with the terms of confederation? Are they all interprovincial services or are not some of them just within the province itself? I notice one or two here that are within a particular province. It is not often that I agree with the hon. member for Skeena but one thing that puzzles me is why the Department of Transport will provide certain services in the maritimes or the eastern provinces and will not provide them in the west.


George Harris Hees: These ferries are all the result of confederation terms with the exception of the Yarmouth-Bar Harbor ferry.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: There is one with respect to Pelee island. Is that one of the terms of confederation?


George Harris Hees: Will the hon. member tell me what item he was talking about? I thought he was referring to the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland ferry service.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: I was speaking generally of these items, but I saw it some place. As a matter of fact, every time I look through these items I get a little bit annoyed; it is not that I am not in favour of their having these services down in the maritimes and in the east, but as a matter of comparison, the situation annoys me. I saw an item some place with regard to a ferry to Pelee island. Is that an interprovincial ferry?


George Harris Hees: This new Pelee island ferry was an arrangement entered into in 1956 by the previous administration and carried on by this government.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 420 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Perhaps we might call it ten
o'clock.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we not go on for a
few minutes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: What item are we on?


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give unanimous consent to continuing after ten o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I think we should call it ten o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, could you tell us what item we are on?


Jacques Flynn: Item 420.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the leader of the house if we can take it for granted that during the next three days we shall be considering estimates and if so will he tell us what those estimates will be?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow being Wednesday we shall begin with the Department of Fisheries followed by the Department of Justice, and if those estimates are completed we will, I hope, complete those of the Department of Transport. I announced the business for Friday the other night.


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

[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.	Were the piers of the substructure of the Cornwall high level bridge washed to obtain an analysis of silt content prior to remedial measures being carried out?
2.	If so, (a) who conducted the washing operations: (b) on what dates; (c) how many washings were carried out; (d) why were each considered necessary?
3.	Was a copy of the analysis of silt content of the piers asked for by the contractor undertaking the remedial work?
4.	If so, (a) was it given to him, and on what date; (b) what was the date of the request and its nature?
5.	If not, why was his request refused by the St. Lawrence seaway authority?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of
Transport):
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises as follows:
1.	No; the washing was performed as part of the remedial measures.
Questions
2.	(a) Prepakt Concrete Company Limited;
(b)	commenced December 19, 1957, and continued intermittently until April 30, 1958, with a major interruption during the winter high water stage from January 24, 1958 until April 14, 1958; (c) not known but, in each cylindrical shaft, until the water ran clear; (d) to remove from the crushed stone aggregate all loose sand, silt or other substance which might interfere with the proper flow and adhesion of cement grout subsequently introduced under pressure to consolidate the aggregate.
3,	4 and 5. Information as to the findings was requested by letter dated January 29, 1958 and was given orally by A. G. Murphy to J. H. Christman, the date not being recorded.



DEFICITS OR SURPLUSES, NON-MERCHANDISE TRANSACTIONS ABROAD

Mr. Broome: For each of the last five years and for the latest period available in 1960, what was the Canadian deficit or surplus for non-merchandise transaction with: (a) United States; (b) United Kingdom; (c) other countries?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister
of Trade and Commerce):
Net balance from non-merchandise transactions (including official contributions) between Canada and the United States, the United Kingdom and other countries, calendar years 1955-1959 and
first quarters 1959 and 1960
(Millions of dollars)
Transactions with Transactions with Transactions with 

	the United States the United Kingdom other countries
Calendar year	1955	
"	"	1956	"	"	1957	"	"	1958	"	"	1959	First quarter 1959	"	"	1960	
Note:-This sign indicates a deficit.
Figures from 1957 on are subject to revision.
-350	- 36	-101-472	- 73	- 93-621	- 91	-133-606	-122	-187-718	-130	-226-177	- 41	- 43-169	- 41	- 62



IMPORTS OF MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARTS

Mr. Broome: 1.	What is the total value of all new trucks and automobiles imported into Canada In each of the last five years from: (a) United States; (b) United Kingdom; (c) others?
2.	What is the total value of all automotive parts
imported into Canada in each of the last five years from:	(a) United States; (b) United Kingdom;
(c) others?
3.	What is the total value of all automotive parts imported into Canada in each of the last five years from the United States on a duty free basis, as being either of a class or kind not made in Canada, such as automatic transmissions, or on a drawback basis for incorporation on Canadian assembled vehicles under the commonwealth content formula based on total units produced per year?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):

Questions
1.	Total value of new trucks and automobiles (classes 5641, 5642, 5643, 5644) imported into Canada:
Year	(a) United States (5) United Kingdom (c) Other countries

1955	
87,521,263	15,821,635	6,035,097	.1956	
125,834,286	24,040,995	15,428,6931957	
75,928,338	32,474,486	20,879,9391958	
66,688,585	55,988,712	36,734,4481959	
78,645,983	88,085,539	54,890,1802.	Total value of all automotive parts (classes 1729, 5242, 5245, 5646,5648, 5650, 7002, 7004) imported into Canada: Year	(a) United States (6) United Kingdom (c) Other countries1955	
272,748,650	3,861,852	433,1571956	
310,818,212	4,699,387	1,201,5181957	
278,236,318	5,292,650	1,987,7401958	
255,069,406	5,623,248	2,538,8211959	
306,370,175	7,377,394	3,591,7983.	Total value of all automotive parts (classes 1729, 5242, 5245, 5646, 5648, 5650, 7002, 7004) imported into Canada from the United States on a duty free basis:Year	Duty free imports
1955		 138,465,375
1956		 153,488,848
1957		 148,139,706
1958		 150,995,036
1959		 not available.
Information on imports of a class or kind not made in Canada, is not available. Information on imports on a drawback basis, is not available.



OIL IMPORTS AND EXPORTS

Mr. Broome: 1.	What was the total value of crude oil imports
in each of the last five years from: (a) near and Middle East; (b) Trinidad; (c) Venezuela; (d) United States?	.
2.	What was the total value of crude oil exports in the same periods?
3.	What was the total value of refined oil products imported from the United States in each of the last five years?
4.	What was the total value of refined oil products exported to the United States in each of the last five years?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1. Total value of crude oil imports (classes 7153, 7154, 7165):
Year	(a) Near and Middle East	(5) Trinidad	(c) Venezuela	(d) United Statess	$	$	$1955	.. 26,607,608	6,704,169	172.883,246	22,803,3251956	.. 46,496,261	7,386,860	196,559,596	19,002,5121957	.. 34,464,354	3,490,513	241,629,303	26,096,0581958	.. 68,901,968	5,045,104	199,909,243	4,684,4051959	.. 81,771,228	7,470,592	187,584,171	669,200Total value of crude oil exports (class 7280)	Year	Value
1955		 36,253,134
1956		 103,923,155
1957		 140,974,837
1958		 73,043,757
1959		 74,541,292

Questions
3. Total value of refined oil products (classes 7151, 7156, 7161, 7162, 7163, 7164, 7166, 7167, 7168, 7171, 7172, 7173, 7174, 7181, 7182, 7183, 7184, 7185, 7186, 7187) imported from the United States:
Year	Value

1955		 94,839,702
1956		 97,817,120
1957		 99,007,379
1958		 71,439,321
1959		 71,168,405
4.	Total value of refined oil products (classes 7290 , 7300, 7310, 7315, 7320, 7330) exported to the United States:
Year	Value

1955		 3,237,602
1956		 8,134,278
1957		 8,873,084
1958		 2,788,326
1959		 5,085,619



EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. CANADA-VENEZUELA

Mr. Broome: 1.	What were total Canadian imports from Venezuela in each of the last five years, and what is the latest available figure for 1960?
2.	What were total Canadian exports to Venezuela in each of the last five years, and what is the latest available figure for 1960?
3.	What were our principal exports to Venezuela in each of these periods, and the dollar value of each class of exports?
Answer by: Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):
1.	Canadian imports from Venezuela:
Year 1955	 $ 187,277,463
1956		 208,401,325
1957		 248,144,971
1958		 209,590,086
1959		 204,697,170
January-February 1960	 32,207,967
2.	Canadian exports (domestic produce plus re-exports) to Venezuela:
Year 1955	 * 30,802,268
1956		 34,417,263
1957		 40,184,192
1958		 43,866,795
1959		 46,384,817
January-May 1960	 15,832,790
3.	Principal exports (domestic produce) to Venezuela:
Commodity
Jan.-May
1955	1956	1957	1958	1959	1960
(Thousands of Dollars)
Milk, powdered, condensed, evaporated	
5,117	5,482	5,344	7,129	7,901	3,007Wheat	
187	119	162	3,068	5,310	2,584Eggs in the shell (for food)	
699	796	2,614	4,105	4,601	1,066Newsprint paper	
1,261	1,910	2,461	2,242	2,358	897Electrical apparatus, n.o.p	
557	915	953	1,970	2,255	752Synthetic plastics, primary forms	
1,565	968	1,619	1,786	2,090	1,059Machinery (non-farm) and parts	
1,573	1,988	2,855	1,914	1,853	787Wood pulp	
0	222	12	223	1,685	177Automobiles, passenger	
100	1,057	1,061	1,101	1,624	564Copper wire and copper manufactures	
1,037	1,430	1,091	805	1,171	214Lumber and timber	
558	1,288	2,113	805	997	256Potatoes, certified seed	
372	1,024	813	695	749	347Wheat flour	
10,007	8,395	5,613	6,386	661	4Pipes, tubes and fittings (iron and steel)	
68	196	2,616	829	374	2
Noth: Commodities ranked according to value of exports in 1959.

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



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
411.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,844,830.
412.	Nautical services including Canada's share of the cost of the North Atlantic ice patrol; grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates; rewards for saving life from vessels in distress; subsidy to a salvage company; and the payment of expenses, including excepted expenses, incurred in respect of Canadian distressed seamen as defined in section 306 of the Canada Shipping Act, $604,524.
Pilotage service-
413.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,571,976.
414.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $235,000.
415.	Steamship inpection service including the carrying out of the provisions of the conventions for the safety of life at sea and load lines, and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $1,099,578.
416.	Marine reporting service, $157,918.
Ship channel service-St. Lawrence and Saguenay
rivers-
417.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,370,414.
418.	Contract dredging including acquisition of land for ship channel improvements, $3,272,903.
Railway and steamship services-
419.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $59,800.
Transport-
A-Department-
555.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $68,350.
Canal services-
556.	Construction or acquisition of buildings,
works, land and equipment-further	amount
required, $65,700.
557.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council-further amount required, $497,000.
558.	Payment to the Canada Starch Company Limited (hereinafter called the company) on condition that the company execute and deliver to Her Majesty a release in a form satisfactory to the Minister of Transport, in lieu of compensation payable to the company on cancellation of a lease between Her Majesty and the company in respect of certain lands along the Galops canal that are affected by the St. Lawrence seaway and power development, $930,000.
Marine services-
Marine service steamers-
559.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $333,845.
561. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $198,000.
Pilotage service-
562.	Administration, operation and maintenance -further amount required, $135,960.
563. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment-further amount required, $29,000.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, June 29, 1960