1960-07-18

Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement on government housing policy. As I have repeatedly said in this house, housing is a subject under continuing review by the government under flexible policies we have introduced to meet changing conditions, for conditions do change sometimes overnight in this industry, an industry that plays such a significant role in the nation's economy.
Because of geographical and climatic conditions we all know that the winter months in many parts of Canada are traditionally difficult ones on the employment market, particularly where construction workers are concerned. Furthermore, there is in Canada today a demand for new housing by home owner applicants that cannot be satisfied by the present income requirements of $5,000 to $5,600 relating to government mortgage loans.
It is therefore the government's intention to try to meet this demand by easing existing limitations, and at the same time to provide greater work opportunities during the coming winter months. The present direct lending policy was restricted for fiscal reasons. We are now prepared to relax these restrictions to provide greater employment. To attain this dual objective we recognize that the resources of the efficient and highly organized house building industry in this country must be employed to the fullest and best advantage. At the same time measures to produce more new housing must not be permitted to add to the present stock of unsold dwellings.
With these considerations in mind, two steps are to be taken. First, effective September 1 the income limitation on applicants seeking direct loans from Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation will be increased to $7,000 with $200 in upward adjustments for larger families to a maximum of $7,600. Second, also effective on September 1 the corporation will receive applications for direct loans from merchant builders as distinguished from speculative builders, provided the house on which the loan is to be made has been
presold to a bona fide purchaser whose income does not exceed $7,000 or up to $7,600 in the case of larger families.
In both instances applications will be received immediately for processing but loan commitments, of course, will not be issued until September 1. After November 30 we will revert to loans to home owner applicants only on terms and conditions to be announced at that time. In the case of builders, an advance on the mortgage loan will not be made until title has been transferred to the purchaser and evidence of the assumption of mortgage provided. Furthermore, a builder-sponsored application will not be accepted if the builder already has a stock of unsold houses or insists upon reproducing a house type of which there is already a number completed and unsold in the immediate market area.
Hon. members will no doubt wish to ask me what effect this change in policy will have on the over-all housing program and what number of starts may be achieved this year. First of all let me say that the new arrangement is not designed to produce any particular number of new starts this fall. It is tailored rather to activate verifiable demand or to meet the demand for new loans within the designated income limits and to permit builders to seek out this demand. It is difficult to forecast what added volume of C.M.H.C. lending will result from this change, and I am not going to attempt to do so. Last winter, however, in the house, as hon. members will recall, I estimated that new housing starts in 1960 would probably reach 120,000 to 125,000 units. The effect of this special arrangement which I have just announced for the next three months will likely result in total housing starts somewhat higher than this.
I have taken this opportunity to make an early announcement of the new requirements to give merchant builders ample time in which to make their plans. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the plan I have outlined accomplishes several things which I should like to mention. First, it assists those Canadian families-well, they are already pouring cold water on the enterprise. I might expect this from the opposition but from my dear friend the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) it is more than I can understand. He is inuring me to the future. I hope this will be the end of any cold water.

Housing
As I say, the plan assists those Canadian families who still have an urgent need for homes of their own; second, it utilizes to advantage the facilities of the house building industry. Don't bother with that water; I am used to paddling my own canoe.


Mr. Winch:: Somebody has to mop up for you.


David James Walker: So that the hon. member for Vancouver East may be under no misapprehension, the Minister of Transport simply upset a glass of water. I should just like to repeat what I have said, Mr. Speaker, and I would like all hon. members to take particular notice. We think this new plan accomplishes several ends. First, it assists those Canadian families who still have an urgent need for houses of their own; second, it utilizes to advantage the facilities of the house building industry; third, it prevents an undesirably heavy stock of unsold houses. We are very anxious to see that this is accomplished. And, fourth, the September 1 date for loan commitments is designed to provide a maximum of employment during the coming winter.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's somewhat lengthy statement, interrupted both by himself and his colleague, is obviously an important one and should be given the study that its importance demands with regard to its housing, financial and employment aspects. As it happens, Mr. Speaker, perhaps we will reach the minister's estimates later this day when this matter can be examined. All I would say now is that the statement seems to reflect ideas put forward and proposals made on this side of the house many weeks ago, which at that time got a very negative reception.


Mr. Erhart Regier (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, we were interested in the announcement that has been made. The minister indicated that conditions sometimes change overnight. He did not elaborate, and we are very anxious to have a little more explanation as to exactly what conditions have changed overnight, because as we understand the housing situation, it is almost exactly in line today with what was predicted by opposition spokesmen in the house a number of months ago.
We noted the minister's intention to ease limitations while at the same time expressing grave concern for the large number of unsold housing units on the market. We regret his very great concern for the large number of unsold housing units, because it is our contention that as long as rents and the prices of houses continue their upward spiral

there is no undue number of unsold units. I welcome his announcement of a new class of builders whom he called merchant builders. I believe the distinction he made is a useful one and will be helpful.
However, I noted with great regret that the minister did not announce that more of the money parliament allocated for housing would be made available for that purpose. The minister very carefully avoided announcing the release of more of the money for housing made available to him a few months ago by the House of Commons. Unless the minister elaborates further, we must assume that the government only intends to utilize roughly one-third of the $500 million it was authorized to use. No more money is to be made available; there are only alterations of the regulations, some of which may well be useful.
I might point out to the minister that in the lower mainland of British Columbia almost half of the men ordinarily engaged in the house building industry are unemployed, in the middle of summer.


David James Walker: The hon. member has asked a very sound question. It is the government's intention to use as much additional money in excess of the $175 million allocated as will be necessary to fulfil the demand for presold houses to be built by merchant builders or by individual home owners who are seeking to build their own homes. Whatever amount is necessary will be made available, but not one cent of government money will be used for speculative building. It has to be a very real supply to meet a real demand, and there will be no exceptions to that.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-85, to amend the Indian Act (section 112 repealed).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, as is indicated, the purpose of the bill is to repeal section 112 of the Indian Act, which is the section that provides that the minister may by compulsion force enfranchisement upon an Indian or a band. I would point out that the word "enfranchisement" as used here is not used in the normal sense of the word, namely the right to vote, although that is one of the things that is covered.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
Motion. No. 122-Mr. Benidickson (for Mr. Garland):
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since March 1, 1960 between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and any person, association or corporation, regarding the direct loan lending policy of the corporation.
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public
Works): Could we have this motion stand, Mr. Speaker?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Until after your estimates have been dealt with, I suppose?


Mr. Chevrier:: It has stood twice already.


Mr. Benidickson:: Three times.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.
Motion stands.



C.M.H.C.-DIRECT LOAN LENDING POLICY

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 123-Mr. Benidickson (for Mr. Garland):
For a copy of all telegrams, correspondence and other documents exchanged since March 1, 1960 between the Minister of Public Works and any person, association or corporation, regarding the direct loan lending policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
David James Walker: Stand, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Stand.


Lionel Chevrier: On this matter, Mr. Speaker, may I ask whether it is the intention of the minister to delay this motion until such time as the discussion of his estimates has terminated? I say this because it has been held up twice already, if not three times.


David James Walker: Whatever speed the government indulged in to meet this requirement would result in the production of not hundreds but perhaps many hundreds of letters from all different branches across Canada. We are trying to review what this motion would involve before suggesting to the house what the decision of the government would be.
Motion stands.



GREAT SLAVE LAKE


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 125-Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl) (for
Mr. Mcllraiih):
For a copy of the report of the commission on the railway route to Great Slave lake.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In view of the fact that this document was tabled, Mr. Speaker, I presume that the motion could now be dropped.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes; it was allowed to stand because the hon. member was not here. If the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) will take the responsibility of asking for it to be withdrawn, that could be done.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: The Prime Minister says the document was tabled?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith) is ill. He is most interested in this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreeable that the item be withdrawn?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the Canadian government has received from the government of the Soviet union a protest on what is called or referred to as "buzzing" by Canadian aircraft of Soviet ships. If so, can the Prime Minister inform the house of the nature of that protest and what the Canadian government reply is, if any, to this statement?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on July 8 the Soviet embassy in Ottawa informed the Department of External Affairs that they had received a telegram from the captain of the Soviet scientific ship, the Lomonosov, reporting that an unidentified airplane had flown over the ship at a low altitude. The captain recommended that these flights should cease in order to avoid accidents.
On receiving this information the Department of External Affairs approached the Department of National Defence and instructions were issued that Canadian aircraft should not fly at low altitudes over the Lomonosov, which had been known to be operating off the Canadian coast outside of territorial waters. The Soviet embassy was informed on July 8 of the action which had been taken.
On July 14 the Canadian ambassador in Moscow was called to the Soviet foreign office to receive a copy of a complaint which the Soviet government had made to the United
6406	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry States government about overflights of Soviet ships at sea. Canada was not mentioned in this note, but the ambassador was informed orally of four occasions on which Canadian aircraft had flown low over Soviet ships at sea. One of these involved the Lomonosov in 1959 and the other three involved Russian trawlers at more recent dates. The hope was expressed that the Canadian government would take proper measures to stop such flights of Canadian planes in future.
Our ambassador in Moscow has been instructed to tell the Soviet foreign office of the action which we took on July 8 to avoid low flights over the Lomonosov by Canadian aircraft. The incidents in respect of the trawlers referred to by the Soviet foreign office are being investigated.



ATOMIC ENERGY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the minister of external affairs concerning a report in the press this morning that the United States will resume underground nuclear testing, with 11 explosions planned in the next two years. Is the Canadian government considering protesting to the United States that this action should not be carried forward, since the minister has so often said that Canada's position is opposed to nuclear tests, period?


Howard Charles Green: As I hope I explained on Friday to the understanding of all hon. members opposite, including the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Essex East, the policy of the Canadian government continues to be against any further nuclear tests, period. We have explained that position to the United States government within the last week.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question. The question put to the minister had to do with the 11 small underground nuclear explosions. Do the minister's remarks apply also to the United States announcement that there will be 21 subsurface explosions involving high explosives? Was the Canadian government advised before this announcement was made, and if so was objection taken to the decision to carry out 21 subsurface explosions with high explosives as well?


Howard Charles Green: We are not opposed to the use of ordinary explosives. Canada would not be developed to a very great extent if there had not been explosives used right


here. Sometimes I think it might be a good idea to use a few across the way.


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: May I ask-


Hazen Robert Argue: That was no blockbuster.


Murdo William Martin: I agree with the reply, referring to ordinary explosives. I can very well understand that the minister would make that remark in view of the predicament in which he finds himself as a result of vague and inconsistent government policy. May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether these tests are all in addition to the announcement made by President Eisenhower on May 7?


Howard Charles Green: I do not know about that, Mr. Speaker. The United States have announced on a number of occasions within the last few months that they held themselves free to go ahead with nuclear tests. I would presume that these are the same tests that they had in mind when these earlier statements were made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the minister whether it is now a fact, then, that the government is opposed to these underground nuclear tests, whatever may be their purpose and under whatever auspices they may be conducted?


Hazen Robert Argue: Are you for them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am asking a question.


Howard Charles Green: It is perfectly clear that we are against nuclear tests, period.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trans-porl):: On Friday, I think it was, or last week the hon. member for Bonavista-Twil-lingate asked a question regarding tenders for the Jacques Cartier bridge. To date 11 contracts have been awarded and 10 of them are listed on page 860 of Hansard for February 8, 1960; the 11th is a contract awarded on June 11, 1960 to A. Janin & Company Limited in the amount of $651,235.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisfa-Twil-lingale):: Just to keep the record straight, I have no recollection of having asked about any contracts for the Jacques Cartier bridge.


George Harris Hees: It is my mistake; it is the Champlain bridge.


Lionel Chevrier: It was the Champlain
bridge, and it was the hon. member for Verdun who asked the question.


George Harris Hees: Well, we have the answer now.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: The hon. member for Jacques Cartier-Lasalle asked a question concerning the noise caused by jet aircraft at Dorval airport. As a result of study by departmental operational officials and consultation with the air fines, a series of operational rules have been put into effect which should improve the situation. Radar traffic control is to give departing aircraft courses to steer to avoid built-up areas wherever possible, and mandatory use of preferential runways for both takeoffs and landings to avoid built-up areas whenever weather conditions permit will become effective immediately. The air fines are adopting the climb take-off and power setting procedures approved for jet aircraft by the international air transport association, while on instrument approaches the I.L.S. glide path will be intercepted at 1,500 feet rather than 1,000 feet to eliminate procedural turns at lower altitudes and allow more time for power settings for descent.
No training take-offs and landings are being allowed during the night hours, and no scheduled take-offs and landings are in the timetable after midnight. This situation is to be continued. The air lines have also been informed that the record with regard to delayed take-offs after midnight must be so materially improved as to eliminate this difficulty, and have given their assurance that this will be the case. My officials are maintaining a close and continuing review of the situation.


Lionel Chevrier: Is this the same announcement that was made in the minister's press release, issued a day or two ago?


George Harris Hees: A press release might have been issued by the department in my absence, but this is the answer to the hon. member's question.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: May I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In the light of the statement made by the Minister of Public Works concerning housing, one of the effects of which, he stated, would be to provide maximum employment during the coming winter months, may I ask the Prime Minister if before the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Labour we can expect from the government or from the
Inquiries of the Ministry ministers concerned similar statements with respect to other projects which the government has in hand to meet the serious economic and unemployment conditions in the country at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: The subject matter of the question has received the fullest consideration; and when it is deemed appropriate, and following the course taken by the hon. gentleman when he was a minister, an announcement of government policy will be made in due course.



UNEMPLOYMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the observations of the Prime Minister, and since the estimates of the Department of Labour will be discussed, I presume, within the course of the next two or three days, will the hon. gentleman say if he will be able at that time to announce the conclusions of the interdepartmental committee, set up for the purpose of providing a new standard of measurement of unemployment, so this may be discussed on the estimates?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: the report is available by that time I shall be glad to do so.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Has the minister taken any steps, or will he take any steps, to see whether that report could be made available?


Michael Starr: I have made inquiries, and I am informed that those concerned will do everything possible to bring in this report as soon as they are able to do so.



CROP INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture in view of his concern for the tree fruit and small fruit producers of British Columbia. Will the question of crop insurance be one of the main subjects under discussion when the ministers and deputy ministers of agriculture from all provinces in Canada meet in Victoria later this month? Wifi the minister and his deputy be in attendance at this conference?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: I have received no information as to what subjects will be discussed at this

Inquiries of the Ministry conference; therefore I have no knowledge whether or not the subject of crop insurance will be discussed there.
As to the second question, this conference has been going on for several years as a purely provincial conference at which dominion ministers have not been present. At the dominion-provincial agricultural conference late last fall, when I met provincial ministers of agriculture, they asked me if I would be agreeable to attending the provincial conference for possibly one day. I indicated that I would be agreeable to that course of action, but my information is that the conference began this morning, and I have had no official invitation to attend.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO AGENDA FOR JULY MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Moore Benidickson: I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of Finance in view of the fact that one week from today the federal-provincial conference will be assembling, and also in the light of the fact that tomorrow we shall be discussing the minister's estimates. Could the minister give the house more information as to what will be on the agenda of the forthcoming conference? The hon. gentleman indicated last week that the subject of unemployment would not be on the agenda. I was wondering whether medical-surgical insurance would be an item on the agenda.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: A draft agenda was submitted to the premiers of the provinces by the Prime Minister some ten days ago for their approval or otherwise. Replies have now been received from, I think, four of the premiers, but the agenda has not as yet been determined.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: In view of the alarming reports from the Congo over the week end, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs is able to bring the house up to date as to the adequacy and scope of United Nations efforts in the Congo, and also its attitude to what is reported as being the new government of Katanga.


Howard Charles Green: 
Erhart Regier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister able to offer any comment on the latter part of my question? What is the position of the efforts of the United Nations and Canada vis-a-vis the emergence of another nation inside the Congo?


Howard Charles Green: The situation in Katanga is not yet clear enough for me to be able to make any detailed statement. I believe that the premier of Katanga has declared for independence. He has also stated that he does not want any United Nations forces in that province. As I said, however, this situation is obscure at the moment, and I cannot make a definite statement.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform the house whether the government has received any request from Katanga for recognition as a separate state?


Howard Charles Green: Not directly, Mr. Speaker, although an effort is being made by the government of Katanga to get recognition from various countries.


Paul Joseph James Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister in a position to add anything to the story that a ship containing arms and explosives from Poland is on its way to the area? Could the minister also tell the house what arrangements have been made for the safe disposition of Canadians in the Congo?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have had no dispatches concerning this Polish ship, although I would judge that there is some
Inquiries of the Ministry question as to whether or not there is a Polish ship carrying arms. I might add that with regard to Katanga that the situation seems to be under control. It would appear that the government there now has things under control and that there is no immediate danger. I believe that the Prime Minister has a statement with regard to Canadians in the Congo.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister if he is going to deal with the disposition of Canadians in the Congo?


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marqueile):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister along the lines of that asked by the hon. member for Essex East, and inquire whether the minister has anything to report regarding the safety of Canadian missionaries and other Canadians in the Congo?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Marquette for giving me notice of this question. He was the first hon. member to make an inquiry in this connection. To both hon. gentlemen I say that the most recent information available does not indicate that the Canadian and British citizens, are in any immediate danger.
To date three Canadian missionaries are known to have arrived safely at points outside the Congo, and their next of kin have been notified. Details of others who arrived safely outside the country are not yet available, but we have been informed that on July 15 Canadian missionaries were evacuated from Bas Congo along with United States and British missionaries, and that other Canadians were similarly scheduled to leave from the eastern part of Leopoldville province on July 16. Incidentally, Mr. Bull who looked into the matter also reported that all was quiet in Equator and Oriental provinces, and that the Canadian and United States missionaries from Kasai province were safe. He reaffirmed that the Canadian missionaries were still most unwilling to leave their posts, which indicates that the position is such that there is not at the moment immediate peril.


Lester Bowles Pearson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister whether the planes that are taking food supplies to the Congo might be used to evacuate any Canadians who might wish to return?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that R.C.A.F. planes will be made available for that purpose.
6410	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION ACT



ANNOUNCEMENT CLARIFYING DATE OF COMING INTO EFFECT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday royal assent was given to an act to amend the Public Service Superannuation Act. News broadcasts on the radio the following morning stated that this measure would come into effect only on proclamation. This erroneous report has given rise to some disturbed feelings and a great many questions.
When the bill was proceeding through the house I stated that it would come into effect on royal assent. That is the fact, and that is the provision contained in the bill. As the bill received royal assent last Thursday, Mr. Speaker, the bill and the benefits provided thereunder accordingly became effective on Thursday, July 14.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister, notice of which I had no opportunity to send him. My question is based on a letter addressed to the hon. member for Timis-kaming and myself by Hon. A. W. Roebuck, chairman of the Senate committee on divorce. The letter reads in part as follows:
I have received assurance that these bills will be passed by the commons at this session of parliament-
Would the Prime Minister say who gave this assurance, and what the assurance was?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is dealing with a matter that is not the administrative responsibility of the government. It is a matter that is decided by the house. The house decides to pass or not pass bills.


Frank Howard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the letter indicates that the hon. senator has received an assurance that these bills will be passed, and I am trying to determine whether the government gave this assurance.


Mr. Speaker:: As I have indicated, it is not a matter of the government's responsibility, the passing of bills. It is a matter for the house. Questions are only properly asked on matters that are the administrative responsibility of the government.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him, in view of the


interest that has been shown throughout the country in connection with the reduction of the voting age from 21 to 18, whether he will ask the house to provide an opportunity for the discussion of Bill No. C-48, to amend the Canada Elections Act, which was presented by the hon. member for Beauce?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there are many
private bills on the order paper. If I were to give an indication that any one would be preferred to others that have been on the order paper for a very long period of time it would be improper and such a course would, I am sure, be immediately criticized by all who believe in the parliamentary system.


Lionel Chevrier: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the co-operation which has been given by this side of the house in the consideration of a number of bills introduced by hon. members from the other side of the house during the hour devoted on Tuesday and Friday to that purpose, I thought under the circumstances the Prime Minister might think it advisable to ask the house to give particular consideration to this bill.


John George Diefenbaker: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Has the government any plans for the resumption of the discussion of capital punishment?


John George Diefenbaker: As the hon. gentleman knows, plans were made some weeks ago and were made known to the house. As soon as the legislative program and the estimates have achieved that degree of completion which I believe is necessary, then with the co-operation to which the hon. member for Laurier referred, I am sure that a day will be set aside for that purpose.


Lester Bowles Pearson: What degree of completion does the Prime Minister consider necessary so that we may resume the discussion?


John George Diefenbaker: The order paper is a pretty good indication, together with the estimates still outstanding.


Hazen Robert Argue: May I ask
the Prime Minister a question. Since the Prime Minister has given us his attitude toward resumption of the discussion on the private member's bill on capital punishment and with regard to the private member's bill concerning the 18 year old vote, is he prepared to give us his own attitude towards debate on the private member's bills dealing with divorce?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Now the hon. member is asking the Prime Minister a question in

his capacity as a member of the house. If we allow questions of that kind to be asked every member could ask every other member what his position was with respect to any bill. I take it the question is quite out of order.


Hazen Robert Argue: On the point of order, I point out to Your Honour that you allowed a question and a reply dealing with the Prime Minister's attitude toward bringing on a private member's bill dealing with the 18 year old vote and with regard to the resumption of debate on a private member's bill dealing with capital punishment. I therefore submit that if the Prime Minister is in order in giving to the house his own attitude on these particular bills, by the same reasoning he would be in order in giving us his attitude toward certain other private bills.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I may not be right all the time but I see a distinction between the question of the hon. member and the precedent to which he refers. His latest question was directed to the personal view of the Prime Minister. Having heard the hon. member, I still have the same view that it is out of order and that the matter is disposed of.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the hon. member will not attempt to argue a matter when it has been settled, after he has been heard.



FOLEYET, ONT.    INQUIRY AS TO REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of reports that the local and provincial contributions to the Mountjoy flood relief fund will have been distributed in about one month's time, could the Prime Minister say whether the federal government has reached a decision as to the amount or the basis of the federal contribution to this fund.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I shall have to take that question as notice.


Murdo William Martin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Prime Minister say-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not know how there could be a supplementary question if the original question has been taken as notice. If the hon. member has another question it would be in order.


Murdo William Martin: Could the Prime Minister ascertain whether any of the federal
Inquiries of the Ministry contribution would go toward repaying or refunding the Red Cross, as has been reported is happening with the local and provincial contributions?



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Has the attention of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue been directed to a column by Miss Charlotte Whitton appearing in the Ottawa Citizen over the week end? Has he any information as to whether the C.B.C. has any intention of having a second broadcast by the so-called corespondent?


Mr. M. J. A. Lambert (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I did read the
column in question. May I say that there is no intention that the so-called lady of the shadows will appear on television on any divorce program. There may be other people who will appear, but whether they will be prepared to bare their souls I do not know.



INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Erhart Regier: May I direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of National Revenue. Is he able to explain to the house why the annual report of the C.B.C. appeared in our mail boxes only a limited number of hours after the conclusion of the discussion of the estimates?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the report was prepared and made available by the corporation to the minister within the time required under the Broadcasting Act, and it was made available according to the terms of the Broadcasting Act.


Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the statutory requirement as to when this report must be made available?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Fifteen days after the three-month period following the end of the fiscal year of the corporation.

Income Tax Act INCOME TAX ACT



CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS

Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. C-68, to amend the Income Tax Act.
He said: Hon. members are aware that with respect to Bill No. C-68, to amend the Income Tax Act the Senate has made two amendments. They were reported to the house on Thursday, July 14, and printed in the Votes and Proceedings of this house on that day at page 773.
These are not far-reaching amendments, Mr. Speaker. In each case they strike from the bill a subclause. There is no constitutional question at issue here because in moving to strike these out the Senate acted at the request of the Minister of Finance.
The two clauses, Mr. Speaker, are not ones that enter into questions pertaining to the balance of ways and means; they are of a technical and legislative nature. The first relates to clause 18 of the bill respecting the provision for recapture of the capital cost allowances on depreciable property distributed by a trust or estate to a beneficiary. In the other clause, which is No. 24, the amendment provided thereby to section 83 A of the act contemplated the insertion of the word "exclusively" in two places. This amendment, it was indicated to the house, was for the purpose of giving legislative confirmation to the administrative practice of the Department of National Revenue. The department is quite satisfied that this practice can stand in the courts without the necessity for any legislative confirmation.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I am moving concurrence in the two amendments.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the minister satisfied himself that his action is not in conflict with standing order 63. I have had some misgivings on it, but if he is satisfied-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Yes, Mr. Speaker. These amendments were made by the Senate committee at the request of the Minister of Finance, in this respect following the practice that has existed for some years. The point that you have raised concerning the rule of this house has no application to this situation.


William Moore Benidickson: While these amendments are technical they are not unimportant, Mr. Speaker. Since a thorough discussion took place in the Senate, both in the banking and commerce committee of that place and on second

reading of the bill in the Senate, I do not propose to deal with the issues involved. The printed report of the proceedings of the final sittings of the Senate committee on banking and commerce unfortunately is not available yet from the printer, but the chairman of that committee gave a very full explanation of what had taken place with relation to these amendments when he spoke in the Senate on July 13. For those outside the house who are interested in these amendments, and there will be a number, I commend the reports of the proceedings of the Senate banking and commerce committee dated June 30 and July 6, and the third one which has not yet been printed.
In addition to making the amendments before us, the distinguished lawyers and others who composed the Senate banking and commerce committee also made a very close examination of section 33. They considered making amendments, but after further discussion with the officers of the Department of Finance decided not to do so.
We had a rather interesting explanation from the Minister of Finance that we have no constitutional issue here because these amendments were made at his request. That may be, Mr. Speaker, but I point out that the section was very carefully criticized by the eminent lawyers and others on the Senate banking and commerce committee, as evidenced by the reports of the committee proceedings. The members of the Senate suggested to the officers of the department that their criticisms were worth while, and they asked the officers to go back to the Minister of Finance with an indication that they proposed to make amendments and ask for further consideration by the minister. The minister has, of course, announced that he has withdrawn two of the items originally in the draft bill.
While we are discussing Bill No. C-68, I wonder whether the minister's attention has been drawn to the article with respect to taxes in the last issue of the Financial Post written by Mr. John C. McDonald, a well known expert in the tax field. He deals particularly with the amendments in the bill relating to the new sections 136 (12a) and (12b). He reports something that, in view of our amendments to the section, I think should have the immediate attention of the minister.
The article is headlined, "Department Traps Unwary in Mailing Date Mix-up". Although we have declared in the bill that the effective date upon which appeals from assessments will be based will be the actual mailing date, the article suggests that it has become the practice of the department

to put a date on the assessment notice that is frequently several days later than the date when the assessment notice is actually put in the mail. As Mr. McDonald points out in the article, this means that if your notice is dated April 25 but is mailed to you on May 1 the department may have your appeal thrown out because you have not filed your objection within the allowable 90 days. The unwary person may not retain the envelope with the postmark on it and may find that he has lost several days as a result of this rather peculiar and, I would suggest, perhaps shabby practice on the part of the taxing authorities.
In view of the amendment the minister has advanced making it very clear that the effective date is the actual date of mailing, I wonder whether the Minister of Finance will not consult with his colleague the Minister of National Revenue, to see whether this is indeed a trap that is not desirable and whether the practice could not be altered.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question? I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak only because the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has raised a question concerning a clause of the bill. It is not one that is before us today and I think his remarks were out of order, but as he has raised the point perhaps I might say a very brief word in reply.


William Moore Benidickson: I thank the minister, but may I say I thought the item was of sufficient importance that I could have raised it on the orders of the day.


Donald Methuen Fleming: The amendment to section 136 of the act is contained in clause 32 of the bill. The amendment is a remedial provision. It is one that has been asked for by various public bodies, including lawyers and accountants, and what we have done here is to comply with the requests that have been made.
To picture this as an occasion for introducing a shabby practice is, of course, completely unjustifiable. It never had that purpose and it has not that effect, and I am quite certain that my colleague the Minister of National Revenue will exercise his usual sense of fair play and propriety in the enforcement of the newly amended section 136 of the act when the present bill comes into effect.


William Moore Benidickson: Has the minister no explanation as to why it is the practice of the department frequently and perhaps regularly
Canada Shipping Act
to date the notice of assessment April 25, for example, while mailing it out on May 1?


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister wishes to
answer the question, all right, but as has been indicated this discussion goes beyond the actual amendments which are before the house.
Motion agreed to and amendments read the second time and concurred in.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-80, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Pilots licensed in United States exempted.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I was going to ask for a copy of the bill, which I understood was amended in the committee. Would the minister be good enough to give a short summary of what happened in the committee and tell us which of the representations were met, which were not, and for what reasons?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I had rather assumed that the hon. member and other members interested in the bill would have read the report of the committee that met to deal with the matter.
There were two amendments suggested to clause 2 and when we reach that clause I shall ask one of my colleagues to move those amendments. The other matters discussed in the committee, which met I believe for some four hours, would require quite a bit of reading on my part if I were to elucidate them. I assumed that the hon. member for Laurier had read the report of the committee and would be familiar with what went on there. I am sorry he was not at the meeting at that time.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister is quite right; I should have read the report of the committee. Unfortunately I was able to attend only the morning sittings, and I was unable to attend the afternoon sittings because of the debate on the civil rights bill which took place in the house. I was particularly concerned with the amendments upon which the pilots of the district of Montreal, Ottawa and Kingston made representations. I was wondering if, in his opening remarks, the minister could not give an indication to the house as to whether or not the government had acceded to those suggestions.

Canada Shipping Act
There were representations also made by the shipping federation of Canada, and it was upon those that I thought the minister might be able to give some indication as to what, in fact, those recommendations contained and why they were unacceptable, if that is the case, to the government. My object in asking for this information at this time is that once we get into a discussion of the clauses, then we are bound by the strict rule of relevance to discuss the clauses. I thought we should have this information now.
There is a third matter, however, which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. The minister will recall that when this matter was being discussed at the resolution stage we did not have the bill, and at the request of the minister we gave the bill second reading and sent it on to the committee in order to assist its passage, because I think there was general unanimity with its principles. This explains why some of us at least have not seen the bill since it returned from the committee.
I come back to my point. The minister will remember that at the resolution stage I asked him whether there had been any consultation with the pilots on the great lakes and what their views were. I have not the minister's words in front of me now and I would not want to misrepresent him, but my recollection is that there was no objection to any clauses of the bill raised by these pilots. Since the matter has been in committee I have received representations from the Canadian representative and business manager of the great lakes district masters, mates and pilots, through their captain. He states that to his knowledge at no time has the attitude of the pilots in the Port Weller-Sarnia great lakes district been sought. He suggests it would appear that, so far as the pilots in that area are concerned, they are not to be considered. His letter intimates that if the matter is not straightened out properly now, some day there will be serious repercussions.
There are protests which he makes, and I would ask the minister to allow me to put on Hansard those protests and then he can deal with them when he replies. I know he has received these protests, and I feel they should be brought to the attention of the committee at this time. These are the reasons given by the Canadian representative and business manager, Captain Norman S. Johnston, for his opposition to certain parts of this bill, and I quote from a telegram which was sent from St. Catharines on July 6, 1960:
X strongly protest the amending of the Canada Shipping Act in regards to the fixing of the number of Canadian registered pilots for great lakes pilotage service. All great lakes masters, with the necessary qualifications and experience, such as

three years as master or sailing master required by the ships' pilots' rating guide, should be registered and given equal opportunity and equal rights without discrimination of any kind whatsoever. This is their democratic right and privilege for equality of oportunity. Surely this will not be taken away from them in this great country of ours. When more pilots are required, as they are at the present time, they can be drawn from this inactive pool of registered pilots.
I further protest Department of Transport officials not honouring verbal agreement reached with them in Ottawa on January 29, 1960.
This is quite recent.
Among several things, the 50 hour work week as promised to the pilots' committee and myself on behalf of the Port Weller-Sarnia pilots who are prevailing rate of pay employees of the Department of Transport, is not being carried out. Pilots are criminally and inhumanly overworked in this area; 70 to 90 hours per week and more as government employees without extra compensation. This is not the fault of the pilot supervisor but of the D.O.T. officials in Ottawa who will not bring in sufficient pilots to relieve the pressure and nerve tension on those now working. This practice has been protested several times by myself to the officials in Ottawa as a representative of the majority of the pilots in this area. Surely this inhuman practice will not be allowed to continue. Apprentice pilots should also be given serious consideration in this pilotage area, especially on the larger vessels.
Then he adds a further protest that the circular entitled "Employee Group Relations", Department of Transport, is not being carried out by the departmental officials in Ottawa. He contends that by following this circular many of the injustices can be corrected. It would appear that if there were adherence to the conditions outlined in the circular, that would perhaps meet many of the difficulties that have been brought to the attention of the department.
Then of course, as the minister knows, Captain Johnston further protests the pilotage tariff as presently set up for the Port Weller-Sarnia pilotage district, which are perhaps the lowest pilotage tariffs in the world for this type of district. He says:
This is one of the most difficult areas in Canada and the world to manoeuvre and handle. Surely our pilots should not be criminally and inhumanly overworked to keep pilotage tariffs ridiculously low on behalf of foreign shipping interests when many more capable pilots are available.
I have not had an opportunity of discussing this with the business manager of the association since the first bill came up for discussion last year, and certainly I have not had an opportunity of discussing these matters with him lately. I put these protests on the record now and I would think, since the minister is aware of these representations, perhaps he might deal with them. I would also invite him as pilotage authority to ask his officers to see these people. I have found-as I am sure the minister has since he has been in office-that there is nothing like personal

contact in connection with these matters. If this group headed by Captain Johnston were given an opportunity to come down here and discuss these grievances, which on their face appear to be serious, I am sure that with the good will of the minister and his departmental officials they could be quickly ironed out.
Without dealing at undue length with these matters, I wonder whether, before we get away from clause 1-because it would be difficult afterward to come back to the general proposition-the minister could not briefly tell us what has happened to the representations made to the committee by the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston district pilots, and next, what happened to the recommendations or amendments suggested by the shipping federation of Canada?


George Harris Hees: With regard to the last question asked by the hon. member for Laurier, may I say that a new subsection 3 was added to 375B as a result of the representations made by the representatives of the pilots at the committee meeting.


Lionel Chevrier: It is not in the bill that we now have before us. I obtained this copy from the table.


George Harris Hees: It is contained in the thirteenth report of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and reads as follows:
Clause 2
1. Page 2, amend the proposed new section 375B of the act by inserting therein immediately following subsection (2) thereof, the following subsection as subsection (3) :
"(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to a vessel registered in Canada or the United States
(a)	whose operations are upon the great lakes or between ports in the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river; or
(b)	whose operations are primarily as described in paragraph (a) and that makes occasional voyages to ports in the maritime provinces of Canada."
That was put in at the resquest, as I remember it, of the pilots who wished to have it made clear what ships were excused from requiring pilots by law. With regard to the telegram to which the hon. member from Laurier has referred-


Lionel Chevrier: Before the minister moves on may I ask this question. Did I understand the minister to say that two amendments were made?


George Harris Hees: Yes. This is a proposal made by the committee for two amendments in new subsection 5 and new subsection 6 of section 375B. When we come to that I will read those proposed amendments and ask my colleague the Associate Minister of National Defence to move that those new subsections be added. If the hon. member for Laurier
Canada Shipping Act
wishes me to read those two new subsections now I shall be glad to do so, but I will do it at the appropriate time in any event.
With regard to what the hon. member said about Captain Johnston's telegram of July 6, may I say that I have here a report made to me by the chief of the nautical and pilotage division of the Department of Transport, as follows:
Captain Johnston in the telegram reiterates his complaint that the Port Weller-Sarnia pilots are being "criminally overworked".
The department never entered into any agreement with Captain Johnston, but at a meeting last January it was clearly explained to the pilots' representatives that the department's conception of a 50-hour work week was 50 hours of actual work on the bridge of a ship, and that it was on this basis that the salary was set at $1,200 per month. The pilots understood that they would not be considered to be working when they were asleep crossing lake Erie, or when they were waiting on a ship in port, doing nothing. Further, it was clearly understood that the 50 hours must be an average. Obviously they might be called on to do more than 50 hours in some weeks when traffic might be congested.
I checked with the supervising pilot at Port Weller on the present situation on Friday afternoon.
That was Friday during the first week of July.
I was assured that, counting the actual pilotage time as above mentioned, the average work week is less than 50 hours. He cited to me three or four cases in which the hours worked had risen to 53 or 54 in one week, but as against this there were many cases in the past month when the number of hours had dropped to about 20.
At the present time the pilots are having about two days off between trips and if they are complaining at all, it is because the time off is too long. They would prefer to be on board ship rather than sitting around a hotel.
The supervising pilot has received no complaints of overwork from any of the pilots and several of them have admitted to him that they "never had it so good.''
I might say to the hon. member that the pilots in this district are government employees. As he knows, there is a regular procedure laid down for approaches to be made to the government by such groups, and we are very glad and willing at any time to discuss complaints or grievances with them.


Mr. Fisher:: The bill as amended suits me and it suits our group. I pointed out in committee the difficulties that are inherent in these amendments. I think these amendments are all right, but this might be a very difficult act to get satisfaction from because of the relationships with the Americans.
I think Captain Johnston's wire, which I also received and which I took up with the minister, is indicative of the problem involved. This is a case where Captain Johnston is representing a remnant organization outside of the civil service to which the pilots have moved. But we have on the other side of the

Canada Shipping Act
line what is going to be far from a remnant organization; it is a very tough, militant United States union. All I can say is that I hope the minister has genuinely able, diplomatic people to run the scheme in association with the Americans.
From reading the report of the committee -and I was at quite a bit of the hearings- we find the amendments suitable. We hope the legislation goes into effect soon and works very well. The only warning I should like to make in connection with it is that if the minister and his officials do not play it fair and straight with the Americans, and perhaps in a more public way than they would normally tend to do, I think the legislation in some of its aspects is likely to collapse. For that reason I should hope that he would be perhaps even more open and that his officials would be even more open with the Americans in the processes, procedures and techniques of making this work than he is with members of parliament; because I think he is as aware as am I that he has a couple of very able stonewallers in his department. While it is all right to stonewall a member of parliament, and there is not much that he can do about it, if you start to stonewall United States people, especially United States unions, you may have considerable trouble.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the minister how clause 1 is going to apply together with the amendment which I now see is going to be made to 375D(5)? What I mean is this. This act apparently applies only from the international boundary line west. There is no division of the pilotage district as between anything east of the international boundary line in Canada and anything west. There is one pilotage district, namely the Montreal-Ottawa-Kingston pilotage district. Is it the intention to resubdivide that pilotage district so there would be a line, with all those west of St. Regis being in one district and those east-which would, of course, not be a very long distance-probably in the Montreal district? I have heard that said, and I wondered how clause 1 would apply.


George Harris Hees: The intention is to establish a new district from Montreal to St. Regis, and the remainder of the old district as far as Kingston is a question that is under discussion at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say what the name of the Montreal-St. Regis portion will be, and what will be the name of the new district west of St. Regis?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the department has not decided on the name, but the division will be as 1 have outlined.


Lionel Chevrier: Can it be said at this time how the number of pilots will be divided as between the portion east of St. Regis and up river?


George Harris Hees: No, that has not been worked out; but I shall be glad to see that the hon. member for Laurier is advised when the decision is made, because I am aware of his great interest in this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a final question in connection with the operation of clause 1 of this bill, arising out of what has been said by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I agree that great care will have to be taken in the negotiations which still remain to be completed between Canada and the United States. What strikes me at the moment is that one of the officers of the department, Brigadier Booth, I think, indicated in committee that many of the negotiations are not yet completed. These will have to be entered upon from time to time. Is it possible now to know which of the arrangements have been completed and which are still under negotiation?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that matters of detail still remain to be worked out. However, as the hon. member knows, there is a considerable period of time for these discussions still remaining. The discussions cannot be started on these details until both bills have been passed in the United States and in Canada. As soon as this bill goes through, if it does, these discussions will begin, and I feel confident that long before the opening of the navigation season next year all these matters will have been worked out. I hope they will be worked out by the middle of this fall.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister need have no worry about the bill not going through. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We all support it.


George Harris Hees: I never like to take parliament for granted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the amendment which is contemplated to the last section, that is 375B (5) and (6) but particularly (5), to be read concurrently with clause 1? In other words, is it the intention to make sure that the Canadian pilots are treated in the same manner as the United States pilots mentioned in clause 1?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The whole purpose of this bill is to see to it that Canadian and United States pilots receive identical treatment, or as close as we can make it.


Lionel Chevrier: Does that apply to the qualifications? That was the point.


George Harris Hees: The qualifications of the pilots in both countries are very similar indeed.


Lionel Chevrier: There is just one other question. I feel there has not been sufficient explanation-and I say this with deterrence -as to the representations which were made by the shipping federation. I feel there has not been sufficient explanation of the reasons they were not accepted. Mind you, I am not saying that they should have been. Some of the amendments which were put forward by the shipping federation appeared to me at first glance to be in order; others appeared to be less necessary. Unfortunately I was not present at the afternoon sitting when Mr. Jean Brisset, who appeared for the shipping federation, had those amendments to suggest, and I am wondering whether the minister would not be good enough to tell us why they were not accepted. There are probably reasons for not doing so, on the advice of the hon. gentleman's officers, but the committee would perhaps like to know what those reasons are.


George Harris Hees: The federation's main recommendation was the reciprocal recommendation included in subsections 5 and 6 which I am going to ask my colleague the Minister of Labour to propose. I remember well that the other recommendation they made was that any member of a ship's complement, I believe it was, could be made eligible to navigate in open waters. It was pointed out by various members of the committee that this was not a sensible suggestion, because a member of the ship's complement might, for instance, be the ship's cook or someone in that category, who would have no authority to issue orders and have those navigational orders carried out. It was decided by the committee, unanimously I think, that it was desirable that only ship's officers should be eligible to act as navigators of a ship in open waters.
As I recall, those were the two main suggestions made by the shipping federation. One was agreed to and the other was not agreed to.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that explanation. I had understood that all the representations made by the federation had been declined.
Now may I ask a further question. The minister will remember that when there was discussion on this matter at the resolution stage, he allowed a week in order that interested parties might have ample opportunity to present their views. Following that statement of the minister in the house, but
Canada Shipping Act
prior to the meetings which took place, the hon. gentleman received a telegram from the shipping federation of Canada asking that certain sections of the act be amended. May I ask the minister what he did with regard to the representations made by the federation at that time?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that that telegram arrived at a moment when the deliberations of the committee were under way. I am told by my assistant deputy minister, who handled the matter, that we assumed that as a representative of the shipping federation was here to present the views of the shipping federation in person, any representations they wished to make would be made by their representative who was here to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true, but there was one recommendation which was not contained in the brief presented. I had the telegram on my desk but unfortunately it has gone to Hansard; otherwise I would bring it to the minister's attention. If he has the information, would he bring it to the attention of the committee?


George Harris Hees: We have the telegram here, but I am not familiar with the matters the hon. member has mentioned. I am advised that the matters dealt with in the telegram were also covered by the mimeographed sheet which the lawyer for the shipping federation distributed to members of the committee. Each of these recommendations was dealt with as I outlined to the hon. member.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in addition to the amendment which was moved by the committee I should like my colleague the Minister of Labour to move two additional amendments.


Michael Starr: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That the proposed new section 375B of the act appearing in clause 2 of Bill No. C-80 be further amended by adding the following subsections:
"(5) The authority given in subsection (1) to United States registered pilots or persons holding licences issued by the government of the United States shall extend only so long as Canadian registered pilots or officers having the qualifications prescribed by the governor in council are granted similar authority by the government of the United States in the United States waters of the great lakes, their connecting and tributary waters and the St. Lawrence river as far east as St. Regis in the province of Quebec.
"(6) The exemption given in subsection (3) to a vessel registered in the United States and described in that subsection shall extend only so long as a similar exemption is given by the government of the United States to a Canadian registered vessel described in that subsection in the United States

Canada Shipping Act
waters ot the great lakes, their connecting and tributary waters and the St. Lawrence river as far east as St. Regis in the province of Quebec."


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the Minister of Labour on his excellent pronunciation of this community, which I know is an Indian reservation in the area. These two amendments are all to the good. I think it was an excellent idea to move these amendments, because then it can be seen as the minister stated, and as I inquired earlier, that it is the intention to treat both groups of pilots in the same manner. Upon reading the amendment relating to subsection 5 the point immediately arises, what qualifications will the governor in council insist upon under this amendment?


George Harris Hees: I take it that the hon. member wants to know the . qualifications of a registered pilot and also the qualifications of one able to navigate a ship in the open waters of the great lakes. Is that correct? I can give both.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, that is correct, but not entirely. What will the governor in council prescribe to be the qualifications of those pilots as mentioned by the minister?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we have not had our final discussions with the United States and there may be some slight changes, but as it stands now we expect the qualifications will be as follows.
Registration as a pilot. (1) a person shall not be registered as a pilot by the Canadian Minister of Transport unless:
(a)	he is a Canadian citizen;
(b)	he holds a master's certificate of competency valid on ships of any tonnage when navigating the great lakes or, in the case of a pilot to be registered for the pilotage of the St. Lawrence river between St. Regis and lake Ontario, a pilot's licence valid for those waters;
(c)	he has served as master or as pilot on the waters concerned, while holding the appropriate master's certificate of competency or pilot's licence, for such a period as may be required by the Minister of Transport;
(d)	he is of good character, physically healthy and personally suitable;
(e)	he passes successfully such examination as may be required by the Minister of Transport.
(2)	Registration as a pilot may, at the discretion of the Minister of Transport, be for a limited time and may be renewed from time to time.
(3)	Registration may be revoked where the Minister of Transport is satisfied that the

services of a registered pilot are unsatisfactory by reason of incompetency or misconduct or in case of physical incapacity.
Qualifications for "other officers". (1) a person shall not act as an officer required by subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 375B of the Canada Shipping Act to be on board a vessel while navigating waters other than those designated pursuant to paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 375C of the said act unless:
(a)	he is a member of the regular complement of the vessel;
(b)	he holds a certificate of competency as master, for foreign-going voyages, issued by or accepted by the government of the country in which the ship is registered;
(c)	he has made at least two round voyages into those waters of the great lakes basin for which he is to be qualified;
(d)	he has a good working knowledge of the rules of the road for the great lakes;
(e)	he has a sufficient command of the English language for the effective use of the radiotelephone; and
(f)	he holds a document issued by the Canadian Department of Transport certifying that he has been examined and found duly qualified.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want the minister to go into a lengthy discussion, but what are the qualifications for similar pilots in the United States? Could he briefly tell us what the position is?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I am advised that they are very similar. They have their own particular rules and I am afraid I do not have a copy of their requirements here. I am assured, however, that their requirements are very similar to ours.


The Chairman:: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: Shall clause 2 as further amended carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Clause as amended agreed to.


Jacques Flynn: On clause 3-


Lionel Chevrier: Are we on 375B as amended now?


Jacques Flynn: Clause 2 further amended has been carried.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to ask some questions on 375C. Do the amendments made by the minister cover all the amendments made in committee? There has been no motion to amend 375B.


Jacques Flynn: I have put 375B as amended by the committee and then as further amended by the amendment moved by the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: That is adding clauses 5 and 6, but there was another amendment in the committee which the minister read to 375B amending clause 3, adding (a) and (b), and there has been no motion for that. I am concerned about that at the moment.


Jacques Flynn: This was adopted when I put the question as to the adoption of clause 2 as amended by the committee. It was carried. Then a further amendment was moved by the Minister of Labour and the clause was adopted as further amended.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not clear as to this. Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the amendment made by the committee has to be in the bill, and it certainly is not in the bill which I have taken from the table. The amendment read by the minister, which contains a part of 375B, is not in the bill which I have in my hand at the moment, and it is the bill which I have taken from the table.


Jacques Flynn: The copy of the bill which the Chair has shows the amendment adopted by the committee, and the wording of this amendment can be found at page 744 of Votes and Proceedings.


Lionel Chevrier: As long as I am assured that the amendments recommended by the pilotage authorities of the Montreal district are in the bill I am content. I have what was brought to me by a page boy and it is the proceedings of the committee, but I still have not before me the bill containing the amendment moved by my hon. friend through his colleague the Minister of Labour, the amendment covering paragraphs (5) and (6). I have not seen any amendment covering the other matter, and there is nothing in the bill that I have in my hand now.


Jacques Flynn: As far as I am concerned, the bill I have in my hand shows the amendment which provides for the new subsection (3) and renumbering section (3) as (4). There are further amendments moved by the Minister of Labour.


Lionel Chevrier: That is satisfactory to me.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


George Harris Hees: By leave, now.


Lionel Chevrier: Next sitting of the house.
Freight Rates Reduction Act FREIGHT RATES REDUCTION ACT



EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF APPLICATION OF REVISED RATES

George Harris Hees: that the house go into committee to consider Bill No. C-81, to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
On clause 1-Extension of time.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give a summary of what took place in the committee?


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when this bill came before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines a thorough discussion took place; a number of members of the committee asked questions of the officials of the board of transport commissioners, and a representative of the Canadian trucking association read a brief to the committee. If the hon. member would read the proceedings of the committee he would see exactly what was said and by whom. I think it was a very full discussion. I do not think he would want me to go over it all now. It was an exciting discussion. I believe Mr. Knowles answered very fully all questions of a technical nature.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, this is am important bill. It has been given second reading, referred to a committee and brought back to this house. The provisions of this bill make it possible for freight rates in this country to remain at the present levels until such time as the royal commission on freight rates has had the opportunity to make its inquiry and make its report to the house.
There is no question about it; this measure has the support of the people of this country and parliament will give its unanimous approval to the measure. However, there are a few comments I wish to make on this general question arising out of statements made in this house by the Prime Minister about the possibility of doing something more in regard to the present freight rate inquiry than has been provided in the current terms of reference.
Will you call it one o'clock, Mr. Chairman.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, in the interests of expediting the passage of the measure now before us I shall be brief in my remarks.
6420	HOUSE OF
freight Rates Reduction Act I simply want to say that we support the measure because it makes possible the maintenance of railway freight rates at approximately the same level until the royal commission on transportation has had a chance to make its report.
I believe that the report to be made subsequently by the royal commission will be exceedingly important. The commission is engaged in an inquiry in a very important field, and I am glad to be able to say something with which I am sure all members of the house will agree, namely that the chairman of the royal commission, Mr. Murdo MacPherson, Q.C., of Regina is eminently qualified for that position, and I am sure that the report of the royal commission will be a very valuable document.
I have raised the question a number of times as to whether the royal commission might inquire not only into the general subject of freight rates but also into the effect of automation, the general field of the maintenance of railway services, the effect on the country of a reduction of services and, particularly, the very large lay-off of railway personnel. I wish to bring to the attention of the house a question I asked the Prime Minister on July 13 and his reply thereto, which I felt was an exceedingly important statement. My question read in part as follows:
... has the government given any consideration to changing the terms of reference of this commission or to providing another royal commission to inquire into the reduction of railway services and the lay-off of personnel that is causing so much hardship?
The Prime Minister's reply was in part as follows:
I feel most keenly the position of many of the employees who, after many years of service, find themselves unable to continue in their vocation, and I will have the government give consideration to the amendment of the powers of the royal commission in order to cover this full situation arising from automation and otherwise.
If the minister is in a position to do so, I would be grateful if he would elaborate on the statement made by the Prime Minister that consideration would be given to extension of the powers of the royal commission to include this broader inquiry which I feel is so necessary. As I say, we support the measure now before us. We are confident that the royal commission will do good work. I express the hope that before long we will have a firm indication that an inquiry into the effect of lay-offs on personnel of the railway and the general question of automation will be undertaken.


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member, I am afraid I am not in a position to elaborate on the statement made by the Prime Minister.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, there are a few things I should like to bring to the attention of the committee with respect to this measure. I was glad to see that the hon. member for Assiniboia had toned down somewhat since last year. At that time he suggested the royal commission was not much good for anything and that the government was only dodging the issue by sending it to a royal commission. But now he tells us that he thinks this is a very important commission and that it will do some very good work. I am pleased to see this change in his thinking since last year.


Hazen Robert Argue: No change at all.


John Ferguson Browne: 
Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must remind him that the principle of the bill has been adopted. The discussion, therefore, should be confined to the wording of the bill or the method of application of the present bill. Second reading has taken place.


John Ferguson Browne: Well, Mr. Chairman, surely it is in order to discuss why the amount of this subsidy should perhaps not be as great as it is. I am suggesting that at this time we should take into consideration these other factors which competitive transporters are facing, and perhaps that is a reason for giving this measure very careful consideration.
As I had pointed out, we have a situation in which the railways are purchasing truck lines in large numbers, and one must remember that a good part of the funds for the purchase of those truck lines is provided by this parliament in the case of the Canadian National Railways. I have suggested before that I feel this is something the royal commission should look at very closely.
6422	HOUSE OF
Freight Rates Reduction Act
As I said at the outset, I am not opposed to this as a temporary measure, but I certainly do not believe that anybody in this house should develop any complacent attitude about allowing it to continue, because as a long term policy it certainly cannot correct the freight rate situation in Canada. I know my hon. friend from Assiniboia believes there should never be another freight rate increase in Canada; that is what he said last year, and I do not know whether he is still of the same opinion. Obviously, if costs go up and wages go up, then freight rates are going to have to go up. As I suggested, there is only one thing that can keep those freight rates at a reasonable level, and that is competition. For that reason I hope there will be no suggestion that this subsidy should be continued as a permanent feature.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I rise to take strong objection to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. I believe that subsidies not only have played but are playing and must unavoidably continue to play a very important part in the railway policy and freight rate structure of this country. I am a little at a loss to know what the hon. member thinks of this measure. He has given it some very faint praise, and he has asked the government to keep it as a temporary measure. At times he has suggested that the amount of money or the degree of subsidization is too great. All in all he seems opposed to this kind of measure.
I want to tell the minister that I am in favour of this measure. We think, unlike the hon. member, that subsidies are going to have to play a very important part in the freight rate policy of the government and of the country if freight rates are going to be applied equitably across the country.
The hon. member says he believes in competition, and that competition will bring down freight rates. Competition may bring down freight rates in areas where competition exists, but since railways are absolutely necessary to the survival of this nation, then that kind of one-way policy without any subsidy means that in areas in which there is no opportunity for competition freight users will have to pay exceedingly high rates, extortionate rates. We on the prairies think we have been paying those rates, and I think the maritime people have been paying these extortionate rates, and for that reason we look favourably on this measure, just as we look favourably on other measures that will prevent increases in freight rates.
The hon. member said that a year ago I had made a statement-and he was critical of
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway) .1

my statement-that there should be no further increases in freight rates. That statement I have made and that statement I stand by. I think I have been travelling in rather good company, because the Prime Minister of this country on many occasions has said that on the election of his party as a government he would prevent further increases in freight rates. I think that has been a good stand in the past. I think it is a good stand today.
The only thing I regret about this measure is that it has not been enough to roll back the whole of this 17 per cent increase in freight rates. However, it reduces it part way, between 7 per cent and 9 per cent, and to that extent I think it is a good measure. I hope this measure will pass the house, as I am certain it will, and that the royal commission may have the opportunity to report within the nine months' duration of this subsidy.
As has been pointed out, I said a year ago that I did not think a royal commission was necessary. At that time I did not think it was necessary because I felt that the government, on the basis of statements it had made in the past, should know the policies that it was necessary for it to follow. But since the government obviously does not know and since it needs a royal commission, then I think the commission is likely to do very good work, and I hope it will result, first of all, in at least the prevention of further horizontal increases in freight rates and second, in the bringing about of a more equitable rate structure in this country.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: Lest silence from this corner of the house might be mistaken for opposition to the bill, I should like to reiterate at once what our position was last year when I spoke at great length on the whole position of freight rates across Canada on this bill, what our position was when the matter came up for consideration at the resolution stage, and what our position is now; namely, that we are entirely in favour of this proposal.


Jacques Flynn: Shall clause 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


George Harris Hees: Now.


Mr. Speaker:: Now. Agreed.


George Harris Hees: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Air transport board-
451. Salaries and other expenses including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $466,871.


Jacques Flynn: This item will be found at page 79 of the blue book, the details at page 557.


Lionel Chevrier: This item, of course, is perhaps one of the most important in the estimates of the Department of Transport, not so much because of the amount involved as because of the duties which have to be performed by the members of the air transport board.
I should like immediately to extend my congratulations to the Minister of Transport for his appointment of the new chairman of the air transport board. I think the minister has chosen well, not only because of the qualifications of the chairman but also because the appointment was well received by the industry. The committee will excuse me, I know, if I refer to the fact that the air transport board was established by perhaps one of the greatest public servants this country has known, namely Mr. R.A.C. Henry some years ago when he served under Right Hon. C.D. Howe, who was then minister of munitions and supply and afterward minister of reconstruction and supply, and under whose authority at that time fell jurisdiction over the air transport board. Mr. Henry was followed, I believe, by Mr. John Baldwin, who is now deputy minister of transport, and later by Mr. Matthews, head of the legal division of the department, now deceased, and now by Mr. Davoud.
I think the present chairman of the air transport board would want me to say a word also about those associated with him on the board. Able and qualified as is the Chairman, I think he is fortunate in having associated with him and to assist him two members who have had a great deal of experience, one of them almost from the outset. I refer to Mr. Dan McLean, whose experience in the field of aviation is known to all those who have been close to the industry. I am sure he must be of tremendous help to the chairman, to the board and to the minister. Last but not least I want to refer to Mr. Gerald Morisset, a former secretary of the air transport board, who has had a great deal 79951-0-405
Supply-Transport
of legal experience in the field of aviation, and who I am sure is of assistance to the board in its hearings.
I started out by complimenting the minister on his appointment of the chairman of the board. I regret that my remarks now are not going to be of such a complimentary nature. Of course I want to deal with the case of Georgian Bay Airways Limited which the minister on the bill of rights the other day, because of the charge I have made, tried to explain away, something which I do not think he was successful in doing.
I want to put on the record the application which was made by Georgian Bay Airways Limited for a series of flights into the Georgian bay area and other areas, which application was turned down by the air transport board. I hold in my hand now order No. 102, which contains a copy of the decision of the air transport board, serial No. 1359, decided by the board on December 1, 1959, denying the application of Georgian Bay Airways Limited for a licence to operate a charter commercial air service with group B aircraft.
I am not going to prolong this discussion. I am going to try to limit it, because I know it would be most unfair for the minister to spend an undue length of time on his estimates. 1 realize that he has already been here quite a long time. The normal time taken for the consideration of the Department of Transport estimates, in my time and since, I believe has been four days to four and a half days and sometimes five days. Examination of these estimates has already taken almost that long. Therefore I do not intend to labour the point unduly, though I feel I must bring this question to the attention of the committee.
The board gave a number of reasons for declining this application. The first was that Georgian Bay Airways Limited was attempting to expand out of the area which it had served for some years into a new area which up to recently had been well outside the scope of its operations. The decision continued:
The area which the applicant now desires to be licensed to enter has been served for many years by Austin Airways Limited and this company has built up over the years a service which in the opinion of the board serves the area adequately and is only now beginning to be operated on a reasonably sound financial basis. The evidence establishes that the applicant would generate very little new traffic and its proposed operations would depend therefore on traffic drawn from existing operators.
Later in its decision the board goes on to say:
The board is satisfied that the strengthening of Austin Airways' class 2 service is much more in

Supply-Transport
the public interest than the licensing of a class 4 group B carrier to operate at a key point on Austin Airways' regular specific point route.
And again:
In so far as the application for authority to operate with group B aircraft at South Porcupine is concerned, the evidence indicated no support for more than one group B aircraft at that point. Austin Airways Limited has been operating such a service for many years and to grant the authority requested by the applicant to operate a similar type of service at South Porcupine would impose heavy economic hardship on the established carrier and would not be in the public interest.
Finally, without going into additional detail, the denial of the application concludes with this paragraph:
In these circumstances the application of Georgian Bay Airways Limited for authority to operate the services set out in the title to this decision is denied on the grounds that the board is not satisfied that it would be in the public interest to authorize the applicant to operate these services.
So on December 1, 1959, the application of Georgian Bay Airways was declined by the board for the reasons stated. Then on January 15, 1960, the amendment to the order in council which had been passed by the previous administration, P.C. 2032 of December 22, 1954, was introduced changing section 6 of the commercial air service regulations and setting out that applicants for licences to operate commercial air services in all classes other than class 1 are exempted from the operation of subsection 3 of section 15 of the act provided that in substitution therefor applicants for licences to operate classes 2 and 3, group A of class 4, classes 5 and 6 shall satisfy the board that the proposed commercial air services would be in the public interest.
The air transport board found that this application was not in the public interest. That is point No. 1. The order in council amended the regulations on January 15, 1960, so that it would no longer be necessary to prove public interest. Then on January 21, barely one week later, followed a new application by Georgian Bay Airways for practically the same service, and this time the board granted the application in the light of the amendment to the regulations.
The minister replied, during the discussion on the bill of rights, when I said that this was done by order in council, that the regulations were changed under section 13 of the act by the former administration. Yes, that is so; and in reply to my question to the Prime Minister the right hon. gentleman said this was the kind of thing which was not going to happen again after the bill of rights had gone through.
The point on which I want to insist now is this; that the former government changed
[Mr. Chevrier.l
the regulations in the manner provided under the act, but they did not change them after the air transport board had decided against an application; they changed them by virtue of the authority given by parliament to the governor in council.
Here is a situation which is not on all fours with that of Autair-and I do not intend to develop that, because the minister has said that he intends to look into it and have an investigation. The situation I have described is as bad, and worse, because the air transport board declined after a public hearing to grant Georgian Bay Airways the various classes of commercial schedules which it sought. What the minister then did was this; instead of overruling the board, as he had the right to-although he would have been wrong in doing so, because this was a legal decision-in the same way as he did in the Autair case, he amended the regulations and then, in the light of the changed regulations, the air transport board had no alternative but to grant the licence. If that is not government by order in council, then I do not know what I am talking about.
'The air transport board held a full and careful hearing which lasted for some time. I have the evidence, and it is voluminous. As a result of that hearing the board decided that in the public interest this application should not be granted. Then, a month or more later, the board reversed itself and decided that the facilities sought should be granted because the regulations had been changed by virtue of the order in council I have put on the record. I think the minister owes the committee an explanation other than the one he gave during a discussion of the bill of rights; and I think, too, that the minister should tell us now who are the shareholders in Georgian Bay Airways Limited. With that information, perhaps we would be in a position to consider what the situation is.


George Harris Hees: I think the question of the Georgian Bay Airways has been considered almost ad nauseam in this chamber.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is a nauseating subject.


George Harris Hees: It has beeen brought up by the hon. member for Laurier, and I have replied to him on several occasions in some detail, in particular on the occasion of our discussion on the bill of rights a week ago. Really I do not think I can add anything to what I have said in great detail on past occasions on this matter.
With regard to the question by the hon member for Bonavista-Twillingate with respect to the names of the shareholders of

Georgian Bay Airways Limited, I am informed by the companies division of the Secretary of State that returns made by incorporated companies do not show the names of the shareholders. I am also informed that the names of shareholders are provided to the air transport board on a confidential basis. I regret therefore that I am not in a position to answer that question.
At this time I might answer another question put to me by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, when he asked on July 13 how many commercial air transport companies were operating in 1957 and how many are operating today, how many aircraft they had and their categories, capacities, etc. In 1957 the number of commercially registered aircraft in Canada was 1,826. By the end of 1959 this had increased to 1,840. I cannot give the exact break-down as between types of aircraft, since this would involve a statistical analysis requiring some days to complete. I am informed, however, that the number of aircraft indicated for 1959 falls roughly into the following categories: 1,490 single engine, 195 twin engine, and 111 multi-engine, that is aircraft with four engines or more.
My point with regard to types of services is also substantiated by the following information. In 1957 there were 375 commercial carriers licensed in Canada; in 1960 the comparable total number is 496. Broken by licences and by categories in the charter field only, there were in 1957, some 18 carriers having group A licences involving 161 bases; in 1960 the comparable number is 17 carriers and 120 bases. In 1957 there were 87 carriers having group B licences involving 188 bases; in 1960 the comparable number is 87 carriers and 181 bases. In 1957 there were 146 carriers having group C licences involving 182 bases; in 1960 the comparable number is 215 carriers and 278 bases.
From July, 1958 to July, 1960, 154 new licences have been issued in the group C category and 34 new licences in the group B category. In this same period only 42 group C licences were cancelled and 8 group B. The net result is that while a few cancellations have occurred, there are now 112 more group C and 26 more group B licences providing for an increase in the service available to the public.
I feel sure that hon. members will recognize that these statistics show evidence that the policy of freer competition in the charter field affecting the operation of light and medium aircraft is working successfully, in that a larger volume of service is available to the Canadian public while adequate provision has been made to continue proper regulation of these services.
79951-0-405J
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister goes on, would he tell us if those figures for aircraft include T.C.A. and C.P.A.?


George Harris Hees: Yes, they do, Mr. Chairman. While I am on my feet I should like to make a correction in an answer I gave to the hon. member for Laurier the other day. On Wednesday, July 13 I told the hon. member for Laurier that an application had been received by the air transport board from another aircraft company which wished to buy out Autair. I am now informed that no such application has yet been received, and that there is no change in the status of Autair.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I want to inquire about the policy of the air transport board in receiving tenders for the flying in of supplies for the United States air force with its facilities at the various D.E.W. line stations. There has been a complaint made by Mr. E. A. Turner, president of Transair in Manitoba, that the policy followed by the board has been such as to exclude a company like Transair from making a bid for these contracts.
These contracts have been let for a number of years, going back to 1957 and 1958. It has been pointed out by no less an authority than the Manitoba department of industry and commerce, after a very careful cost analysis regarding the cost of transporting supplies from Montreal or Edmonton to these D.E.W. line stations, that supplying them from Churchill, Manitoba would mean a saving of some $3,000 per air flight.
I am not endeavouring to make a case particularly for Transair or for any part of Canada. I am only saying that this is a serious accusation that has been made, namely that all companies and all regions in Canada are not given an equal opportunity to bid on these contracts. Although it may be said that the increased cost is met by the United States air force, nevertheless in the interests of economy and our best relations with our neighbour to the south I suggest that if these accusations are correct it would be more in keeping for the air transport board to make the awards on the basis of cost and the facilities available instead of making them as it has been accused of doing. If a saving of this kind can be made it should be made. Manitoba and any other province affected should have the opportunity of obtaining this kind of business for firms located in the province which would increase the tempo of activity there. At the same time substantial savings might result.

Supply-Transport
It is further alleged that the air transport board has made it impossible for firms other than a select six to obtain information from the United States air force with regard to particulars of the supplies they wish moved and other matters which would enable interested firms to make a bid based on a factual study of the operation.
I hope the minister can supply the information I have requested, although he may not have it before him. I also hope the government will take the attitude that the air transport board should obtain tenders from all interested air lines rather than from a selected few. If certain companies are able to transport supplies at a lower cost they should be given consideration. It is not in the best interests of our country to see a much higher cost charged for transporting these supplies than would otherwise be necessary if the bids were made on a wide-open basis so that firms in Manitoba and elsewhere would have an opportunity to bid in a fair and reasonable manner.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister replies, perhaps he would permit me to make one or two observations, because I wish to attend a committee meeting. I must say that as a genuine Manitoban, if the representations that have just been made-


Hazen Robert Argue: I thought you were a Newfoundlander.


Mr. Kucherepa:: What are you, Jack? Tell us.


Hazen Robert Argue: I am just a plain old Canadian.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was going to support what the hon. member for Assiniboia said, and notwithstanding his interruption I still support him. But I rose to say one or two things in reply to what the minister has just said. First of all, the reply to the detailed questions I asked the minister discloses that he tried to flimflam the committee the other week when he made a big thing about the 118, or whatever the number was, additional licences that had been granted since this government came into office and changed this policy in the surreptitious way it did; but when we got the figures for the aircraft, 1,826 in 1957, and the vast increase to 1,840-


George Harris Hees: May I correct that; on a question of privilege, that is dealing with commercial air carriers only. The net increase in licences issued is something like 138.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the minister is just getting himself deeper into the bog and making his own situation worse; because surely the number of aircraft is a much

better measure of the increase in the service to the public than the number of licencees. If I took down the minister's figures correctly, the number of aircraft increased from 1,826 in 1957 to 1,840 in 1959, an increase of 14. But when one thinks of the increase in population and all the other great increases in growth that have characterized the incumbency of hon. gentlemen opposite in this country, this does not look like much progress.


Mr. Speakman:: They would not be bigger
aircraft?


George Harris Hees: That is exactly the point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister does not have to go to any committee, so perhaps he could answer me after I am finished.


George Harris Hees: I would just as soon answer the hon. member now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know you would, but I have the floor and under the rules of the house I have the right to continue, and I intend to continue.


George Harris Hees: You don't want an answer.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I want to do is to
reiterate the view I have formed, which I must say has been quite uninfluenced by anything the minister has said; that this surreptitious change in policy, so far as one can judge, was not made on any basis of principles was not made on any ground of a general character, but was made first of all to please Autair and, in the second place, to please Georgian Bay. The second point is that he overrode the air transport board by having an order in council passed changing the rules after the air transport board had ruled on the application according to the regulations then in force, telling parliament nothing about this, providing no opportunity for a debate on this very important question of whether or not it was advisable to make these changes.
This is a strange way for a government to behave that is headed by a gentleman who spent 15 years in this house denouncing government by order in council. It really is an astonishing thing. It is also, of course, the clearest kind of evidence of that deep concern for the little man that the minister has boasted about so much. After telling me the other day that he would give me the names of the shareholders of Georgian Bay, the minister-


George Harris Hees: I never said that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister says he never said that. He certainly left that impression in my mind and in the mind of my hon. friend from Laurier. It was perhaps one of those

winks and nods the minister substitutes for assent; but certainly whether he did or not, he has now told us we cannot have this information, that it is secret. I put this question to the minister. Is it true that one of the principal shareholders in Georgian Bay is the same Mr. John Bassett who was very much favoured in another field by the government, were they to have to make the names of the shareholders public? Why is it that in this field the shareholders' names should not have to be made public? There may be some good reason that I do not know about, but it does seem to me that this is not like real private business.
This is business that is highly regulated by the government. This is business in which the safety of Canadian citizens is involved. This is business in which the sovereignty of Canada is involved; and it does seem to me, sir, that there do not seem to be very adequate reasons why the names of the shareholders of the air lines should be kept secret. I suggest that perhaps if they were made public so we knew whom we were dealing with in this parliament in these matters, some of the strange things that go on and have been going on for the last couple of years would not go on at all.
When you take the information that has been laid before this committee and before the house at various times during the present session by my hon. friend from Laurier about that incredible Autair affair and this Georgian Bay business, you cannot escape the feeling that here are a couple of favoured instruments of the government, and that the whole policy in this field is being denatured to please one or two friends of the government, in one case unknown friends of the government.
I say, sir, that with respect to this whole Georgian Bay business, this business of changing the rules, changing the law, to please one particular applicant in one particular set of circumstances, and an applicant who was clearly invading territory that was well served by other companies that have had a struggle to get their business developed, the minister has shown us nothing to indicate that it is in the real interest of the country.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the first question asked by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, although the increase in the number of commercial aircraft that I mentioned is not very large, these commercial-I see the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is indulging in his usual practice of hitting and running.
Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I announced before I started that I had undertaken to be in one of the special committees of this house. This is just another example of the horrible way in which the government conducts the business of thr house.


George Harris Hees: That is not a question of privilege. As I said, this is the technique of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate; he makes a charge and runs away. As I was saying before the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate scampered out of the house because I was going to set right a few of the things he mentioned-


Hazen Robert Argue: Take after him.


George Harris Hees: In adding to the number of aircraft they are flying these days the major aircraft companies are adding very large aircraft in most instances; therefore the number of aircraft does not give the correct picture of the increase in carrying capacity, because the carrying capacity which has been added in the past couple of years is much greater than simply the number of aircraft. I made the first change in loosening up the far too stringent policy of the previous government regarding classes B and C in July, 1958. Since that time there have been 138 more B and C licences issued and 96 more bases added, which means that 138 more aircraft are serving the public from 96 more places than occurred under the previous government.
I think it is obvious to hon. members that this is providing a much greater service to the public who travel and ship by air.
In answer to the hon. member for Assini-boia regarding the planes which service the D.E.W. line, those carriers who wish to apply for those contracts apply to the Federal Electric Company representing the United States government, and they do so with assistance from the air transport board. The Federal Electric Company have made it very clear that they wish to deal with two carriers and two carriers only, one operating through Montreal and the other operating through Edmonton. Transair made representations directly to the Federal Electric Company with the assistance of the air transport board, and I am advised by the chairman of the board that Transair are entirely satisfied with the efforts on their behalf which were made by the board. These are not Canadian tender calls or Canadian contracts. These are United States tender calls and United States contracts entered into directly between the Federal Electric Company of the United States and the Canadian carriers concerned.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his statement, but I wish to tell him that no less a person than the

Supply-Transport
president of Transair, Mr. Turner, feels that the air transport board has failed to come to the assistance of other firms in helping them make contact with the Federal Electric Company, the United States subsidiary of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company which is responsible initially for the transportation of these supplies. The president of the company believes that the air transport board has not been doing the kind of job it should in order to have these supplies brought in at the lowest possible figure.
I would ask the minister to have the board make further inquiries. In my opinion Transair has made a very good point in saying that they should be given an opportunity to haul these supplies if they can do so on a satisfactory basis, and that it is a rather ridiculous procedure for these supplies to be hauled in over a greater distance and at greater cost. The information I have and the information the minister has given is not exactly parallel. There is some conflict, but in any event I would ask him to have further conversations with the board to see whether a firm such as Transair, which in its opinion can do a more efficient job, may not be given an equal chance to make bids on these contracts.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I tell the minister that I am not satisfied with the explanation he has given in connection with Georgian Bay Airways. The minister started his reply to me and to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate by saying that this matter had been discussed ad nauseam. I disagree with the minister, because while I brought up the matter on his estimates the minister made no reply at that time, and the only time he mentioned it was on the discussion of the bill of rights. I presume he did so then at the request of the Prime Minister because I had stated that this was a case of government by order in council, and I repeat that it is.
However, I did not rise with that in mind. I rose to discuss the legal aspect of this matter, because if one looks at the Aeronautics Act one realizes at once that the governor in council has the authority to make regulations under section 13, but it was not under that section that action was taken in this case. It was under subsection 4 of section 15 by virtue of which, and I quote the subsection:
The board may exempt from the operation of the whole or any part of subsection 3, any air carrier or commercial air service or any class or group thereof, except a scheduled commercial air service operating wholly within Canada or the operator thereof either generally or for a limited period or

in respect of a limited area, if in the opinion of the board such exemption is in the public interest.
The point I make is that the order in council was passed by virtue of this subsection, and the board had decided that it was against the public interest to grant Georgian Bay Airways Limited the licence which it sought. The order in council clearly states that all this is being done under subsection 3 of section 15 of the act. I did not put subsection 3 on the record because subsection 4 is the applicable one.
The point I make now is that I have some doubt as to the legality of the position. I wonder whether the lawyers in the air transport board have given consideration to the legal status of this application. Is there a possibility that the position is a dangerous one for the department from the legal standpoint? There is no doubt in my mind that in this case, had the minister upset the board by way of appeal, an action would have laid against the crown. By circumventing the Aeronautics Act, as was done in this case, is the Department of Transport, is the air transport board open to an action in law? I think we should know.
I am informed that there is a serious legal position. The minister has not replied to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, in which he asked if it were so that John Bassett was one of the shareholders of this company. In addition, I should like to know if it is so that John David Eaton is a shareholder of this company. This is information that the minister has; and while he has said it is confidential, I think he should deny this if it is not the case. If it is the case, then his claim all through the years since he has been in office about being concerned as to the little man certainly falls by the wayside relative to this matter.
It also falls by the wayside in connection with the representations which were made by the air industries and transport association of Canada, which is worried lest the air transport board is going to have little or nothing to do hereafter. If the minister is going to continue to set aside decisions of the air transport board by appeal, or if he is going to continue to set aside decisions of the board by amending regulations under the Aeronautics Act, then what is the use of the air transport board other than to make surveys from one end of the country to the other to ascertain whether air services are required in one particular part of the country rather than another?
The air transport board was established under the Aeronautics Act to hear applications and here are two instances, the Autair case



I960

[Stage Direction]
heard at Montreal and the Georgian Bay case heard at Timmins, where the decisions were in effect annulled or set aside by action in the first case by the minister and in the second case by the governor in council. When the Prime Minister sat on this side of the house he protested bitterly with respect to that very kind of thing, that there should not be government by order in council. If it was felt that public interest was no longer a requirement, an amendment to the Aeronautics Act should have been made. The minister should have come into the house with a bill seeking to amend the Aeronautics Act, and should have told the house what the purpose of the amendment was. Then we would know, and not get it by the backdoor method.
After the minister has answered this question I think he should tell us what is going to be the purpose of the air transport board in the future if its decisions are going to be set aside, and what reply he has made to the protest of the air industries and transport association, first made to him and then to the Prime Minister, about the uses to which the air transport board is being put. The association condemns the government for the fact that the air transport board is being relegated into oblivion, and says that the role which the board was supposed to play and has purported to play under the Aeronautics Act is drawing to a close.
George Harris Hees: Well, Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the committee the fact that the change eliminating public convenience and necessity as a requirement for a licence of this kind was made by the previous government in 1954.


Lionel Chevrier: I said that in my remarks.


George Harris Hees: The order in council with which the hon. member has been dealing was passed pursuant to section 13 of the Aeronautics Act, and it was based on the recommendation of the air transport board. As I suggested to the house when speaking on the bill of rights, this was all done in a legal and proper fashion, and I fail to see what the hon. member is finding so objectionable.
The hon. member seems to find it objectionable that we should change the rules under which the air transport board operates. He seems to be suggesting that these rules are to be static. In two instances, namely in the case of the C licences and then later in the case of the B licences, I found that these regulations were too rigid, and I considered that the public and the industry itself would benefit if these licensing regulations were freed. I did this, and I believe everybody
Supply-Transport
will agree that the addition of the new licences and the new bases from which these licensees operate has been a stimulant to the industry and has brought a great improvement to the service which the travelling and shipping public have received.
The hon. member has asked again if I will give him the names of the shareholders. I shall repeat what I said a few moments ago, that I am informed by the companies division of the Department of the Secretary of State that the returns made by incorporated companies do not show the names of the shareholders. I am informed also that the names of the shareholders are provided to the air transport board on a confidential basis. I regret, therefore, that I am not in a position to answer the question, I am sure the hon. member would not want the air transport board to give me information which it has received on a confidential basis. I hope I have answered the hon. member's questions.


Lionel Chevrier: There is one thing which 1 believe the minister should tell the committee. He said that the order in council which changed the regulations and allowed this company to come in was made on the recommendation of the air transport board. It could have been made in no other manner because of the way in which sections 3 and 4 of the Aeronautics Act read.
My question is this. If the air transport board on December 1 decided to deny five, six or seven applications-I have forgotten which-of Georgian Bay airways, why did they change their mind two weeks later and allow the same application, or in effect the same application, to be granted?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, when the air transport board turned down the first application they simply did so because they were working under the terms of reference given to them by the previous government and which we had continued. But in considering this whole matter when it was brought to my attention I decided, on behalf of the government, it would be a desirable thing from the point of view of the industry and the shipping and travelling public generally if this policy were broadened. I made the announcement, therefore, which broadened the policy, and in keeping with that policy the air transport board recommended the change I have mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: Here the air transport board rejected the application in the public interest, after having listened to the evidence. This is what the order says, "that in the public interest we do not think this application should be granted". They give their reasons for it, which I am not going to give now. Then

Supply-Transport
right in the middle of the game the rules of the game are changed by this order in council, because the minister thinks that these words "public interest" should no longer be in the act. How can the minister justify the attitude of the board in rejecting the application in December, and a month later granting the same application simply because the rules were changed? Is there no other reason than that?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the air transport board acts in conformity with the rules laid down by the policy of the government in existence at the time.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not agree with that.


George Harris Hees: Well, I agree with that. The board does not decide policy; the government decides policy, and the board operates in conformity with that policy. Then when the government changes policy, and only the government can do that, the board operates in conformity with that new policy. That is what was done in this case.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I misunderstood the minister. The minister says that the board operates in accordance with the policy of the government. I disagree with that. The board operates under the Aeronautics Act. It was established under the Aeronautics Act, and that is the reason it has been put there. While it is true that government policy is important, and that the air transport board must take cognizance of government policy, I come back and say that the minister had no right, because of that, to change a decision of the air transport board. The decision of the air transport board is made on a judicial basis. It is the minister who has turned that down. He is not a lawyer-and I do not say that in disrespect-but the point is that it was a judicial decision. This was the intention of parliament when this act was passed. The minister upset this decision, which was a judicial decision. The minister knows that the air transport board is a body which was established under this law and for that reason I submit, with deference to you, sir, that the minister was in error in changing the rules in the middle of the game.


George Harris Hees: I should like to ask the former minister, then, why his government put the stipulation in the Aeronautics Act that no licence could be issued without the authorization of the minister, and that any case could be appealed to the minister? Perhaps to settle this matter I might read again what I said in this house on July 7, as reported at page 5914 of Hansard:
As for the suggestion that the minister has assumed a role of interfering with the air transport board, I refute this completely. I have the

fullest faith in this board. It is my intent and practice to allow the air transport board to proceed without interference on my part to carry out its judicial functions under the Aeronautics Act in giving effect to the aviation policy of the government.
Subsection (1) of section 15 of the Aeronautics Act provides, however, that the board must have the approval of the minister for the issuance of a licence to operate a commercial air service; while subsections (9) and (11) of the same section provide that any air carrier has a right of appeal to the minister against the decisions of the board. These overriding powers granted the minister were inserted in the Aeronautics Act by the previous administration, presumably for a specific purpose; in fact, I assume the reason is similar to the reason behind the statutory provisions which allow a right of appeal to the governor in council in regard to certain types of decisions made by the board of transport commissioners.
It is my view that the minister should leave the air transport board a free hand in carrying out its judicial and regulatory duties, but that parliament, at the request of the previous administration, inserted these provisions in the Aeronautics Act which give the minister and the government power, if it should be his view and that of the government that the national interest requires the minister to exercise his special powers in regard to licensing policy in accordance with normal judicial procedure and with the law.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the minister asked me a question, is it not a fact that no licence could be granted without the approval of the minister? Of course it is a fact, because it is in the Aeronautics Act. This is not the point at issue. The point at issue is that the minister has just said, in quoting his remarks made earlier on the bill of rights, that he was going to leave the board free to act in carrying out its judicial functions.
He did not do that. That is exactly what the minister did not do, and that is exactly what we on this side of the house are complaining about. The judicial function of the board is to hear the application and, upon the evidence, determine whether or not it is in the public interest to grant the application. The air transport board said it was not in the public interest to grant the application in this case. Therefore the minister did not allow the board a free hand in a judicial matter, as the minister should have done.
What happened to make the minister change his mind? I think that is something that the committee should know. Repeatedly we have asked the minister whether these two persons Mr. Basset and Mr. Eaton are shareholders of Georgian Bay Airways Limited. The minister has replied that he cannot give that answer. I am not satisfied with the reasons he gave. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate put the matter properly. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and more particularly the board of governors, are required to give the names of all those who make applications. It seems

that this is something that could be done in the case of the air transport board.
However, the thing that is incomprehensible is that the minister says one thing in his statement and acts in a contrary manner. He says that he leaves the air transport board free in matters of a judicial nature. He did not do so in the first case, namely the Autair case, and he did not do so in this case. These are two matters of a judicial nature. Lawyers appear for and against the applicants. There are lawyers who advise the air transport board. There is certainly one lawyer, if not two of them, on the air transport board. It is a legal matter. It is a judicial matter. When the act was introduced in the house it was the present Secretary of State for External Affairs who asked the then minister of munitions and supply or perhaps the minister of reconstruction and supply-I have forgotten which it was, but at any rate it was Right Hon. C. D. Howe-whether or not he had the right to upset the board. He said that on questions of fact he had, but that on questions of law he had not, and that it was not the intention of parliament within the meaning of the Aeronautics Act to intervene in cases of that nature.
That is what the protest is about. Again I say the rules were changed between the time the application was denied in early December and the time the application was granted in early January.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 451 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
452. Administration, operation and maintenance. $1,100,512.
Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 452 carry?


Mr. Campeau:: I should like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport what seems to be, in my opinion, a very serious anomaly in relation to the railway grade crossing fund. At the present time municipalities are not permitted to take advantage of the funds which are voted by the government for the elimination of level crossings when a grade crossing is built where there is no level crossing existing.
This case has been met with many times recently in Montreal, as for example in connection with a tunnel built under the C.P.R. tracks at Victoria street, another one under Masson street, and a bridge over the C.N.R. tracks at Dickson street, the three projects amounting to an aggregate cost of about $4 million. In order to obtain a grant it would have been necessary for the city of Montreal to have built three years ago a level crossing with all the inconveniences which such a 79951-0-406
Supply-Transport
measure would have entailed. Because the railway tracks in the city of Montreal form a complete circle, about the centre of the present area of Montreal, and because the population and inhabited territory are considerably increasing so that the streets have to be extended in nearly all directions beyond the circle, a number of other grade separations carrying the highway over or under the railway will still be required in the future.
The city of Montreal must accordingly, under the present provisions of the Railway Act, continue to pay such total high cost of construction of such grade separations, which will place a heavy onus on this already heavily encumbered municipality; or, in order to obtain aid from the railway grade crossing fund with regard thereto, construct a level crossing at a particular location and wait three years, at the risk of loss of lives and injuries, before constructing the immediately required grade separation.
The city of Montreal is therefore suffering a serious prejudice in this respect, and unless the Railway Act is amended to allow for construction of grade separations where there is no existing crossing, such prejudice and heavy burden will continue to increase.
Such an amendment, in cities where the situation is the same as that now existing in Montreal and in provinces where industrial development is closely associated with highway improvement, would tend to increase the claims upon the fund. In order to lessen such an increase in the claims upon the fund, such amendment could allow a contribution therefrom to be made wherever the crossing involved an arterial highway, being a highway constructed to carry a main stream of traffic, which was crossing or was being crossed by a railway.
May I add that an over-all program of railway grade separations in such a way as to bring improvements where they are most needed first and then, in a given period of time, throughout the whole country, is the only way to bring an efficient solution to a problem which has been plaguing us for the last 50 years. The board of transport commissioners should have the power and means of establishing such a program and of deciding on priorities of execution according to their surveys and analyses, without restrictions as to dates and pre-existence of the road.
The present government has initiated the most daring effort ever made by any government toward an efficient solution of the railway crossing problem. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Transport for having taken this initiative. May I suggest to the minister that intensive research be initiated toward finding a way of relieving

Supply-Transport
the municipalities of a financial burden which is worsening their already bad financial situation, by integrating entirely these undertakings of grade separations within the national development program of our great country, and thus ensuring the implementation of an efficient program of railway grade crossing elimination within a reasonable period of time to the great benefit of our always expanding nation.


Mr. Webb:: I should like to make a very few remarks with reference to the alarming situation regarding the removal of train services. I think that we, as members of the government of Canada, should join in a common purpose, a common understanding and a common program to keep the railroad industry healthy and thriving, and to face those in the industry who seek to consolidate the nation's railroads into a few noncompetitive systems under the guise of efficiency and economy.
It seems that their objective is to get maximum profits even though it means denying the public its rights of convenience and necessity. I feel that the railroads are attempting in some cases to neglect their passenger and freight service so that it will show a deficit, and thus make it easier to apply for the removal of trains and trackage, thus having an adverse effect on the people and the small businessmen who have located on these lines.
It is my honour, Mr. Chairman, to represent a riding the people of which through the years have had to depend largely on the railroad for their transportation and the delivery of their daily needs and commodities. Also in this riding is the town of Havelock, a railroad terminal centre, which for many years has depended on the railroad as its major source of income. Knowing intimately many of the railroad employees throughout the riding, may I say that these men believe in a bright future for the rail industry. They are ready to stand shoulder to shoulder with enlightened management and the government in order to assure that future.
Surely anyone with the foresight and vision of the future shown by the Prime Minister would readily agree that within the next few years our population will be at least tripled. We should bear in mind the European countries, with their dense populations who depend almost entirely on rail commuter service to and from the metropolitan areas, and to the most distant suburban centres, as being a public service.
It is my opinion that the management of our railroads must assume a good deal of the responsibility for the decline, to some extent, of passenger and freight loads. As an

operator of a small business may I say that many times representatives of the transport trucking firms have called at our place of business soliciting business for their firms and inquiring if we had any complaints or any suggestions as to how we thought the service could be improved. Yet never once over many long years were we called upon by representatives of the railroads, and never did we have the courtesy of a letter thanking us for past business or soliciting new business. Is it not evident who is responsible for the decreasing traffic?
However, at this point let me say that from my experience of the years during which I have travelled on the railroads I cannot too highly praise the train crews. They are most courteous and they have done, and still are doing, all that is in their power to create good will between the railroad and the passengers who use it. Management could surely take a lesson from such men.
I should like to see a study made of the number of employees who had been released by the railways in Canada during the past year and the effect this has had on small businessmen and the economy of the communities concerned.
In closing, may I predict that railroad passenger business will revive and grow, providing more jobs for railway workers, and that it will be a far more efficient service for the public than ever before. This can be attained provided a high quality of dedicated leadership is shown. May I say, Mr. Chairman, to the minister through you, that I plead with him and his department to give this matter his very earnest consideration, because it is one of utmost importance which affects every Canadian and the country as a whole.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I should like to make a brief comment and say that the hon. member who has just spoken has struck a very responsive chord in my heart. I was pleased to hear a representative of the Progressive Conservative party criticize the railroads for considering the maximization of profits before service to the people. I was pleased, also, to hear him attribute some responsibility for the decline in traffic to the kind of service which is being given in some places and also to hear his plea, if I understood him correctly, for an enlightened approach by management.
I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member who has just spoken and I should like to tell the minister, also, that the representative of Kootenay West and the employees of the Kettle Valley railroad are willing to sit down with management to try to find a solution to this question which will

be sound and satisfactory to the people concerned and which would provide the service that is necessary.


Mr. McCleave:: Perhaps I might call attention to an aspect of this question particularly in terms of the commuter service between Truro and Halifax. Each year more of this service is being abandoned by the C.N.R., and I think it should be drawn to the attention of the management that there is a point of public relations involved here. If they are not going to satisfy passengers on the short hauls by providing an efficient service it becomes increasingly difficult to impress on those people that they can provide other services.
I know the C.N.R. is trying to reshape its public image, and I think places such as commuter services in areas which are expanding, such as the Halifax metropolitan area, would be very good places in which to start before running to the board of transport commissioners to ask leave to abandon services of the type I am considering.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian maritime commission-
454.	Administration, $153,138.
Lionel Chevrier: On this item I think the minister should give us some indication of what is happening in the maritime commission at the moment. There is a new chairman, Alex Watson, an old and trusted employee of the Department of Transport, who for many years was in charge of the icebreakers in the St. Lawrence and who, I am sure, because of his experience, will fulfil the post of chairman of the maritime commission well. But I think the minister owes it to the committee to tell us what is happening. There are two additional members and I believe they come from other branches of the department. One is, I think, the director of the economics division of the Department of Transport and another, I am inclined to think, is also a departmental officer. That may be the right policy in the circumstances, but I think we should be given some idea of the duties of the commission. I do not want to get into a contentious field as I did a while ago with regard to airways. That is not my intention, but the minister will recall how critical of the maritime commission the Secretary of State for External Affairs was, when the hon. gentleman was on this side of the house, after it had been established. I shall not repeat that criticism because I did not agree with it at the time but, of course, when the commission was established there was a practical need for it. Does that need still exist?
There was also a large number of other duties, including work in connection with 79951-0-406J
Supply-Transport
steamship subventions. I assume they have not decreased. Perhaps, indeed, they have increased. There were other matters. For example, the minister had a certain freedom to grant permits to ships under foreign registry to be registered under the Canadian flag. Can the minister give the committee an idea how many of such permits have been granted under the special powers which he possesses? Perhaps I should stop at this point.


George Harris Hees: Regarding the personnel of the maritime commission, as the hon. member has said the chairman and two commissioners are new. The chairman is now Mr. Alex Watson and he is assisted by Mr. George Scott, assistant deputy minister, economics policy branch, Department of Transport, and by Mr. John Rutledge, director of shipbuilding in the Department of Defence Production. As the hon. member for Laurier knows, the two departments with which the maritime commission works are the Department of Transport and the Department of Defence Production. The two gentlemen I have just mentioned in addition to acting as commissioners on the maritime commission act as liaison between the commission and their two departments.
The main duties of the Canadian maritime commission are to co-ordinate the administration of shipping matters and recommend to the government policies for preservation of the shipping and shipbuilding industries. The commission is authorized to investigate and study Canadian requirements with respect to shipping services, Canadian shipbuilding and ship repairing facilities, and the costs of building ships in Canada and operating them under the Canadian flag.
With respect to shipbuilding, it is commonly recognized that Canadian shipyards suffer from high cost of production, exceeding costs abroad by from 20 to 50 per cent or more and, in addition, plant capacity is probably greater than normal Canadian needs at the present. As a means of meeting this problem the government has followed and the industry has benefited from measures designed to assist in securing commercial orders as well as from orders for naval vessels and vessels for other government departments. At the present time, due largely to a substantial drop in bookings of commercial work, the order volume is less than for several years past and average employment in the major yards has declined. This situation is under review by the commission and I am hopeful that remedial measures will soon be brought forward for the government's consideration.
With respect to the operation of Canadian deep-sea vessels the government has

Supply-Transport
continued the policy of permitting registration of most of them in the United Kingdom to reduce the high cost associated with Canadian-based operations. While this has been of some measure of value, the Canadian deep-sea operators continue to be at a competitive disadvantage because they face a higher tax liability on their earnings than do United Kingdom operators, who are granted a special exemption, the investment allowance, intended to assist them in meeting competition from ships sailing under flags of convenience with small tax liabilities although the number of such Canadian owned vessels continue to decline as war built vessels are retired. It is nevertheless true that under this policy some firms have acquired new vessels and likely will continue to operate them.
Canadian domestic operators may be divided into three groups each having somewhat different problems. Those in the Atlan-tic-St. Lawrence trades face much the same difficulties as the deep-sea operators as a result of competition from vessels on United Kingdom registry. In these trades Canadian registered vessels perform most of the scheduled services but carry comparatively little of the bulk cargoes. Many of these Canadian operators use chartered United Kingdom vessels. On the west coast the situation for coasting vessels is basically different in that the operators experience little or no competition from United Kingdom operators and almost all of their vessels are registered in Canada. On the great lakes the St. Lawrence seaway now admits oceangoing vessels to compete with the specialized lakers, but it will take further experience to demonstrate whether or not the well established Canadian lake fleet is at any serious disadvantage.
In addition to the tasks taken on by the Canadian maritime commission they handle coastal shipping subsidies. For many years the federal government has subsidized a number of shipping services in coastal and inland waters. The services are deemed to be essential but are not self-supporting. Subsidies are considered to be warranted when, at a reasonable cost, they make possible a dependable transportation service which is necessary for the supplying of outlying communities.
The administration of the subsidies is a responsibility of the Canadian maritime commission. The commission receives applications for subsidy assistance and makes its recommendations after investigation of the circumstances, and it reviews the subsidy requirements with the operators each year in the light of experience. The adequacy and

the efficiency of the services are investigated regularly, and the financial results are exam-mined in detail to establish the need for continuing government aid. In some cases the service may qualify for provincial assistance too, and this is taken into account. The amount of the subsidy is established on the basis of the actual loss incurred by an operator in performing the service, including allowance for an acceptable return on invested capital.
The commission and the Department of Transport make economic studies from time to time to assess developments or trends that may affect transportation requirements and the need for subsidies. The result may be a recommendation to modify, curtail or abandon a subsidized service, or to withdraw the subsidy in favour of encouraging an alternative service.
The subsidy program is given a careful review by the treasury board each year, which must satisfy itself that each payment is justified. To this end the board may direct that studies be made of alternative services in a particular case or within a given region.
I will give the committee the picture regarding coastal subsidies up to this year. These subsidies are up this year to just over $6 million, an increase of about $600,000 compared with the 1959-60 fiscal year. Transfers to the United Kingdom registry under the transfer plan were 11 during the 1959-60 fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I ask how many vessels are now under United Kingdom registry? I am thinking now of the vessels that were transferred under the old plan.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there were 33 at the beginning of the present fiscal year.


Lionel Chevrier: Are there any Canadian vessels under flags other than the United Kingdom?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that there are some under other registry but we have no record of them because they are not officially under the transfer plan.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say how the depreciation provisions that were approved of by parliament and entrusted to the maritime commission are working? I know that when the Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act was introduced those provisions were of tremendous help to shipbuilders. Perhaps the minister has at his disposal from the maritime commission to which this act was entrusted a detailed statement as to where the matter stands at the present time?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the plan is working very well. There is a section in the

annual report of the Canadian maritime commission under the heading "Canadian Vessel Construction Assistance Act" which is quite lengthy but 1 could read it if the hon. member wishes.


Lionel Chevrier: No. Could the minister in just a brief sentence say whether the depreciations provisions have been on the increase to Canadian ships?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I am advised that up until recently they have been on the increase and at present they are going down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
455.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $6,088,200.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, with respect to this steamship subventions item the minister has indicated that they were over $6 million but the increase was $480,000. Would he give an indication of where these increases went chiefly?


George Harris Hees: There are three cases. The first is the Gros Pin, Quebec-Campbellton, New Brunswick service. In accordance with contract No. 50-A, treasury board minute T.B.-529/333 the subsidy was reduced from $40,000 to $35,000 for the year 1960-61. That is a decrease. Then on the Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland service there is another decrease of $32,000. A new contract was negotiated in April, 1959 to reduce the subsidy for 1959-60 from $104,000 to $72,000. This amount was also agreed upon for 196061.
^ Then, we have an increase of $517,000 for the Newfoundland coastal steamship services; estimated additional cost of financial assistance for operation of coastal steamship services due to increased cost of operation; a 40-hour week agreed upon April, 1959, 'resulted in an increase in 200 in the complement of ships' crews. They have three additional crews, which appeared in the supplementary estimates; Isle-aux-Coudres and Les Eboule-ments, Quebec, increase of $18,000; Pelee island and the mainland, Ontario, increase of $16,086; Rimouski, Matane and points on the north shore, increase of $47,000.


Lionel Chevrier: Why is there an increase of only $2,000 for the Isle-aux-Coudres and Les Eboulements this year?


George Harris Hees: It was an increase of $18,000, supplementary estimate; this is for winter operation.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the minister a question on this steamships subvention item. I notice that the subvention for the western local service is $294,000 out of a total of $6,088,200. We have our problems and they
Supply-Transport
are serious ones. I do believe they are trying to resolve them on the west coast. I refer to the provincial government and also the services. In view of the fact that the companies operating are losing as much money as, if not more than the people on the eastern coast, I do not understand why the subvention on the western coast is approximately $700,000 out of a total of almost $7 million. Will the minister explain the policy on the granting of subventions?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated
earlier, each service stands on its own feet and subsidies are paid only where there is an actual operating loss by the shipping company concerned. Each case is reviewed every year and stands on its own merits. If the service is necessary and is losing money, then that is given very serious consideration by the maritime commission and the government in the paying of a subsidy. The actual operating losses incurred by the shipping companies which are supplying services on the west coast are obviously not nearly as great as those suffered by the companies supplying the service on the east coast. In each case the government tries to see that necessary services are provided for the people of the areas concerned.


Harold Edward Winch: Is this policy carried out without discrimination? In other words, if the Black Ball ferry service in British Columbia loses money would the company get a subvention? This is what I should like to know. If the two new government ferries of British Columbia lose money will they be entitled to assistance from the minister's department?


George Harris Hees: Any shipping company can make an application but it would have to make a case that would be satisfactory to the maritime commission and then to the treasury board. First of all, it has to make a case that it is an essential service and second that it is losing money.


Harold Edward Winch: If it is an essential service and is losing money, whether privately owned or publicly owned, the department will consider paying a subvention?


George Harris Hees: Another factor that is given very real consideration is whether or not there is any other form of transportation available to the citizens concerned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National harbours board-
456.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1960 on any or all of the following accounts:
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	 $ 943,460
Saint John	 1,077,000
Quebec	 1,576,000
Churchill	 570,000
Generally-
Unforeseen and miscellaneous ..	200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $1,733,361, $2,633,099.
(Translation):
Charles-Édouard Campeau: Mr. Chairman, the part played by Montreal harbour in the economy of the district of Montreal and of our country is certainly far from being on the decline. During the last generation, the industrial function of the harbour has become most evident-


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. member
for St. James proposes to deal with the matter of Montreal harbour, he perhaps might wait till we reach item 493, under which expenses related to Montreal harbour will be more specifically mentioned.


Charles-Édouard Campeau: Very well, sir.
(Text):


Harold Edward Winch: Under this vote I would ask the minister to say something on the visit to Vancouver of the chairman and vice chairman of the national harbours board and the statement they made to the press. It has to do with the payment in lieu of taxes, on building construction specifications, and the fire boat service, matters which come under the minister. I read a statement in the press which did not appear under the name of the minister and I would like to have his statement.


George Harris Hees: The statement which the harbours board made to the press in Vancouver covered the situation and represented my thinking as well as that of the chairman and vice chairman of the national harbours board who went to Vancouver on my suggestion to talk these matters over with the Vancouver city council and then once they had done so to explain the situation to the press which had taken up the matter. I think the hon. member will agree that the editorial that was written following those meetings indicated that the press were very satisfied with the meetings and felt that a great deal had been accomplished.
I might say I was in Vancouver opening the centennial fair on Friday. 1 had quite a talk with the mayor and many other civic officials while there. They were very pleased indeed with the results of the visit of the chairman and vice chairman of the harbour board to Vancouver. They felt that this is just the kind of thing that should be done more often; personal discussions should be held between officials of the government and

civic officials to explain problems that cause concern. In my talks with the mayor and other civic officials there I came to the conclusion that they were very pleased with all aspects of the visit of the chairman and vice chairman of the national harbours board.


Mr. Bourgei:: Will the minister tell us whether out of the $1,876,000 for Quebec there is anything for the improvement of the highway called, I think, Petit Champlain?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that that highway is a municipal responsibility and not one for the national harbours board.


Maurice Bourget: Was there not a promise made by the minister during the election to do something for that highway? Does he remember that? Of course, that is two years ago.


George Harris Hees: I am not aware of any such promise.


Maurice Bourget: The minister has a short memory.


Harold Edward Winch: I am most pleased with the statement of the minister that an understanding with the civic council of Vancouver has now been reached. What the minister said is correct, by talking these things over you get a new picture. Does what the minister said earlier apply to the question of protection on the fire boat?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman; the national harbours board has under consideration at the present time a contribution toward the operation of a new fire boat.
(Translation):


Charles-Édouard Campeau: Mr. Chairman, as I said a moment ago, the part played by Montreal harbour in the economy of this country and of the Montreal area does not seem about to decline in importance.
During the last generation, the industrial function of the harbour has become increasingly evident, so much so that today two thirds of the port's activities of which depend upon industrial production of the area in which it is located and the expansion has barely started. In fact, almost 75 per cent of all incoming traffic is meant for the Montreal area while close to 50 per cent of the harbour's outgoing traffic is supplied by the neighbouring territory.
With the rate of industrial expansion in the district of Montreal, the harbour remains an excellent transshipment centre, where the already well-established regular shipping lines prefer to operate. With those well established regular shippings lines, with its harbour facilities continuously kept up to date and especially with the growing importance of the surrounding industrial complex, the harbour's industrial usefulness must

necessarily increase also, with consequent maintenance or growth of its commercial function.
While Montreal harbour activities depend very largely on industrial production in the Montreal area, conversely, the area's development depends to a large extent on the volume and efficiency of its harbour traffic. In fact, today, Montreal's economic future is bound up with that of its harbour.
Montreal harbour is now undergoing extensive renovation, and in recent years almost $60 million have been spent on improvements to harbour facilities. Sheds, wharves and other facilities have been put in, or are now being built to meet the harbour's new requirements, especially those called for by the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Yet who would claim that such developments have nothing to do with the physical development of the city itself? One would have to be blind to deny that the Montreal harbour cannot be physically dissociated from the rest of the city. We need only look at the roads leading to the harbour to realize that they were designed for other times and other modes of transport than those in use today.
There can be no doubt, therefore, about the need for integrating with the harbour's development the proposed east-west throughway planned by the city of Montreal along the St. Lawrence. Between Place Royale and Notre-Dame-de-Bonsecours church, elimination of obsolete buildings would make room for the throughway and, at the same time, provide space for harbour requirements in the area where that space is most needed.
In the same way, the network of large traffic arteries in the city must be adequately connected with the harbour's approaches and parking facilities. In this regard, the lack of parking space in the harbour area has often been pointed out. Longshoremen alone park more than 500 vehicles a day in that area.
This lack is keenly felt by longshoremen and other harbour workers. The longshoremen who, during the shipping season, often have to work 18 hours on end, and sometimes more, cannot find places to park unless they get there an hour ahead of time, thus cutting down their hours of sleep. Many times, through lack of parking space and of time, they have to park illegally and pay fines,
Supply-Transport
with consequent loss of income. This deplorable situation calls for immediate remedy, and I hope that the Minister of Transport will see that a solution is found, even if only for a time. However, conditions there are unquestionably a cause of trouble and annoyance to harbour workers, especially to longshoremen, whose role is so vital to the smooth operation of the harbour.
Nobody can deny that the industrial development which has taken place in connection with harbour operations in the city of Montreal and in the surrounding areas will also be streamlined and stepped-up to a degree unknown for several generations. That industrial growth will require functional development in the newer parts, and redevelopment in the older ones. In such development due regard must be had for road and railroad networks, industrial needs, shipping facilities and proper use of available sites.
One case in particular that cannot be ignored is that of the Lachine canal, which offers a typical example of the changes gradually brought about by the development of the local economy, especially in relation to the harbour and shipping. The Lachine canal is no longer being used by sea-going ships bound for the lakehead. It is becoming merely a service waterway for industries already established along its shores. There is no doubt that a transformation must take place during the next generation in the use of the industrial area bordering on this canal.
Therefore, the development or re-development of the Montreal shore of the St. Lawrence requires an over-all plan that will take into consideration the needs of the harbour and of the city, determine the needs of increased industrial occupation, and provide, as of now, for the necessary measures with respect to traffic, free areas and land use, so that full advantage can be taken of the industrial growth of that area and of the first-class harbour facilities now available.
Definitely, the problem cannot be solved by a mere study of the needs of the harbour or of the city, but only through a combination of efforts on the part of the authorities concerned. It is high time Montreal harbour should stop being considered as a separate entity, severed from its physical, economic and social context. Harbour authorities have as much interest in the industrial development of Montreal as have municipal authorities in the development of the harbour.

Supply-Transport
There is a further aspect to the problems created by the St. Lawrence seaway and by the development of the Montreal harbour, which the Montreal metropolitan area cannot ignore without suffering serious consequences.
The very site of the St. Lawrence seaway, south of Laprairie basin, and the presence of cultivated land in the neighbourhood of the 35-foot channel north of Boucherville, are bound to require extension of harbour facilities on the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
In the area of Varennes, Vercheres, Con-trecoeur, gigantic Canadian and American firms have already built plants representing an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars. They include the Steel Company of Canada, Canadian Titanium Pigment, Electric Reduction Co. of Canada, Quebec Iron Ore, Shawinigan Chemicals Limited, and a number of oil companies. A number of steel manufacturers, such as the Steel Company of Canada, Dosco and Quesco have also invested several millions of dollars in that area. The steady additions of new docks near the shipping channel in that area raises important problems for the future, to such an extent that official consideration should soon be given to extending the limits of the Montreal harbour right through to Sorel. Thus the harbour facilities at Contrecoeur, Varennes and Vercheres, and related industries would become physically linked to the port of Montreal, and their development could be planned with that in mind.
It is to be hoped that the Montreal harbour internal planning committee, which was set up on the initiative of this government, will give consideration not only to shipping problems but also to the problems of urban development in relation to the development of the river shores.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has said that the report of that committee will be available shortly and that the study will include a very extensive and thorough examination of the joint possibilities offered by the development of harbour and industrial facilities in Montreal harbour and its future extensions. I wish to commend the Minister of Transport for his excellent move.
There is another related problem from the standpoint of needs, and I refer to a bridge in the eastern Montreal area.
This changing pattern on the south shore, from agricultural to residential and to industrial, reflects on the physical development of the whole metropolitan area, a phenomenon is causing a complete change in the feeling prevailing so far that the Montreal metropolitan area did not extend beyond the
[Mr. Campeau.l
limits of the island. Today, from an economic standpoint, Montreal's insularity is an obsolete concept. It is in that sense that it becomes necessary and urgent to multiply means of communications between both shores and that it becomes economically justifiable to do so, for the proper integration of the whole metropolitan area and to link it to the mainland.
Montreal island, having ceased economically to be an island, must be linked with the south shore by as many bridges as are required over the St. Lawrence.
It would be a very shortsighted policy on our part to base the necessity for a bridge in eastern Montreal solely on surveys of the present volume of traffic and to assess on that basis the need for a bridge and the possibilities of financing it. Those who think that way overlook the fact that in the matter of development we must take into account direct and indirect benefits, as well as appreciation in increased values created by physically indispensable facilities.
The eastern part of Montreal island is rapidly developing at both the industrial and residential levels. It therefore offers an increasingly large labour market for existing and proposed industries on the south shore.
Because of the rapid growth in the eastern part of Montreal island and on the south shore, building of a bridge at that point across the St. Lawrence is as vital and urgent as the completion of Nuns' island bridge, because of the development on the territory around Candiac and Laprairie, and of the proposed renovation of the western sector of Montreal city.
According to many experts, the most suitable location for that bridge seems to be through Ste. Therese island, between Pointe aux Trembles and Varennes, thus connecting metropolitan boulevard, Sherbrooke and Notre Dame streets and the proposed east-west throughway along the St. Lawrence river with the south shore highways leading to Quebec, the eastern townships and the United States.
This bridge would link the south shore industrial development with residential and commercial centres in the eastern part of Montreal island. A bridge there is therefore essential to the industrial development of the area and to the growth of the harbour. Moreover, it will provide a vital link between the active part of Montreal harbour on the island of Montreal and the section now under

development along the south shore. For that reason, a bridge to the east is obviously essential, and there is no need for traffic counts that reflect existing economic conditions, but fait to take into account those that will come to light when necessary facilities will exist.
A good many people worry about the means of financing this bridge. It seems that all levels of government have a direct interest in this project. First of all the federal government, for the functional development of the harbour; the provincial government for the completion of its regional road network and the promotion of the steel and iron industry; and the city of Montreal and its metropolitan area for the progress resulting from such developments.
Among the necessary steps to develop Montreal harbour and the neighbouring areas, there is one which cannot be stressed enough, and that is the deepening of the Richelieu, giving the channel a uniform depth of 35 feet between Montreal and New York, that is the same depth as the St. Lawrence downstream from Montreal.
The new Ruhr already taking shape on the south shore in the district of Varennes, Ver-cheres and Contrecoeur, lends this project an urgency and significance which many people could hardly grasp until recent years.
That river of the scenic shores is the present route for the transport of newsprint required by the large American newspapers. However, in a not too distant future, the Quebec iron and steel industry will be in a position to offer its products to American buyers.
We must immediately open this natural seaway to New York and to the eastern United States, the most industrialized area in the world.
The project is much more simple than it would seem at first, especially when compared to the St. Lawrence seaway. A reliable estimation of the cost places the total expenditure in the neighbourhood of $185 million for the Canadian section. The money saved by using this water route would make up for this expenditure in a relatively short time. Consideration must also be given to increased land values alongside the waterway, as a result of the possibilities for new industrial development in the Longueuil and St. John districts. In fact, there is extraordinary interest, from a shipping point of view and from an industrial point of view, in providing for two channels on the south shore, one leading to the sea, to the centre and western parts of the country, and the other to the sea and to east central United States, with Montreal harbour at the strategic meeting point of both.
Supply-Transport
In concluding, Mr. Chairman, may I emphasize the fact that economic development in the Montreal area is directly related to the growth of its industry and of the harbour, and that it offers considerable possibilities. However, necessary steps must be taken at the proper time to offset the disadvantages and to make the most of the favourable factors.
What is needed is the necessary vision to find an over-all solution to the major problems connected with Montreal harbour, its facilities, its relations with the surrounding area, the roadways, the railway system and the bridges spanning the river. There must be a well-defined master plan for the harbour, integrated with the orderly development of the surrounding area.
The planning for Montreal harbour must be on a grand scale, and I feel sure that the Minister of Transport who, in the past, has displayed considerable interest in that harbour, will continue to concern himself with its progress and will press for the early carrying out of such essential projects as the construction of a bridge in eastern Montreal, the development of a Richelieu waterway and the rational improvement of both the harbour and its future extensions.
Finally, consideration should be given to the need for large scale public works in the Montreal area, where the workers are so directly affected by unemployment whenever a slowdown occurs in private business.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I have just one question to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees).
Could the minister inform the house whether a project is now under consideration for the extension of Montreal harbour facilities, both on the south shore and on the north shore, towards eastern Montreal?
(Text) :


Lionel Chevrier: I did not intend to discuss Vancouver harbour here because it is under the next item. However, since it is under the same item as that under which the hon. member for St. James wanted to discuss Montreal harbour I cannot resist the temptation-


Jacques Flynn: Order. May I say whether it is the wish of the committee to discuss items 456 and 493 at the same time in order to avoid confusion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: In that case I suppose the hon. member for St. James, who first rose, should have the floor. I have no objection.

Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, we have under consideration at the present time an extension of the limits of Montreal harbour downstream possibly to the limit of Sorel harbour.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that I could not allow the remarks made by the hon. member for St. James to pass unnoticed. It is not that I disagree with what he has said; on the contrary, there is very little of what he has said with which I would find myself in disagreement. There are, however, some things of which I believe the committee should be reminded because the hon. member for St. James now takes a somewhat different view from that which he took on an earlier occasion.
The hon. member will recall that he was very critical of what has been done by the former administration concerning the port of Montreal and the surrounding metropolitan area. In fact, he took me to task very severely because of the fact, when I was president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, I had done nothing for the city of Montreal and everything for the city of Cornwall. However, his colleague who sat next to him, the hon. member for Stormont, said I was doing nothing for the city of Cornwall and everything for the city of Montreal. I believe these two hon. members should get together and try to agree as to wherein lies the truth.
Although I find myself in agreement with the hon member's other remarks, there are some things which should be brought to the attention of the committee. The hon. member for St. James referred to an amount of something like $60 million that had been or was to be spent on the port of Montreal. I suggest it was my successor Mr. Marler who announced an expenditure of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100 million for port facilities in the city of Montreal, the most of which I understand have now been completed, in part by the former administration and in part by the present government. This is all to the good. It is, of course, unquestioned that this port development has been brought about as the result of industrial development in the triangle formed by Valley-field, Sorel and Montreal. They are owing in large part or in no small part to the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway.
In the first years in my capacity as minister of transport I remember that when I brought to the attention of many Montrealers the importance of this development there was great anxiety and perhaps rightly so. There was also some fear that this develop-

ment might affect and hurt the port of Montreal. I do not want to speak out of turn because, in my opinion, it is yet too early to determine whether the over-all effect is going to be beneficial. However, of one thing there can be no doubt, namely that in the season of 1959 as well as in so much of the season of 1960 as we have come to thus far there have been great benefits which have arisen out of the St. Lawrence seaway for the whole metropolitan area of Montreal.
There is also no doubt that it is because of the lower transportation costs that the steel industry, to which my friend the hon. member for St. James refers, finds it convenient, and profitable and strategic to locate itself in the area of Contrecoeur in the area east of Montreal. But as I said, I do not want to anticipate what is likely to happen. I think it will take several years-maybe three, four or five years-before the ultimate benefits of the St. Lawrence seaway can be felt in certain areas and regions of Montreal and more particularly in the port at Montreal. There was a prominent Montrealer who not long ago made the statement in the province of Ontario that no province in Canada would benefit from the St. Lawrence seaway more than would the province of Quebec and more particularly the city of Montreal. Thus far the facts seem to indicate that such is the case.
I should like to say a word now about the report which was made by the Montreal harbour committee and which I have discussed from time to time. The hon. member -for St. James-and I think rightly so-speaks of a study which was made concerning future developments. The 1950 report on the Montreal harbour was made by five prominent engineers. They recommended a definite plan for development dowstream of the city of Montreal which amounted to about $100 million following upon the development of the seaway. I think the study the minister is making is all to the good. However, I am hopeful that the minister will give consideration to the report of the 1950 committee. It might be well to bring that report up to date.
It rightly provided for certain lock facilities, the construction of a bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge and several other matters that would be necessary consequent upon the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. However, that report was predicated upon the fact that the St. Lawrence seaway was to be built on the north side or on the Montreal side. As the committee knows the seaway, because of necessity-and I think rightly so-was built along the south side or the Laprairie basin side. The recommendations made by the 1950 committee are still not up

to date but they should be considered as part of any study which the minister is making.
There is no doubt in my mind-and on this I am in complete agreement with the hon. member-that there is a necessity for an additional bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge. As to its location, I have already said that I am not competent to say where it should go. That is perhaps a matter for others to determine. The point I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. member for St. James is that the Minister of Transport is not of the same view as are he or others who have advocated the construction of this additional bridge. I do not want to become contentious once again but I draw to his attention the correspondence which the minister had with the municipalities on the south shore wherein he indicated some serious doubt as to the additional bridge. He did this notwithstanding the fact that the associate minister of national defence is also a strong advocate of the bridge. The minister's statement is long. I shall read only one paragraph which can be found in sessional paper No. 170E of February 29, 1960. In his letter to the reeves and mayors of the various cities and municipalities of the south shore we find the following:
I am informed that a most careful analysis of traffic trends and related statistics indicates that when the new bridge is completed-
He is referring to the Champlain bridge.
-the capacity of the three bridges should be in excess of actual requirements for a considerable number of years. Any new bridge presumably would have to be financed through tolls and would divert additional traffic, and thus it seems inevitable that substantial deficits could be anticipated for quite a long period of time. This indicates to me that regardless of other considerations, the course of wisdom for whichever authority may assume responsibility would be to wait at least until the effects of the new Champlain bridge can be examined before undertaking the very substantial financial outlay that would be involved in the construction of yet another bridge.
There is a serious question mark in the mind of the Minister of Transport in connection with this additional bridge. We all know that the population of Montreal has increased. We all know that the automobile population on the island of Montreal has gone up tremendously. We all know that there is a great need for an additional bridge. I made a suggestion some two years ago in a motion that I placed on the order paper to the effect that a crown corporation be established which would have the control of the Jacques Cartier bridge, the Victoria bridge by purchase or by lease from the C.N.R., the new Champlain bridge and any other bridges that might be built east of the Jacques Cartier bridge; and that that crown corporation after having
Supply-Transport
looked at the picture, which would indicate that soon the debt of the Jacques Cartier bridge will be completely wiped out if the same policy is followed as was followed in other national harbours, namely to wipe out the interest debt, might come to an agreement with Canadian National Railways. It would appear then that it might be good policy to give to the new crown agency the duty of constructing the new bridge in question. I think that is a matter which might well be given consideration.
My friend the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres is unavoidably absent. If he were here I know he would want to say a word in connection with the development of the lake Champlain cut-off. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister because the Prime Minister went down to Sorel and by his presence there, without committing himself to the project but by his very presence there at the request and at the invitation of certain public bodies certainly must have created the impression that something was going to be done. Nothing has been done. There has been a request to the Canadian government by the United States government to set aside a sum of money for an economic study of the whole lake Champlain cut-off from Albany right up to the St. Lawrence river. I understand the Canadian government has not responded to that request. It is one thing to say this looks like a good project, tbut it is another to act upon it and undertake to set aside money for an economic or engineering study.
Then again there is the all-important decision of the international joint commission arrived at, I believe, in 1937. At that time the international joint commission, having given careful study to the lake Champlain waterway, stated that until the St. Lawrence seaway was completed it be authorized to retain jurisdiction over the matter, but after the seaway had been completed such a study should be made. I had no intention of speaking on this subject, but in view of what the hon. member for St. James has said I think the minister should tell us, first, whether the international joint commission has been asked to consider the possibility of these studies and, second, what has been the attitude of the Canadian government to the request by the United States government for a sum of money to enable a survey to be made from the international border to the St. Lawrence river on the economic and other aspects of the Champlain waterway.
These are things which those of us from the province of Quebec and the metropolitan area of Montreal are keenly interested. The first and foremost matter is that a study

Supp ly-Transport
should be made. For the best study which could be made it would be well to follow the pattern initiated in connection with the St. Lawrence seaway, namely that it should be a joint one, because half of the project is in Canada and the other part is in the United States. More progress would be made if the study were conducted in this matter.


George Harris Hees: A preliminary review is being carried out at the present time by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. When the preliminary hearing has been completed the results will be considered by my department and the Department of External Affairs and we shall know what more detailed work is needed.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister dealing now with Richelieu or Montreal?


George Harris Hees: I thought the question which the hon. member asked dealt with the Richelieu project. With regard to his question of Montreal harbour, the Montreal harbour planning committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Paul Kuring, the retired head of the ship channel branch, is bringing the original study up to date. Participating in the study are the national harbours board, the C.N.R. and the Department of Transport.


Harold Edward Winch: Can I ask a further question of the minister? I do so because this is the only opportunity I will have to ask a question regarding expenditure in the riding which I represent. There is no other department which spends any money there except the Department of Transport. I have no public works.
Certain people accept that the inner harbour of the city of Vancouver is one of the major ports on the North American continent and that it has a great future. It has been said that in the inner harbour on the south side, from Hartley avenue, where the hon. gentleman was a couple of days ago opening the Centennial pier, up the Boundary road, lies the greatest potential for the future development of that harbour. I should like to ask the minister whether there is any planning going on in his department for the further development of the inner harbour and expenditure in connection therewith. The places I have mentioned are the southern boundaries of my constituency.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the Vancouver harbour standing committee is at the present time reviewing the question which the hon. member has just raised. As the hon. member probably knows, this committee is making a study of the whole of Vancouver harbour, and the section which he has mentioned forms part of that study.


Harold Edward Winch: That work is now going ahead?


George Harris Hees: Yes, the study is going ahead and I can agree with the hon. member regarding everything he said about the great potential of Vancouver harbour.


Harold Edward Winch: And of the Vancouver east section?


George Harris Hees: Undoubtedly.


Lionel Chevrier: I am rising at this point to draw the attention of the minister to a matter concerning the harbour of Vancouver which was consistently brought to the attention of the committee from year to year. I hold in my hand now a release from the ministry of transport dated October 6, 1959 which announces:
To further the development of Vancouver harbour the national harbours board have announced a study of present and future needs of this great harbour by a committee-
And so on and so forth. Of course, there can be no fault to be found with that, and I am not rising to find fault with it, but I am rising to remind the minister that the Secretary of State for External Affairs lost no opportunity when he was on this side of the house to recall the terms of the Gibbs report and to ask me why it was an advisory committee of the port of Vancouver was not established and consulted and its advice sought. Each year there was a debate which lasted, sometimes 35 or 40 minutes, in connection with the establishment of advisory committees not only in Vancouver but in most national harbours. As far as I can recollect the only harbour which has one- and I may be mistaken-is Halifax, where they have a port committee. But I cannot resist the temptation of asking the minister why he did not consult his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs before he made this announcement.


George Harris Hees: The setting up of this committee at the time it was set up seemed to be a progressive and logical step to take, and as this government always takes progressive and logical steps, that is why we did it.


Harold Edward Winch: A number of years ago one of the finest piers we had in Vancouver, the Canadian Pacific railway pier, was ruined by fire and it is now burned out. I should like to ask the minister whether he or the national harbours board have any authority whatsoever to order it to be reconstructed or put to use in any way. That location at the foot of Granville street is one of the finest locations that there is anywhere in the world, and I was wondering whether the

minister has any authority to move in and order planning and reconstruction to take place.


George Harris Hees: One of the reasons why we went ahead with the building of the Centennial pier was that the C.P.R. indicated they were not proceeding with the rebuilding of that bumed-out pier. In the whole study of Vancouver harbour now being undertaken such suggestions as the hon. member has made with respect to this burned-out site will be given serious consideration by the government. This whole matter is under study at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: If the considerations do not result in action, has the minister or the government any authority to order that this fine pier location should be utilized?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman, not short of expropriation.


[Stage Direction]
Items agreed to.
Air services-
491. Acquisition of land for control of properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of new and existing main terminal airports including alternative facilities for relieving congestion thereat, $3,000,000.
Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to take a brief moment to ask the Minister of Transport about a matter which I know he regards as important and which I certainly think is highly important in the constituency I have the honour to represent, and that is the airport at Windsor and its future prospects and development.
The minister will remember that he had the honour, which I envied him, of formally opening that airport shortly after the election of 1957. The hon. gentleman was gracious enough on that occasion to mention that the preliminary work had been done by his predecessor. He was also gracious enough to give me an opportunity of participating as one of the members in the district and I want to publicly thank the minister for that. The hon. gentleman showed qualities of real understanding of the vicissitudes of public life in the way in which he accorded me, as one of the members in the district, the opportunity of participating in that very happy ceremony.
We are very proud of that terminal. I think it is one of the finest in the country if not the very finest, possibly second only to the new terminal in Ottawa. I would think the terminal in Windsor is among the two finest in the country and second only to the one in our capital.
The air transport business is not all that we would like it to be. I am not blaming the
Supply-Transport
government or anyone for that. I should like to know from the minister if he could tell us what the prospects are in this respect. At one time we were hoping that C.P.A. would run out of Windsor to Mexico. It seems to me that Windsor is so located that there ought to be the greatest encouragement given to airlines from other countries to use these terminal facilities, particularly if one bears in mind how close Windsor is to that great United States city of Detroit.
There are quite a number of people at the Windsor airport whose employment is vitally affected by this situation. I would think with the potential growth of the city of Windsor and its particular locale opposite the city of Detroit it would lend itself to very great air development. I would be very grateful to the minister if he could say something that would confirm my own hopes in the matter and those of my fellow citizens generally.


George Harris Hees: The land requirements of the Windsor airport are under review at the present time to ensure that we have all of the land that we need for any future expansion. There is no immediate runway expansion planned but this expansion will be undertaken if it is needed.
Regarding increased requirements by commercial air lines, if we receive notification by any commercial air line that they have an additional requirement for length of runway or anything of that kind I can assure the hon. member and other hon. members for the Windsor district that we shall certainly see that we do not lag behind in providing for Windsor the facilities needed to make it possible for air fines to increase their services to that very important city.
During the present year there is improved lighting going into the airport and road improvements as well representing an expenditure this year of some $60,000. I should like to conclude by telling the hon. member that we agree with him that this is a very important airport serving a most important city and that we will not lag behind in any way in providing the facilities needed to allow for the expansion of the use of that airport.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Could the minister tell us what is the reason for the delay in C.P.A. being able to undertake its Windsor-Mexico run? I have been in touch with the president of that company who informs me that it is not because of any fault in Canada, that the delay has occurred in Mexico. That would be one additional means of giving further activity to the airport. Could the minister comment?

S upply-Transport


George Harris Hees: I am advised that earlier the Mexican government would not allow this agreement to go into effect. At the present time, however, there is no application before the air transport board by Canadian Pacific Air Lines to re-open negotiations. I can assure the hon. gentleman that if we do receive an application from C.P.A. to re-open the negotiations we shall be very glad to do so right away.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the minister and to the committee if the hon. gentleman has already made a statement with respect to this item and my question arising from it. Would the minister tell us what is the policy regarding requirements at the Vancouver international airport? All air traffic is consolidated at that airport including commercial flying, private flying, R.C.A.F. flying and international air traffic. The minister's predecessor and the present minister have both had under consideration an alternative airport for this area. Will something be done or will private flying continue there? Has the Minister of Transport consulted with the Minister of National Defence about the speed of defence aircraft, and the problems relating thereto? I appreciate that there has been much consideration and consultation but I think there has also been much vacillation and I should like a clear answer from the minister. Can the minister give us some clear indication-I may be on the borderline of being out of order, Mr. Chairman-of his attitude toward the new consultations having to do with the taking over of the Vancouver airport on a commercial basis?


George Harris Hees: Yes. As I understand it, the people of Vancouver wish that the satellite airport should be in the Boundary Bay area. I have carried on discussions with my colleague the Minister of National Defence and have urged on him strongly the need for the Department of National Defence to vacate that area just as soon as possible so that we can move in and take it over as a satellite airport.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that this has been agreed to by the R.C.A.F.?


George Harris Hees: No, it is an installation of the Department of National Defence at the present time, as I understand it. As soon as the Department of National Defence will move out the installations which are holding us up, then we shall certainly move in and take over Boundary Bay.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry; will they move in and take over Boundary Bay as a flying field?


George Harris Hees: I am sorry; I did not catch that.


Harold Edward Winch: On what basis are you going to take over Boundary Bay?


George Harris Hees: We are going to take over Boundary Bay provided that national defence move out. We still have available the Pitt meadows site and if we find the delay is going to be too long and that the Vancouver area is not willing to wait, then we shall be very glad to develop the Pitt meadows site. We are still hopeful we may be able to develop the Boundary Bay site. I appreciate what the hon. member has said about the desirability of getting on with the job; I agree with him. I am just as anxious as he is to get on with the job.
With regard to the taking over of the Vancouver airport from the municipal government of Vancouver, I have had discussions with them recently about that. Representatives of the municipal government of Vancouver will be in Ottawa a week from today to start discussions on this matter. I have indicated that this government is perfectly willing to take over and operate the Vancouver airport. All that remains is for a mutually acceptable price to be agreed upon regarding the facilities owned at the present time by the city of Vancouver. Once that has been agreed upon we can go ahead and develop the airport.


Mr. Smith (Calgary South):: May I ask a
question supplementary to the question raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East. Will the minister comment on the policy of his department with respect to aid to municipalities under this item in so far as airport facilities are concerned. In the past the policy has been to encourage wherever possible the municipality to participate in the erection and the running of facilities, whether they be airports or air terminals. However, more recently we have seen, as an example, Vancouver and a number of other municipal airports in Canada being taken over by the department or completely constructed or the facilities purchased. I could cite some other examples.
In my own city of Calgary the municipality has entered into partnership with the Department of Transport and under this arrangement has carried on a very successful utility. Of course, the government made a substantial contribution toward the facilities of this airport. Still more recently we have seen cities such as Edmonton and Ottawa, and now Vancouver, where the government has undertaken all the functions of commercial and civil aviation at those airport terminals. My purpose in raising this question is this. It must raise some doubts in the minds of the municipal councils to learn that after they

have entered into a partnership and undertaken substantial construction costs themselves the government has offered substantial grants and undertaken completely the operation of airports without any participation of the municipality concerned.
I think the first policy was sound in that obviously if you get a municipality which has an interest in the undertaking or the air terminal it puts some civic spirit into it and, of course, reduces the amount of money that the public treasury requires to put up. Latterly we seem to be going in the other direction, where there is too little encouragement to the municipality to operate as a partner. Therefore, one looks back and wonders whether it was a wise decision for any municipality or city to undertake a large financial responsibility, as was done so often, in view of the fact that conceivably had they waited a little bit longer they might have had the entire undertaking removed from them by the Minister of Transport. Will the minister comment on that?


George Harris Hees: I think I can answer the hon. member's question by the following statement of policy. The present arrangement under which the majority of airports are federally operated, particularly in the secondary field category, is the result of historical development and wartime growth. Basically speaking, however, the present policy is that the federal government encourages municipal operation of airports, and at main line airports served by scheduled services may, if necessary, pay a subsidy to a municipal airport operator to meet operating deficits. If the municipality is not prepared to operate the field and if the field is a major airport required to carry out international commitments, the federal government would assume responsibility.
In other cases, particularly requests for construction of a new airport, the federal government normally requires municipal participation giving as a minimum assurance it will provide the land for the air field and agree to operate it after the federal government has constructed it. In the case of local airports, dollar for dollar participation may also be required. The granting of operating subsidies to meet municipal deficits are dealt with by special investigation, both technical and economical, in each case and then a reference is made to treasury board for decision.
I might say with regard to the particular airport in which the hon. member for Calgary South is interested, namely the Calgary airport, that the Department of Transport is very pleased indeed with the way in which the city of Calgary has operated the airport.
Supply-Transport
They have done a first-class job; they have built a first-class air terminal building, and run it in a very commendable fashion. We are very happy to have municipalities carry out operations of that kind. However, as I said, if at any time a municipality decides that it does not wish either to construct or operate an air terminal building, then the Department of Transport is willing, as we are doing in the case of Vancouver at the present time, to discuss the value of the facilities owned by the municipality with a view to taking them over; and if an agreement can be reached between my department and the municipality regarding the value of the facilities, then we are willing to take them over and continue operations under the Department of Transport.


Lionel Chevrier: I have a question about the Cornwall airport. I remember some money was in the estimates several years ago for that municipal airport. I wonder what the situation is?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the application is dormant. There has been no application from the city for quite some time; also, there has been no application from any air line to use Cornwall as a port of call.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the point. I wanted to mention to the minister I saw in the press Friday that the new airport is now almost completed and will be ready for operation soon. In the press also appeared the statement that Wheeler Air Lines and Quebecair had given indications that they wanted to apply to the air transport board for a milk run from Montreal to Toronto by way of Cornwall, Belleville and other places. I now hold in my hand the application which was made to the air transport board for the right to operate between such places as Montreal, Cornwall, Kingston, Peterborough and Toronto with the restriction, of course, that no through traffic from Montreal to Toronto or in the other direction would be allowed because that would be interfering with the licences of C.P.A. and T.C.A.
But in the Montreal Gazette of July 15 there appeared a notice of withdrawal by Quebecair Incorporated of an application for a class 1 licence and of its submission of a new application for a class 1 licence, which application is for the same service except that Cornwall is being dropped. My purpose in rising was first of all to ask the minister if he would inquire from the air transport board why Cornwall was contained in the first application and is being dropped in the second one.
I would also ask the minister to give consideration to assisting the municipal airport

Supply-Transport
at Cornwall because unless there is some service such as would be provided by Wheeler Air Lines or Quebecair it will be impossible for the airport to survive. I know that when I was on the other side we introduced a vote in the estimates, pending negotiations with the municipality, and did so on two occasions. I should like to know whether consideration will be given to an application if it is made.


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member for Laurier knows, having been minister of the department in the past, it is up to the air line concerned whether or not it will apply for certain ports of call. I will be glad to ask the air transport board if they have any information with regard to why Quebecair dropped Cornwall as a suggested port of call and will let the hon. member know, but whether or not an air line applies for any port of call is up to the air line itself. I can assure the hon. member that if an air line applies to stop at Cornwall we will take into consideration the needs of that air line from the point of view of landing strip length and other facilities that would be required. We will certainly not be backward in looking after Cornwall in the same way that we do in the case of any municipality when a scheduled air line applies to use that municipality as a port of call.


Lionel Chevrier: Would the application have to come from the municipality or from the operator of the airport?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the municipality would approach us first and indicate to us that a certain air line intended to make the municipality a port of call. I understand we would then check with the air line and would have to receive a specific application from the air line. In addition, the municipality would then have to agree to acquire the land and operate the airport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the minister if it has not been put in my absence. Some years ago a survey was instituted in the St. John's area to find an alternative out Topsail way for the airport at Torbay. Could the minister bring us up to date on the survey?


George Harris Hees: I am afraid no alternative site to Torbay has been found. There was a survey but we still have not been able to find an alternative site and the search is still going on. If anybody has any suggestions we will be very glad to look at them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am glad the minister has said that because I am sure this will be published in the St. John's papers and he will get more mail from now on.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to read it.


Mr. McFarlane:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention a couple of matters that I wish to bring to the attention of the department. At the present time we only have the two large airports at Vancouver and Calgary with practically nothing in between to handle the aircraft that are being developed at the present time. I suggest that more assistance should be given to the smaller airports in the interior of British Columbia. We have small airports at Penticton, Castle-gar, Cranbrook, Kimberley and Creston. Until such time as we are able to develop a larger airport in the interior of British Columbia I believe the smaller centres should be given some assistance, especially in the Kootenays, so as to protect the larger aircraft travelling west from Calgary and east from Vancouver.
At the present time there is no protection at all for the large aircraft now in use and the larger aircraft anticipated in the future. At the present time several airports are being developed in a small way by municipalities in the east and west Kootenays and if some assistance could be given to developing these airports to a greater extent it would afford tremendous protection for aircraft travelling this route because I feel that soon or later we will have to develop a major large airport some place in the interior of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I wish to support briefly the remarks made by the hon. member for Kootenay East and to suggest that by improving the Castlegar airport we would achieve greater advantage for the people of the district by the expenditure of the money required than by following any other course of action at the present time. We cannot foresee the future but developments are taking place very quickly and the building of a larger airport could be carefully studied over a period of time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation-
492. Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $17,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this vote has to do with the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation, and I should like at once to commend the board of directors of that crown corporation for the excellent annual report they have submitted to parliament. I believe that much of the credit for that goes to none other than Mr. D. F. Bowie,

the president of Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation. I am particularly interested in this matter for two reasons. First, it was the former administration that introduced the bill setting up a crown corporation to expropriate Cable and Wireless and Canadian Marconi and also to build a submarine cable with a large number of circuits from Canada to the United Kingdom. The former administration was also responsible for the construction of the new building in Montreal. Therefore I am happy to see how well the corporation has carried on and how successful it has been in its operations, more particularly with respect to the balance sheet. That was the first purpose that prompted me to rise.
The second purpose is that I have received a number of inquiries concerning a contract given by C.O.T.C. and I wish the minister would help me with them. He may not have the information with him now but I trust that he can get it. I will put these questions on the record with an explanation of the reason for asking them. These are the questions to which I should like to obtain answers: Were tenders called for the laying of the submarine cable between Newfoundland and Iceland, called Icecan? Who tendered for this cable: what were the names of the tenderers and their prices? To whom was the contract awarded? Will a submarine cable be laid between Canada and Australia? What is the cost thereof and how will the cost be distributed? What percentage will be Canadian? Now what is the purpose of these questions? The purpose of these questions is that I have received considerable criticism by way of correspondence concerning the granting of this contract. I am told, and I will be corrected if I am wrong, that the contract has gone to a foreign corporation. I am told also that representations were made to the government by a French firm which had submitted a tender and which manifested a desire to start an industry at Three Rivers in the province of Quebec. I am sure this will bring the circumstances to the attention of the minister. I am informed also that this firm has spent considerable sums of money in buying land in that area and was prepared to establish a Canadian subsidiary. It would be in a position to construct this cable and was prepared also to employ no less than 300 people in Three Rivers. I am informed this is a substantial and reliable firm which already owned the land I mentioned, which land I am informed amounts to 2,500,000 square feet.
I am also informed that the government was advised that this company was willing to come here and establish itself in that area, and also to open an electronics industry
Supply-Transport
in connection with the work of constructing the submarine cable and that over a period of three years there would be some 2,000 people employed in the new firm, that is the one that would construct the submarine cable and the one that would construct the electronic equipment. I know that the answer to what I am telling the minister depends upon the answers to the questions which I put to the minister. Had I obtained this information earlier I would have put the questions on the order paper. I have been unable to do that because I just received this information within a day or two and I knew the minister's estimates were to be considered today. I wonder if the minister can give the answers to these questions?


George Harris Hees: Yes, tenders were called for Icecan, which is the cable to which the hon. member refers. It is a project financed by the International Civil Aviation Organization, a cable for ICAO purposes. It is a joint Canadian-Danish project and the contract was given to the low tenderer.
Quite some time ago, I think it was at least two years ago, I was visited by representatives of the French company to which the hon. member referred. We talked about this matter and went into considerable detail. I told them how interested this government is in helping new industries establish themselves in Canada. I sent these representatives to see Mr. Bowie in Montreal and spoke to Mr. Bowie about it. I told them that if they could satisfy Mr. Bowie and his board that the quality of the products they could produce was satisfactory and that their prices were within a reasonable range of what C.O.T.C. could obtain elsewhere, I felt sure they would be assured of an order. I also told them that C.O.T.C. could not simply invite them into Canada on a carte blanche basis saying, we will take anything you produce at any price you request; it must be a reasonable price and satisfactory material. They seemed very satisfied with what I told them. They went to see Mr. Bowie and I have never heard from them since.
I am advised also that after they went to see Mr. Bowie he never heard from them again. I am rather surprised, therefore, at this late date to find all this interest in establishing in Canada. I would have thought that the interest which I showed in their proposition and which Mr. Bowie showed, and the help which we promised to give them in every possible way, would have caused them to communicate with both of us a great deal more in the intervening period. I am sorry that they have not, because one of the things about which this government is keenest is helping new industries establish themselves
6448	HOUSE OF
Supply-Transport
in this country so that Canadians will be employed. I am afraid I have no more information.


Lionel Chevrier: Now can the minister answer the questions because everything depends on the answers to the questions. Who got the contract, who were the tenderers and what were the amounts?


George Harris Hees: I have not the name of the successful tenderer, Mr. Chairman. I am advised that he was the lowest tenderer. I am advised also that because this was a contract for ICAO we were required to put the tender call on the open market and to award the contract to the lowest tenderer whoever he might be.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not complaining about that. I should like to get the information, that is the point, and I think the committee is entitled to the information. It is true, from what I understand, that the cable was required by ICAO but was to be built by C.O.T.C. and C.O.T.C. is a crown corporation responsible to the minister. I feel, therefore, that the commitee should know who the tenderers were, who the lowest tenderer was, and so on.
Dealing with the statement of the minister to the effect that he saw representatives of this company and that he is interested in obtaining industry, I may say I have no doubt at all about that statement. The point is that that is not the information that has been relayed to me. I am not in a position to verify it because that is not what has been brought to my attention. I wonder if the minister would not put these replies on Hansard? If he has not got them now, perhaps he would be good enough to do so before his estimates are completed.
Then I must tell the minister that my information is that these people made representations to other members of the government, whom I would prefer not to name, but it is in the correspondence which I have, and that is why the minister heard from them no more. What these colleagues of the minister did, I am not in a position to say. However, the company did buy this land and was ready to go on with the contract. Unquestionably this company is a reliable one. They have already done some work in Canada and they were ready to establish a Canadian subsidiary, if they have not already done so. On the other hand, the actual tenderer, if it is the lowest tenderer and I should like to be assured on that point, is not a Canadian corporation nor has it a Canadian subsidiary. That is the protest of this firm which I have now and which I shall be glad to give to the minister if he so desires.


George Harris Hees: I am sorry I have not in my possession here the information on this specific price. However, I will certainly get it for the hon. member tomorrow morning and will give it to him in an answer on the questions before the orders of the day are called, if that procedure is satisfactory to him.


Lionel Chevrier: It is satisfactory as long as it goes on the record.


George Harris Hees: I can assure the hon. member for Laurier that it will go on the record. I will get it for eleven o'clock tomorrow morning if it is available, and I feel sure that it will be available.
I can only say once again that I saw these people two years ago, I think it was. I must have spent an hour with them. I was very much interested in their proposition and was very sympathetic toward it. I told them I would do everything I could to help them get located. Mr. Bowie tells me that he told them the same thing. I may say that I am amazed that I have not heard from them since then because I am very much interested personally in just this kind of proposition. I am sorry that things have not worked out as I had hoped they would work out.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
494. Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $36,000,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Here I should like to say a word in connection with the new appointment which the minister has made. The minister announced in the house some time ago the appointment of a new president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority who was the former vice chairman of the national harbours board. I know Mr. Rankin; I have had the pleasure of meeting him. He is a maritimer and I understand that the minister is fortunate in having a person of his calibre to take over the duties of president of the seaway authority. No one is happier than I with regard to his appointment.
However, I think I should tell the minister that he is going to lose the services of a great public servant in the person of the present chairman of the St. Lawrence authority who has been in office in various capacities, beginning in the Department of Finance, continuing in the national harbours board and now with the St. Lawrence seaway authority, for I believe almost 40 years. I think the people of this country as well as

the committee would want me to pay him the tribute which he so richly deserves on this occasion.
I hope the minister will not mind if I, in a closing comment, say that I think the government is missing a great chance in not availing itself sufficiently of the services of the other member of the St. Lawrence authority, namely Mr. Jean-Claude Lessard. I may say frankly that here is a man who has trained a large number of people in the Department of Transport, particularly in the economics branch. He knows more about economics than do most of those who are now in the minister's branch. He trained most of them. He is an expert in the economics field. He has a degree from Harvard University. He has had a great deal of service not only as an economist in the board of transport commissioners division of the department but also as deputy minister of the Department of Transport except in so far as air services were concerned. He is a man who is rusting in the St. Lawrence seaway authority, whose talents are not being used, and who is a great public servant.
I ask the minister to give consideration to that matter. I will not say what I intended to say but I hope the minister will find it possible with regard to this public servant, this man who I think is full of sincerity, to make the use which should be made of the training he has received not only in the Canadian National Railways and at Harvard, but in various other transportation fields.


Mr. McMillan:: I read over the 1959 financial report of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I note that it contains a report on the cleanup of construction on the St. Lawrence division and also the operation of the Welland canal and the St. Lawrence canals under that authority. I notice that there is a sum of $13.9 million outstanding in contractors' e'aims. I should like the minister to make some comment and to say how these claims were settled.
I might say that in order to expedite the passage of ships through the Welland canal some tie-up walls were built and the minister at one time in the house stated that they would cost $12 million. At another time I heard that they might cost $7 million.


George Harris Hees: If I may, I should like to correct the hon. member. I am not aware that I ever said that they would cost any more than $7J million, I think it was. That was the first estimate. We are very happy that they cost considerably less than that amount.


William Hector McMillan: I should like the minister in his reply to tell me exactly what they cost. I know that the costs of the canals were to be amortized over a period of 50 years.
Supply-Transport
In the case of the Welland canal I believe the cost of deepening was in the neighbourhood of $29 million. Costs of the Welland canal were made up of the cost of operation plus the cost of amortization of the $29 million or whatever the cost was over 50 years. I was just wondering how the minister was dealing with the cost of the tie-up walls and whether the amount was added or whether it is to come as a separate vote.
I do not intend to deal with tolls. I have dealt with them several times previously in the house. However, I just wanted to raise one question. When the Welland canal was taken over by the St. Lawrence seaway authority as of March 31, 1959 the municipalities along the Welland canal were told that they would be treated in the same way as they were treated by the Department of Finance in respect of the Municipal Grants Act. These municipalities, of course, provide all the services to the canal. On two or three occasions in the house I have spoken on these services and I will not cover them now. However, I thought I would give you some break-down of the Municipal Grants Act in my town.
There the Welland canal has about 69 per cent of the taxable acreage and slightly over 2 per cent of the building assessment. They pay about 10.03 per cent of the taxes. I am told that in determining the grants the seaway authority will not be taking into consideration the evaluation of the buildings on the canal property. I turned up the Municipal Grants Act, section 2, paragraph (c) which reads as follows:
(c) "federal property'' means real property owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, but does not include . . .
(iii) an improvement to land or structure that is not a building designed for the shelter of people, plant or movable property-
I know there is a double negative in there. I know there will be no people living in these buildings. However, it includes plant in so far as there is movable machinery; and this machinery can be moved. I have seen it moved. Payment was made up to and including March 31 by the Department of Finance, and in that payment the department took into consideration the value of buildings.
About two weeks ago I wrote to the minister because no cheque had been received in respect of the period between April 1 and December 31. Since that day they have received a cheque. I have heard from other municipalities, and one other municipality at least claims that it has not received anything from the St. Lawrence seaway authority with respect to that period from April 1 to the end of the year. In its payment to Thorold the seaway authority did

Supply-Transport
not take into consideration the value of the buildings. In the previous three months the Department of Finance did. In my small municipality that makes a considerable difference and I would think that a post office or any federal building would come under the definition of land improvement. Why should the Department of Finance include payment in respect of these buildings and the St. Lawrence seaway authority not? I have nothing more to say except that the municipalities are upset because some of them have received no payment in respect of last year's taxes and this year some of those who have received taxes are getting smaller grants than they had expected and budgeted for.


George Harris Hees: I can assure the hon. member for Welland that the city of Welland has been paid up to last year. Referring to the grant for the current year, negotiations will proceed between the authority and the municipality with a view to working out an amicable settlement as has been done in the past. The hon. member asked why the grant to certain other municipalities had not been paid. If he could mention the names of those municipalities I would be able to give him an answer. I understand from the chairman of the authority that most of these municipalities have been paid and that the remainder will be paid in the near future.


William Hector McMillan: I understand that the grant for Welland has been paid, but does the authority intend to pay grants in respect to buildings or not?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that this is a matter of opinion in specific cases and where those cases come under dispute we obtain legal advice and follow that advice.


William Hector McMillan: Can I ask the minister a specific question about the administration building in Cornwall? Would the authority pay a grant in lieu of taxes in respect to that building?


George Harris Hees: Yes, a grant in lieu of taxes would be paid.


William Hector McMillan: Would it not apply to other buildings?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that that depends on what the building is used for.


William Hector McMillan: Is that contained in the Municipal Grants Act?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I am sure the St. Lawrence seaway authority follows the principles laid down in that act.


William Hector McMillan: I should like to know why for three months we were getting taxes in respect to the buildings along the canal and

then for the nine months after which the seaway authority took over we got no taxes in respect to those buildings.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the St. Lawrence seaway authority interprets the act differently than did the canals branch of the Department of Transport. If the municipality of Welland feels it is not receiving a square deal I assume there is a perfect right to take the matter to the courts.


William Hector McMillan: Is that not discriminatory on the part of the seaway authority toward these municipalities?


Lionel Chevrier: There is one question I should like to bring to the attention of the minister and I think I owe it, in fairness to those who are now in the seaway authority, to do so. It concerns an article which appeared in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of July 14 entitled: "Condemn Land Condition Iroquois to Cornwall". I make this intervention with due apology to the hon. member for Grenville-Dundas, but I know she would be the first to deplore these conditions. A statement is reported by Reeve Lloyd Davis of Iroquois that nothing had been done to clear huge mounds of dirt from the lock area and beautify the site. According to this report, Reeve Davis termed the condition there as scandalous.
I am not asking the minister for any information now; I am just telling him what happened. When the seaway authority decided to expropriate Iroquois point it required to get the consent of no one, but in order to keep the peace with all concerned we obtained the consent of the council, and the three members of the authority went to Iroquois and dealt with them, and one of the stipulations or terms was that a park would be made of the area south of the lock at Iroquois and it would be beautified in the same way as was done at Cornwall. These people were then quite happy. Apparently, that promise has not been kept.
I know that when there is a change of government the new government is not obliged to keep promises such as that, though this was not a promise; it was rather more than a promise, it was an undertaking. I am sure that as a result of the statement I have made the members of the St. Lawrence seaway authority will wish to see that what was undertaken by the previous members of the authority is carried out in this case, and I ask the minister to be good enough to say that it will be done.


George Harris Hees: I shall certainly be glad to look into that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Jacques Flynn: That completes the estimates of the Department of Transport.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
327. General administration. $9,784,537.
Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, before making any comments on the estimates before us I should like once more to congratulate all the employees of the Department of Public Works upon the magnificent work they are doing and upon the devotion with which they fulfil their respective duties. The services they render to the country are deeply appreciated, I am sure, by every Canadian. I should also like to assure them that any criticism which may appear in my remarks is levelled not at them but at the government which is responsible for the department's policy.
It is generally recognized, Mr. Chairman, that the discussion of the public works department's estimates becomes more orderly as we proceed with consideration of the various items. For that reason I shall confine myself to certain general remarks and reserve the right to make any necessary comment later as the various items are submitted.
We all remember the sarcasm with which the former minister of public works, when his estimates were under consideration in June 1958, accused the former government of padding that department's estimates with projects it had not the slightest intention of carrying through. He added that for the year 1957-58 about 97 per cent of the allotments had actually been spent as against 91.7 per cent for the preceding year which was the last complete year of the Liberal administration. On June 4, 1959, speaking on the same estimates, I showed, with figures to prove it, that for the first full year of the present administration, that is 1958-59, only 89.5 per cent of the amounts allotted had been spent. I pointed out to the then minister, in passing, as a reply to his taunt, that he had not been able to keep his pace very long and had soon become winded.
Has the situation in that respect improved during the last fiscal year, that is 1959-60? For my own information I have prepared a table indicating the amounts voted, including statutory estimates, and the amounts spent during the same year. An analysis of this table shows that out of a sum of $226.5 million voted in the main and supplementary estimates, only $208.9 million was spent. This last figure appears on page 65 of the budgetary papers brought down by the Minister of Finance on March 31st of this year. It is arrived at by subtracting the $6.3 million for the national capital commission from $215.2 million.
Supply-Public Works
At first glance one might be inclined to think that the total amount represented by unfinished projects during the year 1959-60 is equal to the difference between the sums voted and the amount spent. In fact, Mr. Chairman, there must first be subtracted from the amount of expenditures $4 million, the difference between $52 million and $48 million. I think last Friday the minister used the figure $53.2 million but that does not change the final result. I repeat, there must be subtracted from the amount of expenditures $4 million, the difference between $52 million and $48 million, for the trans-Canada highway, which is a statutory expenditure, and $1.1 million paid to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This leaves $22.7 million unspent or approximately 10 per cent of the estimates.
The difference between the expenses foreseen in the estimates and the amounts actually spent during the year 1959-60 is even more apparent in an analysis of the following items. First, with respect to public buildings, construction and services, out of a total amount of $33.7 million voted for the acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings in centres other than Ottawa the sum of $27.8 million was spent or 18 per cent less than had been foreseen. Second, under the heading "Harbours and rivers engineering services", out of a total amount foreseen of $44.7 million the total expenditures amounted to $35.9 million. In this instance the difference is of the order of 20 per cent.
Therefore I feel justified in calling the attention of the minister and of hon. members of the committee to the fact that during a period when unemployment had reached a new high, the government, a supposed champion of full employment, instead of spending the amounts voted by parliament at its request and which should have been used for public works has considerably reduced its expenditures.
Furthermore, a simple analysis of the estimates as submitted by the Minister of Public Works for the years 1958-59, 1959-60 and 1960-61 indicates that far from increasing as they did under the former Liberal administration the department's estimates have been falling off from year to year which offers a great similarity to the government's popularity which is also showing a rapid decline. In fact, the estimates voted for the year 1958-59 were $233 million and the money spent was $220 million. In 1959-60 the estimates voted were $226 million and expenditures, $203.8 million. For the current fiscal year the minister is asking us to vote $195.9 million which is $25 million less, if we compare this year's main estimates with last year's.

Supply-Public Works
It seems appropriate to point out in passing that the estimates asked for by the department this year are only $7.9 million more than those for the year 1956-57, excluding trans-Canada highway expenses, so that we have reason to wonder if this is not a reversal of the policy the government was supposed to follow. Or are we to understand that the government has abandoned the idea of undertaking projects to provide employment?
But we still remember the statement made by the Minister of Finance in this chamber on January 21, 1958 and which appears on page 3569 of Hansard of that year. He said:
Let me make it abundantly clear to every member of the house-I made this clear in the financial statement I made in the house on December 6- that the instructions that have been given by the government are to the effect that while we are seeking to reduce expenditure where expenditure is needless we have said that there shall be no reduction in expenditure where it means jobs, and we are seeking to increase construction in useful public works down the line. While next year we would unquestionably like to have a balanced budget, let me make it abundantly clear
Newfoundland	 $ 5,322,200
Nova Scotia	 6,440,500
Prince Edward Island	 1,182,000
New Brunswick	 5,578,000
Quebec	 11,789,900
Ottawa	 17,201,000
Ontario (except Ottawa)	 21,126,500
Manitoba and
Saskatchewan	 3,254,000
Alberta, British
Columbia, Yukon &
Northwest Territories		11,992,000

Therefore, we find that in those two services which form the main activities of the department, there is a substantial decrease for all provinces except Newfoundland, where there is a slight increase. If we add up the expenditures made last year on those two services and compare them to the total expenditures the department intends to make this year, we get the following results:
For 1959-1960, the total amount spent reached $83,886,000, while the total intended expenditures for this year amount to $60,829,800, a decrease of $23,056,000 or 27.4 per cent.
How then can the minister justify and explain such an important decrease in this
[Mr. Bourget.l
that we are not going to put a balanced budget above our firm determination to provide, through the agency of public works, jobs for unemployed Canadians.
Those were the fine words spoken and the beautiful promises made before the general election in March 1958 but, as we now see, they were soon forgotten. That vision disappeared on April 1 of the same year.
(Translation):
I should like now, Mr. Chairman, to give a brief analysis of the estimates of the department for the year 1960-1961. I shall confine myself however, to the two main branches, that dealing with the building, acquisition, repairs and improvements of public buildings and that dealing with harbours and rivers.
If we add up the amounts to be spent this year by the department on those two services in the various provinces, and if we compare with the amounts spent last year in the same provinces, we get the following results:
1960-1961	Increase	Decrease$ 5,777,500 4.291.000 673,500 2.952.000 7,679,300 11.590.000 14.362.000	$ 455,300	$ 2,149,500 508,500 2,626,000 4,110,600 5,611,000 6,764,5003,165,000	89,00010,339,500	1,652,500$60,829,800	$455,300	$23,511,600
department's projects, when he knows that unemployment has taken alarming proportions and that the outlook is none too promising?
Will he also tell us why the largest reductions occur in provinces where the percentage of unemployed is the highest, that is in the three maritime provinces and in the province of Quebec, where on April 23, 1960, the proportion of unemployed seeking work was 11.5, and 12.2, per cent of the whole labour force?
Would it be that, this year again the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) wants to cut down the expenses of the Department of Public Works? Yet, that was not what he implied in his own words which I quoted a few moments ago.

Would it be because the department is lacking in projects to carry out? Yet, the present minister's predecessor, when he addressed this house on his estimates on June 6, 1958, said the following words, which may be found on page 907 of Hansard and I qoute:
We intend to build up-
So he said:
-a proper shelf of public works which can be called on immediately, if necessary, and that is something the former government sadly failed to do.
Well, Mr. Chairman, where are those projects? They are certainly not mentioned in these estimates. What became of the famous special program of public works which was to be carried out by the Conservative government? What became, more particularly, of the Prime Minister's grand promises that nobody would suffer because of lack of work?
Now, Mr. Chairman, whatever the so-called reasons the minister may invoke in trying to justify that important decrease in expenses for his department, we can state, supported by figures, that the government has failed sadly in its task with regard to public projects it was going to undertake to provide jobs for the unemployed.
Does the hon. minister want more facts to prove the truth of what I have just said?
Mr. Chairman, before I go on, it might perhaps be preferable to call it six o'clock?
(Text):
At six o'clock the committee took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m. (Translation):


Maurice Bourget: When the house took recess at six o'clock, I was saying that the government has pitifully failed to perform its task with respect to the public works projects it intended to launch to provide jobs for the unemployed.
If the minister wants additional facts in support of my statement, I shall be pleased to provide them, taking them this time in the province of Quebec.
He must no doubt remember the visit he paid in early January of this year to Quebec city where, surrounded by his Conservative friends and supported by his parliamentary secretary, he predicted with typical eloquence and enthusiasm, a wave of prosperity that
Supply-Public Works
would provide Quebec people with more jobs and help relieve unemployment. His statement was published in the January 12 issue of L'Action Catholique.
He also stated on that occasion, as reported in Le Soleil for January 12:
The amount of money spent on public buildings in Quebec in 1958-59 was 27 per cent higher than the average spent in the last two years of the Liberal administration. Work on the new postal terminal in Quebec, which is estimated to cost $3 million, will start in early spring. In addition, in this very constituency, we are considering the construction of a new building for the unemployment insurance commission. An amount of $500,000 was included in the last estimates for that building.
Well, let us see what happened in the province of Quebec concerning the construction of public buildings since 1958-59, the first year for which the Conservative administration introduced its estimates.
For the fiscal year 1958-59, $12,007,000 were voted for acquisition, construction and improvements of public buildings.
For the fiscal year 1959-60, $5,931,000 were spent for the same kind of projects, which means a decrease of over 50 per cent as compared to the previous year.
For the present fiscal year, 1960-61, it is proposed to spend only the tiny sum of $3,673,000, which means a decrease of 70 per cent as compared to the year 1958-59 and $6,287,000 less than in 1956-57, last full year of the former Liberal administration.
Well, the minister must realize that if we continue at that rate, there will come a time when not only there will be no more public buildings erected in Quebec, but even the necessary repairs will not be taken care of.
The wave of prosperity which he predicted for our area will certainly not be due to the projects his department proposes to carry out this year. However, if there is a province and a city that are affected by unemployment, they are our province and the city of Quebec, where, on April 21, 1960, there were 17,546 people registered at the national employment office.
I therefore suggest to the minister that he hasten the drawing up of plans and specifications for the future unemployment insurance building, about which nothing was done last year, in spite of the $500,000 earmarked for that project.
As to the new post office building which has just been started, I think it my duty to point out that the government does not deserve to be commended for its speed as regards the project, because it took exactly three years from the time the work was started.



E4S4 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
(Text):
l should like to say a few words now, Mr. Chairman, about the possibility of building a causeway across the strait of Northumberland. It will no doubt be recalled that in 1958-59 an amount of $360,000 was voted for the examination of that project and that last year an additional amount of $250,000 was requested for the continuation of the study. This year we are asked to approve another vote of $50,000. Consequently, it seems that under the circumstances, and after having approved those expenditures, members of the committee are entitled to more information than they have been given up to now.
The minister will recall that when he made his statement on Friday last there was not a word in it about this important project. In view of all the important things that were said in that connection during the last federal election and, even more, during the provincial election in Prince Edward Island last summer, the minister should tell us what commitments have been made by the federal government and what assurances have been given to the new premier of Prince Edward Island who, as we know, was greatly helped in his election by the promises he made in regard to the causeway.
It will be recalled that during the provincial election in Prince Edward Island the people were asked, through the use of much advertising, to vote for the Conservative party which called itself the party of the causeway. Up to now, except for a few remarks by the former minister of public works and the present minister of that department, very little information has been given in the house to show us or at least to give us an inkling that it is economically possible to implement this project. The only way we could get information concerning the project was by reading the preliminary report which the deputy minister made in Charlottetown but which was refused to the house. A perusal of that report shows that various government departments and various firms of consulting engineers have carried out the following studies:
1.	The effects that such construction could have on the high and low water levels through the strait and the damage that could result to private properties and harbours.
2.	A land survey to determine the location of the waterline on the shores.
3.	An estimate of the damage to private properties and of the cost of protective works.
4.	A study of the formation and movement of the ice.
5.	A site survey to determine which location would be most appropriate for the construction of the causeway.

6.	Soundings across the strait.
7.	Two lines of borings across the strait to investigate foundation conditions.
8.	Borings and analysis of the stone of various neighbouring quarries to determine whether a sufficient quantity of stone is available and whether it is of such hardness and size as to make its use possible.
9.	Preparation of preliminary designs for the various types of construction which could be considered.
Since the department has all this information at hand, I feel that they can estimate the approximate cost of that project and say whether or not it would be economically possible to implement that project. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, the results of the studies and research which are being carried out at present will only slightly affect the estimated cost of the causeway. Unless it can be proved without doubt that I am mistaken, I am inclined to feel that the deputy minister's visit to Prince Edward Island to present the report was intended to prepare the people of that district for the burial of that project for several years to come.
Other people seem to share my feeling since, according to a Prince Edward Island newspaper, many of those present when the deputy minister read his report were of the opinion that the completion of such a project would be in the far distant future, probably not within the life span of many of those who attended the meeting. The people of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island will have to realize that its famous project which was advocated by the Conservatives was merely another of the numerous visions of the Prime Minister.
(Translation):
Before closing my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with the trans-Canada highway. Like many other people, I regret that the government has not yet revealed its views and plans with regard to the construction of a second trans-Canada highway or of national interest highways, as suggested by a number of influential members on the government side when they were sitting in the opposition. I hope the minister will consider the matter and will be in a position to discuss it with the provincial premiers at the forthcoming federal-provincial conference, to be held here in Ottawa next week.
As the minister knows, the Quebec delegation will include the minister of highways, and though he has not been officially notified, he will surely make it a point to meet the Minister of Public Works to discuss this important problem.

Now that we have a new government in Quebec, I hope it will hasten to make the necessary representations with a view to sharing in this program which was started by the previous Liberal administration. I also hope the federal government will allow Quebec to recover the millions of dollars to which we are entitled under that scheme.
A few days ago, I happened to thumb through the debates of the other house, and I noted a table showing the amounts paid by the federal government to the various provinces for the construction of the trans-Canada highway, from December 10, 1949 to May 28, 1960. I quote:
Newfoundland	$ 26,295,811.17
Prince Edward Island 5,881,243.00
Nova Scotia	 15,812,286.77
New Brunswick __________ 34,300,334.71
Quebec	 Nil
Ontario	 104,457,689.00
Manitoba	 18,896,186.58
Saskatchewan,	 15,904,024.55
Alberta	 22,142,805.16
British Columbia _______ 95,799,968.62
Mr. Chairman, with the great majority of the citizens of the province of Quebec, I regret that we have not yet joined in this scheme, because we could not afford to refuse the substantial amounts that were available to us under this scheme.
Those are the few remarks I wanted to make on the first item of these estimates. Later, I shall have opportunities to make other remarks as the various items in the estimates come up for consideration.
(Text):
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in connection with this socialist enterprise, the Department of Public Works. I must say before commencing that the department has established a record that has not been equalled in recent years. The department is headed by a master mariner, who showed that his feelings have always been close to the water when he used the simile the other day that we shall now enter the pacific waters of public works. The deputy minister is a general who is in command of batteries in Operation Avalanche which are in permanent position, firing at the same target in perpetuity and whose enemy returns every spring, requiring annihilation all over again. Never before in Canadian history has this happened.
I must say that I appreciate the minister's personal attention to the representations I have made to him on behalf of my constituents. I have appreciated his promptness 79951-0-407
Supply-Public Works
in dealing with correspondence; that he was willing to listen to my pleas, although I must say there have been occasions when he has not reacted as favourably as I hoped. I am rather forgiving in that respect because I understand that the treasury board is the ghost behind the scenes these days.
I should like also to express to the deputy minister my appreciation of his attention to my suggestions and pleas on behalf of my constituents concerning matters I have brought to his attention as a result of my own observations of the Department of Public Works in my own constituency. I cannot go on without extending my sincere congratulations to the deputy minister upon being presented with the engineering institute's Julian C. Smith medal for achievement in the development of Canada, which medal I understand was presented to the deputy minister at the 74th annual meeting of the institute in the Royal Alexandra hotel, Winnipeg. I mention that because these medals are not dished out with the rations. They are given to people only after careful consultation by a qualified committee considering the recipient's contributions to the developments of Canada.
I must say now that I have always had a slight prejudice so far as generals were concerned. This has been the result of my war experience. I remember particularly on one occasion my platoon was ordered to stay in the front line covering a wide front while the rest of the battalion retired to better positions because the Germans were going to bombard our front line trenches all to pieces. Our scouts indicated that they were bringing heavy batteries into position. I said, "Where does this order come from?" They said, "From General so and so". I shall never forget just prior to an attack in a snow storm on the Somme the carriers came up from brigade headquarters at six o'clock in the morning with great big tins of cold soup instead of rum. I said, "Whose order was this?" They said, "General so and so". I have always had a little bit of prejudice against generals but I must say that my experience of 15 years in this House of Commons have modified my views because of the service I realize that certain former generals have rendered to the Canadian people in the international joint commission, in the Canadian pension commission and in the Department of Public Works.
I know the deputy minister has a remarkable war record in the first and second world wars. However, one of his great achievements was when he was commander of

Supply-Public Works
Operation War Brides in charge of bringing back to Canada 66,000 war brides within a year. I know he has earned the personal gratitude of all kinds of war brides in Canada. Some time I will tell the deputy minister about a letter I received from a Cockney war bride who wanted me to tell him what a great deal he had done for her. However, regardless of having a minister and a highly qualified deputy minister, the department cannot run unless it has qualified staff and employees. I think we are extremely fortunate in that respect in the Department of Public Works having regard to senior officials, district officials and the permanent and the casual employees, and I shall have a word or two to say about casual employees in a minute or two.
I wish to say I speak with a certain measure of knowledge when it comes to the Department of Public Works. I have been in contact with officials of the Department of Public Works in Canada for 50 years, as an employee for four and a half hours over 51 years ago under Captain Armstrong who was the famous captain who sailed the Duchess on the upper Columbia in the latter part of the last century and the early part of this century, who was famous for his part in the operations of the Inland Waterways Transport Company in Mesopotamia in the first world war. I have written many letters to the department. I have read them all at headquarters since. First as secretary of a board of trade, then as secretary of a Liberal association, although I should not mention it, and then as secretary of a farmers institute.
I have also assisted the department on occasion by request in order to earn a few dollars when we were getting ten cents a box net for our fruit, as wharf inspector when someone was taken ill or as a timber inspector. I was an M.L.A. for four years and have been 15 years in this House of Commons. I therefore judge that I have laid a good foundation to indicate that I have some knowledge of the workings of the Department of Public Works, particularly so far as my own constituency is concerned. I might say that I know when every wharf was built, and who built it. I know the depth of every channel and of every lake and river. I know all the points of river bank erosion. I know all the areas in which there are snags where widening is required, and where dredging is required. I know the difficulties created by ice and silting from the upper reaches of the Columbia river and so on. Not only have I lived in the district for a good many years, I have made a point of studying the river
fMr. Herridge.]
system of the Columbia and the Kootenay because this subject has been of great interest to me.
I trust that I have established by now my right to speak with some knowledge as to the requirements of the constituency of Kootenay West. The other day I heard the minister's report to the house and I have read the departmental report with interest. I refer to the last one that was issued. I must say that the departmental report in recent years has improved. It is brief but it is clear and gives one a good general picture of the activities of the department.
As far as the minister's report to the house is concerned, I have just a few comments to make before I go on to making a few suggestions with respect to policies. I consider the administration of the department is excellent. One could not say that a few years ago. But one has only to be in touch with the department to realize what is being done today and to understand that any criticism we wish to make is not aimed at the deputy minister or at the senior officials but is aimed at the policy of the minister and the government.
I think the value of the property management division has been established in recent years. When that division was established I thought it was a good move. It is well evidenced by the efficient operation of the various public buildings throughout the country. I also think that the economics division was a necessary division to establish. It is required more than ever because of changing circumstances. For many years our population and our industrial development was somewhat static. Now we get unexpected development. I know that the department must find some difficulty with rapid development unexpectedly in one direction or another; an industry is established or the population increases on one side of a town instead of on another, and so on. Therefore the economic division of the department is more necessary than ever in order to make certain that the expenditure is required having in view all the information that can be obtained with respect to present requirements and future developments.
I was interested when the minister said that the department had expended 90 per cent of the money that was voted last year in the estimates, if I heard him correctly. While the hon. member who preceded me was extremely critical of that fact, we must remember that there was a period in 1952 and 1953 when the department expended only slightly over 70 per cent of the money that was voted. That was at the time when the whole departmental machine was almost bogged down. Since 1954 that situation has been steadily remedied. However, speaking for

this group and in view of the unemployment situation last winter, I could not understand why the department did not spend 100 per cent. I should like the minister when he replies to explain that question. There may be good reasons. Sometimes it is not possible to buy a site as expected or it is hard to obtain materials or there are property rights that have to be expropriated and sometimes there are legal reasons. But in view of the unemployment situation during the last year I should like the minister to explain more in detail when he replies why only 90 per cent of the money voted was expended in the last year.
I must say that the policy with respect to constructing small standard buildings such as post offices and R.C.M.P. headquarters in small communities has received the endorsa-tion, I think, of all parties and all members in the House of Commons. We have had several in my constituency in the last year or two. These small buildings are appreciated by the people in these small communities. They do something for the community. They set a certain standard. Only recently I read in the local paper in my constituency that an R.C.M.P. building has just been completed and the post office building has just been completed by the department in Nakusp. The person who writes the articles is quite capable of expressing opinions with some knowledge. This editor mentions how many people have suggested that the design of the buildings themselves is in keeping with the geography and the location and is an asset to the community and so on. I find that to be so generally with the small buildings. I shall have something to say later on with respect to the larger buildings. We hope the department will continue that policy of building these small, permanent excellent structures in the small communities of our country for post office purposes, for R.C.M.P. headquarters and other purposes.
I was pleased to hear the minister say that he intends to use more and more Canadian architects at home and abroad. We in this party support that proposal. We are pleased to hear about it. I might also mention that we hope the department also employs local architects wherever they are available and are competent to do the work undertaken in small cities and in small communities when buildings are being considered. There have been some cases in recent years where architects in Vancouver or some larger centre have been asked to design new buildings when there were local architects capable and qualified to do the work, as evidenced by plans they had already prepared for local hospitals, schools, and so on.
79951-0-4074
Supply-Public Works
A word now about the employees of the department. We hope the department is pushing the civil service commission a bit in order to obtain the increase to which its employees are entitled. 1 want to suggest that in recent years the department has lost some excellent employees because of the scale of salary or wages that is being paid. Some of the men who now have to be replaced in my district had a very valuable background of experience. They understood pile driving; they understood dredging; they were good boatmen; they were good with tugs; these were hard working, experienced and capable young men who have been lured away from the department by the large companies connected with the logging and timber industry on account of the higher wages paid. I was talking to a young man last fall and he told me how much he preferred to stay with the department. He was in charge of pile driving and wharf construction. He was offered a much larger salary by a lumber company to take charge of its pile driving and booming grounds together with any dredging that might be required. So I urge that the department give consideration to this question of salaries or wages and make sure that these capable men are not lost to the public service, for it takes years for a man of that type to gain experience.
And now a word with respect to architecture and public buildings. I have here a cutting from the Montreal Star of March 12. It is an article written by Mr. Alan Jarvis. I do not want anyone to think that I wholly support Mr. Jarvis' conception of art. There is much with which I do not agree in what he wrote about large public buildings in Canada. However, there is one point which I think deserves consideration. Here is the suggestion:
My suggestion that the only solution to the problem of the ugliness of so many government buildings is to make slipcovers-made at the art gallery of Vancouver in the course of a public lecture- which has been widely reported, was neither a flippant remark aimed at "getting a laugh", nor the bilious fulmination of a professional curmudgeon. It was a simple cri-de-cceur made by an ordinarily sensitive citizen, and it is shared by a great many other Canadians, as the cheering response from the Vancouver audience, 800 strong proved.
I think Mr. Jarvis has a point and his point is that if the design of the larger buildings constructed in Canada were open to public competition, with a qualified committee to decide which designs should finally be accepted, such a procedure would offer an incentive to Canadian architects and an opportunity for a diversity of ideas in connection with these larger public buildings erected by the department in Canada. I do

Supply-Public Works
not like the large, square uninteresting glass structures without character that one sees nowadays, but I do suggest we could combine the functional, the beautiful and the permanent in a suitable manner. I am not one who goes to extremes on this question. I do know that the traditional architecture is insufficient to meet the requirements of today but surely there can be a blend of ideas which could produce a satisfactory type of public building in Canada.
So in this respect I support Mr. Jarvis' plea to the Department of Public Works to hold open competitions among the architects of Canada in connection with large public buildings which the department proposes to build. Public buildings are, of course, related to their sites just as houses are. Certain sites, or certain environmental situations suit certain types of public buildings. As long as the basic requirements of functionalism beauty are met, I think it is very desirable to add some diversity to our landscape.
Now I want to say a word about Operation Lemon Juice. This newspaper item reads:
Satisfied with the scrubbing job on D'Arcy McGee and the fair maiden they call Mollie-
I am quoting now from an article in the Globe and Mail by Walter Gray-
-senior officials of the Department of Public Works have given permission to clean up the remaining eight bronze statues on parliament hill.
I do not know where this idea comes from. I know that lemon juice and lime juice are good for certain conditions suffered by the troops, but I did not know statues suffered from these disabilities. I have made a point of looking at D'Arcy McGee's statue since it was cleaned, and to my mind it is just a shabby looking green mess. I do not know much about this subject, but I do know that very many people think it is entirely unnecessary to remove the patina from statues. It is interesting to note that when the statue of the former prime minister, Sir Robert Borden, was made, a patina was created artificially to give this statue an appearance similar to those which had acquired a patina as a result of age.
I should like the minister to inform the committee how much this treatment, this insistence on cleaning off the patina, is going to cost. Personally I will take some convincing that it has been worth while, or is necessary. I would much prefer to see the money spent on restoring and renovating what is known as lovers' lane. I have walked around the back of the building-


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mind you, I have only been there because I wanted to see the beauty and do some botanizing. I would suggest there
[Mx. Herridge.]
is such a wonderful opportunity for landscaping right from the Rideau canal round to the supreme court building and that something should be done to give the public an opportunity to enjoy this fine scene and walk overlooking the river. As it is, this wonderful river walk is denied to members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, as well as to residents of Ottawa and visitors to the city. I would urge the minister to give instructions for the repair and renovation of what is known as lovers' walk, behind the parliament buildings.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: So that its natural beauty and advantages may be enjoyed by all.
Now I want to say a word about my constituency. I suggest to the minister and to his deputy in all seriousness that they would be well advised to pay a visit to the Kootenays and see for themselves the developments that are taking place in the forest, mining and smelting industries. I think their presence is necessary in order that they may satisfy themselves about the correctness of the representations I make on behalf of my constituents and the justice of my representations. I suggest that they meet the departmental launch at Arrowhead, go down the Arrow lakes, the Columbia river and the river in the narrows and go as far as Castlegar; then go on by road along the Columbia river to the international boundary; then on to Nelson and take the departmental launch around Kootenay lake and travel back to Revelstoke via Trout lake or return to Nelson and visit the constituency of the hon. member for Kootenay East. I suggest that the minister and his deputy give consideration to my suggestion. If they come I will arrange a number of dinners by local organizations on a strictly non-partisan basis giving them an opportunity to meet the local people and learn their requirements.
If the minister and his deputy visit they should bring Captain Allen, chief of floating equipment for British Columbia. No one knows more about the problems of wharf location and the deepening of rivers than Capt. Allen because of his long experience as a dredge captain and his experience in wharf construction, riprap and so on. Experience sometimes means more than engineering degrees in terms of knowing local conditions concerning high waters, currents, et cetera. Local experienced people can anticipate future problems because of their knowledge and experience throughout the years.
I wish to express appreciation on behalf of my constituents for the building of the Galena bay wharf. Some were hesitant about

this but the building of the wharf has proved to be the proper thing to do. The road is under construction and soon hundreds of cars will be using it daily.
It was planned to spend $4,000 to tear down the Burton wharf but as a result of representations the money was spent to repair it. I just received word that ten boats from the United States have tied up at the wharf recently. This job was well done.
Conditions are changing. The channels must be deeper and straighter as booms are sometimes half a mile long. These new circumstances will have to be considered when plans are made for dredging from now on.
I suggest that when it comes to building new wharves and dredging, in addition to engineers the local residents should be consulted especially those who have been captains on tugs or have worked in the forest industry at booming. They know local conditions and can judge currents, and so on. Things are not always as they appear to be with respect to high and low water and much can be gained by consulting local people with experience. The Arrowhead wharf for instance was built in the wrong place. I was down here and did not know anything about it. It should be about a half mile further east. Navigation is affected by ice floes in the spring. Large chunks of ice six and eight feet high drift in around the wharf causing difficulty to the ferries and tugs. The channel also suffers from silting from the river.
Tourist traffic is increasing. There is a constantly increasing flow of water traffic from the United States and the eastern provinces. We are pleased with the launchways that have been built. The people of Slocan City, would like a launchway. Much work of this nature could be done in this district. These launchways are cheaper than standard wharves. If built soundly and if the piling is deep enough they are suitable for all the traffic on the lakes including pleasure craft, and small tugs. Having in mind that vessels larger than pleasure craft will tie up it may be necessary to put the piling down an extra five feet-I am not certain-I believe in time these launchways will replace many of the standard wharves as they require rebuilding and so on. I urge the minister and his deputy to give consideration to constructing launch-ways at Slocan, Riondel and Kootenay bay.
Of course everything cannot be done at once but these requests could be put on the departmental program and undertaken as money is available. The work should be done at a time when it will create the greatest amount of employment. Only people living within a radius of 15 miles of these works
Supply-Public Works
are supposed to be employed. However, sometimes there will not be anyone living within that distance who could undertake doing this work; however the work should be undertaken at a time most appropriate to relieve the unemployment situation.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Hazen Robert Argue: Carry on.


David James Walker: I suggest that the hon. member be permitted to complete his remarks.


Charles Edward Rea: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I thank the committee. When I get on the Arrow lakes time means nothing. They need a new breakwater at Nakusp. The wharf at Nakusp is on a 10 per cent grade which makes it unsuitable for the typing up of small craft. A wing dam is also required at Arrowhead. A much wider and deeper channel is required in the river from Arrowhead south for some miles, because-I mentioned this last year-these tugs have to make a right-angle turn and they are pulling very long booms of the type used by the pulp and paper companies, which require much more room and greater depth. Therefore, a wider, deeper and straighter channel is required.
People are very pleased with the completion of the R.C.M.P. building in Nelson. The local authorities there tell me that it is a credit to the city of Nelson. It is attractive, is on an excellent site and is an addition to the city's architecture.
The people of Rossland also appreciate the fact that on further investigation the department has decided not to repair or renovate the old post office at Rossland but to rebuild it. I am quite sure the department was somewhat surprised when it was known what would be required to renovate and repair the old building. I am sure that, working in close co-operation with the city council the officials will be able to find a suitable site and erect a satisfactory building.
In concluding I do urge further consideration of the question of ventilation and air conditioning of the buildings at Nelson and Trail. The ventilation still is not satisfactory in the federal building at Nelson, particularly in the post office where they handle the mail and the lint comes off the bags. Trail should have air conditioning; it is much warmer there and conditions are quite uncomfortable for the employees at times. In fact, in the first instance I should have urged that air conditioning should be put into the larger buildings of the department where climate requires it.

Supply-Public Works
I come to the end of my remarks. Some years ago there was some mention that the department was going to do away with the district office in Nelson. I can assure the department that the industrial development and the work that will be required of the department certainly necessitates the maintenance of a district office in Nelson. Someone has to be on the job to look after growing departmental responsibilities on the Kootenay, Arrow and other interior lakes and communities. That is all I have to say at this time. I thank the committee for being so generous to me on this occasion.
(Translation) :


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I simply have a constructive suggestion to make to the minister. I would be very happy if all federal buildings which have been erected in the past or will be erected in the future, by his department could if possible, bear bilingual inscriptions to designate them. At the end of speeches made on the first item, I would like the minister to give me his views on the subject.


Mr. Dumas:: Mr. Chairman, the non-statutory estimates of the Department of Public Works for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, amount to about $153 million, over $85 million of which are to be used on capital expenditures.
During the last fiscal year, the department's capital expenditures totalled about $110 million. Most of those capital expenditures cover works carried out under contract and for which the department had to invite public tenders. Of course, in all cases, the contract is supposed to have been awarded to the lowest tenderer, or at least, that is the system of award we believe the department should have used in the circumstances. The balance of its capital expenditures covers works carried out under contract, without public tender, by the hour or by the day, by teams under the supervision of departmental officials.
In a constituency located in the hinterland, such as the constituency of Villeneuve, which I have the honour to represent, except when construction of public buildings is concerned, the works carried out by the federal Department of Public Works, are fairly numerous, but their total cost is generally not very high. The cost of those works ranges from $2,000 to $5,000 and seldom exceeds $10,000. For that reason, each of those projects is carried

out by teams of men paid by the hour or by the day, under the immediate supervision of the department, as I explained a moment ago.
And so, those works carried out by the Department of Public Works in the constituency of Villeneuve, or in other similar constituencies, consist mostly in construction and reconstruction of docks and landing wharves on lakes and rivers, or again in dredging or clearing up rivers, or other similar works.
Furthermore, most of the time those works are carried out or completed at the request of municipalities, chambers of commerce or other public bodies which are usually familiar with the needs of their respective areas. Those works provide employment for a great number of workers and day labourers and when they are carried out as they should be, under the supervision of conscientious foremen, they cost very little and are very useful to the people of the areas concerned.
In the fiscal years 1949-1950 to 1956-1957 inclusive, in the constituency of Villeneuve, the federal Department of Public Works has carried out or has had carried out works of that type-and I do not include here public buildings-construction and reconstruction of wharves, deepening of rivers, to the amount of about $160,000.
From June 1957 until now, similar works have been done in the constituency, and I have no doubt that, in most cases, they were necessary, that most of them were carried out at the request of responsible organizations, and, I presume, under the supervision of conscientious foremen and under the immediate supervision of engineers of the Department of Public Works.
However, I have serious reason to believe that in Villeneuve riding, over the last three years, some works carried out on instructions from the department were performed in somewhat exceptional circumstances. I shall deal first with two cases in particular.
The first has to do with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of the same name. The minister is well aware of this matter, since he ordered the case investigated. The investigation is perhaps not over yet, so I do not intend to go into details. However, for the information of the minister, I must add that as soon as I was informed that some irregularities had

apparently taken place during the reconstruction of the wharf on the Malartic river, I put on the order paper the following motion for papers:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, in connection with the reconstruction, during 1959, of a wharf located on the west bank of the Malartic river, range 4, in the township of Malartic, Quebec.
The house knows what reply was given to that motion. As reported on page 2857 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are conducting an investigation at the present time, and I would appreciate it very much if the motion could stand until their report is received.
I then complied with the request of the Minister of Public Works.
A little later, at the request of the hon. Minister of Public Works and following his statement that I would be informed immediately the R.C.M.P. investigation was completed, I agreed to withdraw the motion temporarily.
Mr. Chairman, I later learned that at the very moment when I was notified that certain irregularities had apparently been committed in the reconstruction of the Malartic river dock, someone else had notified the departmental authorities.
This explains why, even before my notice of motion for the production of documents appeared on the order paper, orders had been issued for an investigation by the R.C.M.P.
I therefore have reason to believe that, should the investigation reveal that serious irregularities were committed, the department will take appropriate action under the circumstances.
That is all I had to say about this matter, Mr. Chairman, except that I have two questions to ask the minister.
My first question is divided in four parts: Who asked for reconstruction work at the Malartic river wharf? Through whom was that request transmitted to the department? Had a departmental inspector made an inquiry before the work began? What were his recommendations?
Mr. Chairman, that question is very im-not serve any practical purpose. The wharf has been of no use for several years, and cannot serve any practical purpose. The wharf was built in 1934 when there was no access
Supply-Public Works
road to allow for the development and operation of mines in Fourniere township, which is now within the limits of the city of Malartic, a few miles south of Malartic river, where the wharf was built.
A few years later, that is in 1938, the provincial government completed the road linking Amos with Malartic, and since then the Malartic river wharf, built in 1934, has been of no use to anyone nor has it served any purpose.
My second question, Mr. Chairman, is divided in two parts: what is the name of the man who acted as foreman on that reconstruction job and by whom was he recommended? What are the names of the suppliers of the material used on that job and who recommended them?
I trust the minister will be good enough to answer those questions.
And now, Mr. Chairman, I have another similar problem, or perhaps could we call it another similar scandal, on which I should like to draw the minister's attention.
This time it is a matter of river cleaning operations in the townships of Hebecourt, Montbray, Duprat and Duparquet, at the northwestern tip of the Villeneuve constituency. The rivers involved are the Kana-suta, the Mouilleuse, the Magusi and the D'Alembert, which flow into lake Duparquet.
Those river clearing operations were allegedly carried out in July, August, September and October 1959, that is to say from July 29 to October 10, 1959, judging from the dates mentioned on the payrolls which were produced following a motion for the production of documents dated May 23, 1960.
According to those payrolls, the foreman in charge was Rene Leroux, of Duparquet, province of Quebec, and it seems that the assistant foreman was his brother, Wilfrid Leroux, of the same place.
Again according to the same payrolls, the brothers Leroux were responsible for 16 labourers who were employed for periods of various durations.
Six day labourers are supposed to have worked throughout the whole project, that is from July 29 to October 10. They are Messrs. Ubald Sauve, Levesque, Nich Filipchuk, Omer Gregoire, Normand Tremblay and Alfred Lagrange.
Mr. Phillip Smith is said to have worked from July 29 until September 26. Messrs. Nich

Supply-Public Works
Peacosh, Albert Cameron and Marc Lagrange are reported to have worked from July 29 to August 15.
Mr. Patrick Dewar is supposed to have worked from July 29 to September 12. Messrs. Florian Dewar and Horace Lefebvre are reported to have worked from August 17 to October 10.
Messrs. Rejean, Simon and Jules Cloutier are supposed to have worked from September 14 to October 10, while Mr. Delphis Perron, is said to have worked from September 28 to October 10.
Total wages paid by the department to the persons I have just mentioned, including the Leroux brothers, amounted to exactly $6,896.60.
It should be noted, Mr. Chairman, that on every payroll, there is a typewritten note to the effect that all pay cheques are to be sent to Mr. Rene Leroux, Duparquet, P.Q.
On May 6, 1960, I received the following letter from Mr. Rosaire Lecavallier, of Duparquet, P.Q.:
Mr. Armand Dumas, M.P.
Dear Sir,
Allow me to ask you to provide me with a copy of the payrolls for the work done on the rivers flowing into lake Duparquet in 1959. In my view, there were some real scandals in this matter, as the pay cheques were made out in favour of persons who were unable to do any work. However, they were not cashed by those persons, but rather by government supporters.
That is why I should like to have the information above requested.
Yours sincerely,
Rosaire Lecavallier P.O. Box 87 Duparquet, P.Q.
In reply to that letter, I asked Mr. Lecavallier to supply me with further details.
On May 15, I received a letter from Omer Gregoire, of Duparquet, P.Q., one of the men whose names appeared in the payrolls I referred to a moment ago, in which he gave me additional information. I quote his letter, which was dated May 15, 1960:
Mr. Armand Dumas, M.P.,
Malartic, P.Q.
Dear Sir,
Just a few words to ask you kindly to demand an investigation into the money spent for clearing the following rivers: Kanasuta, Mouilleuse, Magusi and D'Alembert.
This work was done in September and October 1959. The foreman was Wilfrid Leroux, who also drew up the reports.
I can tell you I have been disabled for four years and have done no work for the Department of

Public Works. I cannot work at all, being an invalid. However, I can see that my name was added to the payroll for those jobs, because I have just received a cheque from the federal taxation department.
Obviously, they completed my tax return, something I was not required to do, because I draw a pension of $55 a month. I am therefore counting on you to have the matter investigated so that the guilty parties may be punished.
X shall be hoping for an early reply.
Yours sincerely,
Omer Gregoire.
On May 23, 1960, I had a motion placed on the order paper, asking that some papers be produced, namely:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person during the year 1959, in connection with the cleaning out of the following rivers: Kanasuta, Mouilleuse, Magusi and D'Alembert, flowing into lake Duparquet in the county of Abitibi west, Quebec.
Those payrolls were produced on June 8 last. After looking over the names on those payrolls, I asked Mr. Gregoire and Mr. Lecavallier to give me some concrete and accurate information on the matter; and on Friday of last week, i.e., on July 15, I received the following affidavit which I want to put on the record:
First of all there is an affidavit signed by Mr. Omer Gregoire:



PROVINCE OF QUEBEC ABITIBI DISTRICT.

[Stage Direction]
I, undersigned,
OMER GREGOIRE, disabled, of Duparquet, Abitibi,
being duly sworn,
declare and state as follows:
1-	I looked over the payrolls for work carried out on lake Duparquet (Abitibi) in September, October, and November 1959;
2-	1 find that my name appears thereon as being an employee of foreman Rene Leroux and that I am supposed to have been paid an amount of $514.80 by cheques for work done:
3-	I hereby state that I have never worked at lake Duparquet during this period from September to November 1959; that it was impossible for me to do so, because of my disability and that I have never received a single cent of the cheques and amounts appearing on the payrolls signed by Rene Leroux;
4-	I declare the above facts to be true and accurate to the best of my belief and knowledge.
And I have signed,
Omer Gregoire.
Sworn to before me at La Sarre, Abitibi, this 14th day of June 1960.
Andre Lavigne, Notary

And there is another affidavit:

[Stage Direction]
I. undersigned,
JULES CLOUTIER, labourer, of Duparquet, Abi-tibi,
being duly sworn,
declare and state as follows:
1-	I looked over the payrolls for work carried out on lake Duparquet (Abitibi) in September, October and November 1959;
2-	I find that my name appears thereon as an employee of foreman Rene Leroux and that I am supposed to have been paid an amount of $193,60 by cheque for my work;
3-	I hereby state that I did not work at lake Duparquet during that period, from September to November 1959, that it was impossible for me to do such work, and that I have never got a single cent of those cheques and amounts listed in the payroll signed by Rene Leroux;
4-	I declare the above facts to toe true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
And I have signed,
Jules Cloutier.
Sworn to before me this 14th of June, 1960.
R. Gilbert. J.P.
Then, an affidavit from Delphis Perron: CANADA

[Stage Direction]
I. the undersigned,
DELPHIS PERRON, pensioner, from Duparquet, Abitibi,
being duly sworn,
state and declare:
1-	I looked over the payrolls for work carried out at lake Duparquet (Abitibi) in September, October and November 1959;
2-	I find that my name appears thereon as an employee of foreman Rene Leroux and that I am supposed to have been paid the amount of $96.80 by cheque for my work;
3-	1 hereby declare that I have never worked at lake Duparquet during that period, from September to November 1959, that it was impossible for me to perform such work, and that I have never received a single cent from the cheque and amount listed in the payroll signed by Rene Leroux.
4-	1 declare the above-mentioned facts to be true and accurate, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
And I have signed,
Delphis Perron.
These sworn statements of Messrs. Omer Gregoire, Jules Cloutier and Delphis Perron, all three from Duparquet, province of Quebec, involve charges that are very serious, to say the least.
Those statements show that payrolls have been forged, that there has been fraud and
79951-0-408
Supply-Public Works
misappropriation of public funds for the benefit of one or many persons who were not entitled to such funds.
Whether an investigation has started or not, it will take a certain time for the minister to get all the information on which he will base the measures he will have to take if the facts mentioned by Messrs. Gregoire, Cloutier and Perron are as stated. For this reason, I can hardly ask the minister to act as a good or bad fortune-teller.
However, there are certain questions to which the minister can answer now, certain questions on which I insist for an answer, and I am satisfied that the minister will give them to me. These questions are about the same that I asked earlier about the Malartic wharf. Here they are:
Who ordered this clearing work on those rivers which flow into lake Duparquet? Who sent this request to the department?
Who recommended that Mr. Rene Leroux be hired as foreman?
How were the other labourers hired for this job recruited, and who recommended them?
What was the total cost of this job?
Those are quite simple questions which have nothing to do with the investigation under way or to be done, and I hope that the minister will answer them.
Mr. Chairman, this shows that serious irregularities seem to have been committed during certain works performed and paid for by the federal Department of Public Works in the riding of Villeneuve in 1959. The investigations the department is conducting or intends to conduct will bring more facts to light.
In the meantime, we have reason to believe that there was graft and that unscrupulous foremen were employed. It is the department's duty to insist that close investigations be made and that the culprits be punished.
I am well aware that the minister and his predecessor had no knowledge of all this mishandling of funds with respect to works. Moreover, I am convinced that high officials and engineers of the department knew nothing of all those underhand practices. I feel, however, that the foremen in charge of the works are not the only culprits.
I hope that until both investigations are completed, the minister will be cautious and will take all necessary precautions when acting upon the recommendations of certain persons who seem more concerned with their own interests than with those of the riding.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
Charles-Édouard Campeau: Mr. Chairman, on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Public Works, I should like to offer a few general suggestions to the minister on the matter of town planning.
The construction of government buildings across the country can play a considerable part in the planning of urban centres where they are located, apart from the fact that their architecture and styling can also have considerable influence. Thus the committee on design of the residential environment of the royal architectural institute reported as follows:
(Text):
Many Canadian planning professionals and officials will have to deal in their own city and during their own careers with a total amount of urban building greater in extent, and more pregnant with import for human lives, than the whole of the London with which Sir Christopher Wren was confronted after the Great Fire.
(Translation):
And it is also in this respect that I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works to have his department resort as frequently as possible, I would even say whenever possible, to the services of professional town planners with regard to the location and construction of public buildings. As a matter of fact, there is no doubt that the erection of public buildings, if the site is integrated in the main plan of the city, is an important factor of renovation, and results, moreover, in higher real estate value which benefits the whole neighbourhood.
With regard to this matter, the Minister of Public Works will perhaps allow me to point out to him that, in view of the considerable development of the city of Montreal, federal services will, before long, be relocated in the Montreal district. It would be appropriate with regard to this matter, to consider immediately whether it would be opportune to connect this administrative development with the proposed C.B.C. development, the Jacques Cartier concert hall, now under construction and the existing town hall and court house, so that the eastern part of center town, might benefit from such a renovation of public buildings.
My other suggestion to the Minister of Public Works with regard to town planning is of a still more general character. It might be appropriate to consider carefully the great public projects proposed by the municipalities, so as to be able to determine whether the federal government might not, for reasons of national interest award some financial assistance with regard to some of those developments.
If this were done, Mr. Chairman, it would ensure the starting of projects of national

interest, which could be integrated in the functional development of the large cities and relieve the budget of those cities.
Until now, both parties limited their activity to specific projects without trying to integrate the interests of the various levels of government. It is not a matter of granting further subsidies, but rather of finding, among the municipal works being planned, sections which, by their nature, location or function, are of national interest and thus justify the intervention of the federal government.
As an example, I might mention the throughway which is planned by the city of Montreal along the river, something which might, to a large extent, be included in the cost of redeveloping the port of Montreal.
Such a procedure would seem to be the most practical and quickest way of providing employment in urban centres, and of helping municipalities that are unable to pay for such vitally important projects, while not going beyond works of truly national interest and without raising problems as to the prerogatives of the various levels of government.
(Text):


Armand Dumas: In view of the importance of what I have reported to the minister, I wonder whether he would answer the question that I have put to him.


Lionel Chevrier: Whether he would answer it now.


David James Walker: As I agreed to do earlier, Mr. Chairman, I will answer questions, if I may, at the end of the general remarks and before the items are dealt with.


Lionel Chevrier: At that point, Mr. Chairman, may I say this. While I know it has been the practice of the ministers to await the end of the discussion of the first item in order to deal with matters of this kind, I think that the statements, not to say the charges, serious as they are, which have been made by the hon. member for Villeneuve are of such a nature that they should be given an immediate reply by the minister.


David James Walker: If the hon. member for Villeneuve was serious about wanting an immediate reply one would have thought that the information he has been collecting over a period of months would have been submitted to me or to some of my officials before now. This is the first intimation that we have received from any source.


Armand Dumas: I rise on a question of privilege.


David James Walker: Just a minute.


Armand Dumas: It is a question of privilege.


Frank Charles McGee: Order.


David James Walker: The hon. member asked me for some information.


Frank Charles McGee: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve will please state his question of privilege.


Armand Dumas: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The minister has just said that in view of the information I had for some time I should have contacted him. I will tell the minister this. First of all, when I was told of what happened in Malartic I could not go to the minister with anything serious or anything on which I could base my information that I could have given to the minister in the circumstances without getting the payrolls. I asked for the payrolls.


George Harris Hees: That is no question of privilege.


Armand Dumas: It is a question of privilege because the minister is accusing me of not contacting him prior to this time.


Frank Charles McGee: Order. May I just interject here that, as the hon. member is developing what he intends as a question of privilege I think he is attributing to the minister something which was not implied by the minister's statement. As I understood the minister, he was not accusing the hon. member of anything. He was simply commenting on a procedural matter which I do not think has the consequences that the hon. member has attached to it. It is simply a matter of normal procedure and agreement and I really do not think any serious problem is involved.


Armand Dumas: Let me finish in a few words what I have to say. On the day on which my notice for the production of papers was on the order paper the minister said that he had already ordered the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to start an investigation. I therefore did not go any further; I could not go any further. Then with regard to Duparquet, I received those facts last Friday afternoon and consideration of the estimates started only later that afternoon. This is the first time I have had a chance to acquaint the minister of this problem.


Frank Charles McGee: The
point I tried to raise when I interjected previously was that no real question of privilege has been raised, that this has been an explanation in reply to a comment. However, as I said to begin with, there was no accusation at all that I heard that reflected on the hon. member. The Chair will now recognize the hon. member for Fort William.
79951-0-408J
Supply-Public Works


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, is the minister not going to reply? The minister started to reply, something which brought about the raising of the question of privilege. But that does not get away from the fact that the statement is a serious one. I invite the minister to reply now.


David James Walker: I do not know what I would do without having the hon. member for Laurier as my adviser. I am sure I am deeply grateful to him.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry but I cannot hear the minister.


David James Walker: If this matter is one of urgent moment, something that is alleged by the hon. member for Villeneuve to have happened in May of 1959 which is now more than a year ago and which he has brought to my notice five minutes ago and on which he is asking me to make a reply-


Paul Joseph James Martin: Oh, no.


David James Walker: -I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if he was in such a great rush we would have heard from him on this subject months ago. I am in no position to make a reply now. When we obtained the facts of the situation in Malartic, which I understand is in the same situation and also in the constituency of the hon. member for Villeneuve, the matter was placed in the hands of the R.C.M.P. for investigation and prosecution if the facts warrant it. It would not be the fact, would it, that the hon. member for Villeneuve would not wish us to lay a prosecution in this instance if the facts warrant it? We would be very happy to have him place before the officials of our department, or any other composite body, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the facts which he has. I can assure him that they will be dealt with with the same promptness with which the information disclosed in the Malartic situation was dealt with. But to face me at this stage with something which happened before I became minister and to ask me for a reply at this time is, to my mind,-and I say this with the greatest respect to the hon. member for Villeneuve and to the hon. member for Laurier-just cheap politics.


Armand Dumas: No, no, Mr. Chairman; this is not right; the minister is not right. I want to say a few kind words to the minister. I understand that it is not possible for the minister to answer these questions tonight if he does not have the files with him. I agree to wait for the answer that the minister can give to me. He can give me the answers to all the questions that I put to him and he can get those answers during his estimates.

Supply-Public Works
There is no question about that. I ask him: *who recommended those workers. I ask him who was appointed foreman in the cleaning up of the rivers at Duparquet lake, and who recommended the foremen both in Malartic and in Duparquet. The minister knows who were appointed foremen in each case, and he knows definitely who recommended those foremen.


Frank Charles McGee: The
minister clearly indicated that he has not at this moment the precise information-


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Chair should not be entering into this. This is a point of argument.


Frank Charles McGee: If the
hon. member for Essex East has something to say, perhaps he will say it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am saying that there is no point of order. There is nothing of that kind before the committee. The chairman does not rise to enter into argument. What the chairman is now doing is making the kind of speech he might make as a member.


Frank Charles McGee: I respectfully draw the attention of the hon. member for Essex East to what the position is, and ask him to consider what he has just said. My interpretation of the function of the Chair is to guarantee the orderly conduct of the business of this committee. I was attempting to outline the situation as I saw it, and suggesting that the matter be left in abeyance as indicated by both sides of the discussion. I recognize the hon. member for Fort William.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, and the point of order I wish to make is that on May 23 there appeared on the order paper a notice of motion in the name of the hon. member for Villeneuve. It asked:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, during the year 1959, in connection with the cleaning out of the following rivers, Kanasuta, Mouilleuse, Magusi and D'Alembert, flowing into lake Duparquet in the county of Abitibi west, Quebec.
Surely the minister cannot plead that he had no notice, because here, back on May 23, was a warning to the minister that this question might in due course be raised, and I think the minister was ill advised to have wound up his statement by saying this was a matter of cheap politics. It is not by any sort of imagination cheap politics. It is a charge based upon affidavits. The minister's second reply is much better than the first, but as the hon. member for Villeneuve said, he is not insisting on the impossible. However, he had already given

warning several months ago to the minister that this question might be raised, and the minister should be in a position to reply.


George Harris Hees: The question is not whether or not the minister is going to answer this question. The question is whether the minister is going to give an immediate answer or whether he will give an answer at the end of item 1. For seven years before we formed a government I sat on the opposition benches, and for seven years I heard ministers on this side of the committee say just exactly that-that they would wait until the end of the first item and then answer all the questions one after the other. That is exactly what the minister is suggesting he intends to do now. He is not in any way suggesting he is not going to answer the hon. member for Villeneuve, and I think it is ridiculous for the hon. member for Laurier to get up and in a pious way infer that the minister is somehow remiss in not answering this question immediately. If hon. gentlemen opposite would like to conclude the debate on item 1 I am sure that is one way in which they will be able to get a speedier answer from the minister should they so desire.


Lionel Chevrier: The Minister of Transport, who has now completed his estimates, should not get so excited, because if he had listened to what I said he would not be making such a speech now.


George Harris Hees: I listened.


Lionel Chevrier: I stated at the outset that it was the practice when dealing with questions of this kind for the minister to await the outcome of the first item and then to make a reply. But the charge made by the hon. member for Villeneuve is not of an ordinary nature. These are serious charges backed up by affidavits and I suggested to the minister that he should reply now.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member for Laurier be good enough to tell us whether in that motion which he read Duparquet was mentioned?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, I shall be glad to read-


David James Walker: Answer the question, yes or no.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister resume his seat? The motion deals with all the rivers-


David James Walker: Does it mention Duparquet lake?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes-flowing into lake Duparquet. Let me read it again. The motion is:
For a copy of all payrolls showing the names of those employed, the period of employment and the amount paid to each person, during the year 1959, in connection with the cleaning out of the

following rivers: Kanasuta, Mouilleuse, Magusi and D'Alembert, flowing into lake Duparquet in the county of Abitibi west, Quebec.
So it seems to me there is no doubt that there was a warning several months ago that this matter might well be raised at this time.


Mr. Badanai:: I was glad to hear that the government intends to do something about removing restrictions affecting house building. The easing of restrictions is something that we in the opposition have been advocating for a long time, and we think they should have been removed long ago. They were responsible for imposing a definite hardship on people wanting to build new homes, to say nothing of the chaotic conditions in the house building industry created by tight money.
In Fort William house building permits for the first six months of the year are down to the lowest level in 10 years. If this low record in house building had been caused by a declining demand for new homes it would have to be accepted, but the house building contractors and individuals seeking loans claim it is not so. They claim there is a heavy demand for new homes and they have the facilities and the manpower to build them.
When Canada's chartered banks were forced out of the mortgage market because the interest rate climbed higher than 6 per cent, the limit the banks are allowed to charge, one of the most logical sources of money supply was cut off, leaving insurance companies to dominate the field of money lending. But these companies, for reasons which they have not disclosed, seem to have stopped lending money in Fort William and Port Arthur, except for a few token loans. I am told that these large insurance companies are allocating their mortgage money almost exclusively to cities such as Toronto, Montreal, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver and a few other large centres. It is most unfair for these companies which take hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the lakehead area in premiums to confine their investments to other communities.
I wonder whether it would be possible to impose some regulation whereby insurance companies would be obliged to invest in the area a given percentage of what they collect in premiums in order to persuade them to desist or to compel the elimination of a flagrant policy of discrimination.
Mr. Chairman, on June 21 I drew the attention of the minister to a resolution passed by the city council of the corporation of the city of Fort William urging the federal government to give serious consideration to the construction of breakwater facilities for
Supply-Public Works
the protection of McKellar and Mission islands where large tracts of industrial property face lake Superior within the city of Fort William and I asked the minister to give an indication of the government's intention in the matter.
The minister replied that as and when any determination is made of the matter an announcement will be made. At the time there was no opportunity for me to enlarge on the question. I wish therefore to seize the occasion to point out the need of breakwaters fronting our major undeveloped industrial area and I wish to avail myself of this opportunity to say a word about the reason why we are asking the government to give this matter serious consideration.
For the benefit of those who may not know, the city of Fort William is located at the outlet of the triple-mouthed Kaministikwia river which empties into lake Superior. It is the largest city in northwestern Ontario. The city of Port Arthur, incidentally, is catching up fast and is only a few hundred behind in terms of population. Fort William has always been recognized as a rendezvous or meeting place as far back as 1655 and there is no doubt in the minds of the people living in the lake-head area that with the seaway terminal now under construction it will not be very long before the facilities will have to be expanded considerably to take care of the steady increase in deep-sea waterways traffic.
A number of European shipping lines have established office facilities at Fort William with a view to operating a regular service between the lakehead and continental Europe. It is obvious, therefore, that every effort should be made to develop harbour facilities and to provide protection for the natural harbour layout that is part of Fort William.
The two islands which form part of the harbour frontage of the city of Fort William are exposed to lake Superior and require protection. It has been recommended before that a breakwater be constructed paralleling the two islands and running south from the present breakwater which protects a portion of the mainland fronting on Port Arthur. With the potential industrial development that may come with the availability of natural gas and the seaway the lakehead is taking an upward swing and it is imperative that the project should receive favourable consideration in the 1961 estimates.
At the present time, the Canadian Pacific railway owns a large area of land on McKellar island which could be put to industrial use and there is considerable property on Mission island which can hardly be developed without breakwater protection. For clarification, I should say that these two islands are separated by deep navigable water.

Supply-Public Works
At the present time ocean-going ships are docking at Fort William but are only able to take a portion of their normal load and this is due entirely to the present depth of the Kaministikwia river. Dredging the whole of this river and the outlets through McKellar river and Mission river is also required if full use is to be made of the natural harbour facilities available in this area.
Another obstacle which is retarding the full use of these two islands and which must be removed is that at the present time there is only one bridge connecting the mainland with Mission island, and a second bridge connecting Mission island with McKellar island. In the event that anything happens to the bridge connecting the mainland it will have the effect of separating both islands completely from the mainland. It will be seen, therefore, that another bridge between the mainland and Mission island is absolutely essential. The building of another bridge would also remove the deterrent against the immediate developing of the two islands for potential industrial expansion, including the possibility of a steel mill, which possibility is very real, since the Premium Ore Company, headed by Cyrus Eaton, the chairman of the board of the Steep Rock Iron mines, has an option on Mission island for such a project.
I realize that the construction of a bridge in this particular area is not entirely a federal government responsibility. I am of the opinion that the cost would be shared with the province of Ontario. However, we must bear in mind that the bridge would also serve as a highway for further development of harbour facilities. It is generally conceded that when expansion in the seaway dock now under construction becomes necessary the only desirable area available will be on the islands fronting lake Superior.
Another matter of considerable importance with which the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Labour are particularly familiar is the need for a new public building to house the old dilapidated national employment office. This building was the old post office which was vacated by the postal department nearly 30 years ago. It is a relic of the gay 90's, a fire-trap, and totally inadequate for the service which it is rendering today. It is used by thousands of unemployed daily, especially at the peak of unemployment in the spring of the year.
Last year the Department of National Defence closed the armoury at Fort William because it was condemned by the fire marshal. This building was an old hockey arena converted into an armoury at the beginning of world war II. The building was demolished and the site which has a frontage

of 140 feet on Archibald street and 273 feet on Leith street is now vacant. It is located in the central part of the city and is readily accessible to all commercial areas. It has been transferred to the Department of Public Works and the expectation has been that a building would be erected by the federal government on this site during 1960.
It is no secret that the Department of Labour has made such a recommendation and it was understood that a new building was on the Department of Public Works program for commencement early in 1960 and that plans for details and space requirements were under way. I presume that the minister in an effort to cut the estimates to the bone, to enable the Minister of Finance to come up with a surplus, considered the building at Fort William one of the first casualties.
During the discussion of the trans-Canada highway resolution on March 30 last I pointed out the poor condition of the highway west from Fort William to the Manitoba boundary which, with the exception of a few stretches, is now no better than it was four months ago. This condition prevails also on the highway east of Port Arthur for practically 200 miles. Just recently the Ontario minister of highways, Mr. Cass, visited the lakehead area and I wish to quote from an editorial in the News-Chronicle of Port Arthur, a newspaper which is not at all unfriendly to the government of Premier Frost, which indicates that a very sad state of affairs exists in so far as the trans-Canada highway is concerned. I quote:
Highways Minister Fred Cass has come and gone. He visited the lakehead, travelled the trans-Canada highway between here and Schreiber, then flew back to Toronto. He came, he saw, he condoned.
It seems Mr. Cass, like his fellow minister in the department of planning and development, W. M. Nickle, believes the best defence is offence. So when he met with a group of citizens in Port Arthur complaining about the delay in completing the road connecting this area with eastern and western area he gave them the "you never had it so good treatment".
He admitted that the Frost government might have been dilatory for 14 years, but during his two years as highways minister the situation had improved remarkably. His department was spending more money in northwestern Ontario than the area deserved.


Jacques Flynn: Order. It seems to me the hon. member is discussing a matter which comes under the provincial government of Ontario. If he can relate it to the estimates that we are now considering I will agree that he is in order; otherwise, it seems to me he is discussing a provincial matter.


Hubert Badanai: On a point of order, I am speaking about the trans-Canada highway, toward the construction of which the federal

treasury pays 50 per cent. I am merely reading an editorial which describes the condition of the highway in which the federal government is very much concerned.


Jacques Flynn: It seems to me that the upkeep of the trans-Canada highway is the responsibility of the provinces although the federal government does pay part of the construction cost. I understand the hon. member to be discussing the upkeep of the trans-Canada highway which, unless I am wrong, is a matter of provincial jurisdiction. If the hon. member can point out his authority for saying it is the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works and the department I will agree with him.


Hubert Badanai: The authority I point out is a very simple one. The federal government pays 50 per cent of the cost. If the government is paying 50 per cent of the cost of any project, then I assume it has a responsibility for it. I am therefore pointing out what has already been described, namely the condition of the highway.


Jacques Flynn: I do not think the hon.
member can assume from the fact that the Department of Public Works pays 50 per cent of the construction cost that the minister has any responsibility for the upkeep.


Hubert Badanai: I point out the fact that this particular highway has been about 20 years in the building. Some people have been working on it here, there and everywhere for 20 years. The federal government has paid or is paying 50 per cent of the cost. Therefore, I say, I have the right to speak about the trans-Canada highway and the responsibility of the federal government. I think it is true that the provincial government assumes the responsibility of the actual construction, but if the federal government is paying 50 per cent of the cost then I would say it certainly has a responsibility to tell the provinces when and how it should be done.
The editorial is very clear in its judgment of the trans-Canada highway, both east and west of the lakehead area. We are not dealing with secondary provincial highways which are the responsibility, it is true, of the provincial governments; we are talking about the trans-Canada highway financed by this federal government. For that reason I think I have the right to speak loud and clear about the condition of this stretch of the trans-Canada highway.
May I say something about the unseemly attitude of a provincial minister in saying that the highway is all right, in the face of the condition it is in. It is almost unbelievable. I should like to ask the minister to get
Supply-Public Works
in touch with Premier Frost and secure from him the promise that the renovation of the trans-Canada highway west of Cochrane and up to the Manitoba boundary should have priority over any other provincial highway in the eastern part of the province.
I say that the provincial government is spending proportionately far more in the eastern part of the province than in western Ontario. I point out that the lakehead is the natural gateway to the prairie provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We share a common interest. We are the key to their communication system in which the movement of goods from eastern Canada is an important factor in the life of northwestern Ontario.
I urge the minister to make sure that this apparent neglect of the trans-Canada highway through the northwestern part of Ontario is not allowed to continue. An assurance of this fact will be appreciated by the people of the area.
In conclusion, I ask the minister to give consideration to these important projects, not just the usual consideration, but rather serious thought, as being beneficial not only to Fort William but to the lakehead, northwestern Ontario and the nation, when one considers the whole picture, just as much as the St. Lawrence seaway is of benefit not only to the communities along the seaway but to the whole of Canada.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, in reply to the hon. member for Laurier, the question of the hon. member for Villeneuve on the order paper was entered as an order for return on June 6, 1960, and tabled by the Secretary of State on June 10, 1960. The information which we supplied did not disclose any irregularities, but it appears that Duparquet is in the same riding of Villeneuve and in the same area as Malartic. It also appears that we laid the whole matter before the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as the hon. member for Villeneuve was good enough to say, some time before it came to his attention. It has been in the hands of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for several months now. It appears that Malartic is only part of it, according to the hon. member for Villeneuve, and that the instances are more widespread and include Duparquet lake.
In the circumstances, therefore, as the matter is already being investigated with regard to Malartic and as it would appear that this other incident involves the same kind of circumstances and occurred under the same auspices in the same district, the government would be greatly obliged to the hon. member for Villeneuve if he would submit to us any affidavits and information

Supply-Public Works
he has so that the investigation already under way in the district of Malartic can be widened to include Duparquet lake. Would the hon. member be good enough to do this so that we can get to the bottom of this matter? If there is any wrong-doing we want to prosecute to the full extent of the law.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I had copies of these affidavits prepared today for the minister and I will be very pleased to send them to him. However, I should like to emphasize the point to the minister that although these contracts were carried out in the same constituency they did not come under the same order and were far apart in location. One job is in the centre of the constituency a few miles north of Malartic and the other job is at least 75 miles from Malartic. The two jobs are absolutely different. They do not come under the same item in the department.
I am sure of that and I am also sure that when the Royal Canadian Mounted Police were instructed to conduct an inquiry into the case at Malartic they were not instructed to conduct an investigation with regard to the works carried out in the Duparquet region. If the minister can tell me that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have already been instructed to conduct an investigation in the Duparquet district I will be very pleased to hear it. I am sure they will do their job and I am also sure that the department will do everything in its power to prosecute those who have committed irregularities if there have been irregularities.


David James Walker: Then the hon. member agrees to supply us with this information. So that the matter can be gone into immediately by the police, would the hon. member be good enough to tell us why, when he had the information as long ago as May 23, he has withheld this information about alleged fraud until tonight when he seems to have known all about the matter.


Armand Dumas: That is where the minister is wrong. It was not for me to run to the minister's office the minute I receive a letter.


David James Walker: There is your question on the order paper on May 23.


Armand Dumas: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor. On May 23 when I put my question on the order paper I did so to satisfy myself first that work had been done in the township of Duparquet. 1 did not know these people who had written me and just because they had written and asked for an investigation I was not called upon to jump and run to the minister's office and ask him to conduct an investigation immediately. In fact,

if I had done that the minister would have said that he could not do so without having something on which to base an investigation. I could not go to the minister and sign an affidavit that irregularities had been committed with respect to the work in the township of Duparquet. I got all the information I could and as soon as I had it I brought it to the attention of the minister. I got the information last Friday, July 15.


David James Walker: Would the hon. member for Villeneuve object to us putting this matter in the hands of the police tomorrow morning?


An hon. Member:: That is not his responsibility; that is yours.


Armand Dumas: That is the responsibility of the Department of Public Works. After I have given the affidavits to the minister the minister can instruct the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to investigate if he has not already done so.


David James Walker: There are many lakes in the hon. member's tremendous riding of Villeneuve. Would he be good enough to tell me whether he has any further information, in addition to the Malartic and Duparquet cases, that will assist the mounted police? He seems to be aware of a great deal of fraud going on in his riding. Can he help me as to any other lakes?


Armand Dumas: I have told the committee that I am aware of two cases.


David James Walker: Is that all you know?


Armand Dumas: I know of two cases so far, but I wish the minister would have an investigation conducted by his own department or by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police with respect to all jobs carried out during the last three years in my constituency. I am not saying that irregularities have occurred on all these jobs but we can suspect that there may be some irregularities. We do not know. Particularly if any of these works were recommended by the same people and especially if the foremen were recommended by the same party the minister might find it proper to conduct investigations into all the jobs performed in the constituency of Villeneuve.


Mr. Ricard:: I too should like to ask the minister to have an investigation conducted in order to clear up a matter. In the year 1956 a protection wall was built on the Richelieu river at the village of St. Charles.


David James Walker: What year was that?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: In the year 1956 before we came to power. A man hired his son 12 years of age and also his brother-in-law and paid

them tor work which they never did to the extent of $877.80. I should like to ask the minister who the contractor was, who recommended him and also who recommended that the work be done. That was in the year 1956 under the previous administration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question before he takes his seat?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would he tell us when this information first came to his notice and if he has ever brought it to the attention of the Department of Public Works?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: The reason why I have not given any names is that the case is before the courts now. You can have the information if you want to read it.


David James Walker: I am just learning about this matter for the first time even though it happened as long ago as 1956. My information is that the matter is under investigation and I believe it is an the hands of the Department of Justice. I will correct myself if I find that information is not correct.


Lionel Chevrier: And therefore not subject to discussion in the house.


Mr. Caron:: Mr. Chairman, I will not speak about protection walls and work being done on the Ottawa river in my county because we do not have any. However, I should like to point out one thing. In my recollection for over 40 years all the different ministers of public works have always followed the practice in dealing with contracts of awarding them to the lowest tenderer. This was true also of the present Secretary of State for External Affairs when he was in charge of the Department of Public Works. There have been a very few exceptions when the contractor was financially unsound or when he had worked for the department previously and did not give complete satisfaction to the department. I should like to say that I have something new from the present Minister of Public Works. I do not need any affidavits. I have all the letters over here to prove that the present Minister of Public Works is doing away with that precious custom of giving contracts to the lowest tenderer.
On March 23, 1960 and on March 30, 1960 tenders were opened for two post offices, one at Hudson Heights in the province of Quebec and the other at Hudson. For the first one there were four tenderers who were as follows: Stuart & Stuart, Montreal, $23,825; Gray & Gareau, Hudson, province of Quebec, $21,650; S. R. Wilson, Hudson Heights, $19,950; Arthur Langlois, Ste Rose de Lima, in
Supply-Public Works
the county of Hull federally but the county of Papineau provincially, $16,750. In that case, the contract was awarded, not to the lowest tenderer but to the second lowest, S. R. Wilson, Hudson Heights, at a cost of $19,950, being $3,200 more than the lowest tenderer.
In the second case there were seven tenderers for the post office at Hudson. The first tenderer was K & M Construction, Montreal, $35,450; Sinclair Supply, Ontario, $28,396; Do-rion Construction Ltd., $27,990; Alain Enterprises Inc., Dorval, $25,990; Gray & Gareau, Hudson, province of Quebec, $25,890; S. R. Wilson, the same one from Hudson Heights, $24,868; Arthur Langlois, Ste Rose de Lima, in the county of Hull federally but the county of Papineau provincially, $21,783. In this instance the contract was awarded again to S. R. Wilson, Hudson Heights, for $24,868, a difference of $3,085 between his contract and the tender of Mr. Langlois.
Then Mr. Langlois decided to write to the present minister and I am quoting from a photostatic copy of what he wrote. This is in French:
(Translation):
Dear sir,
In the last month, your department has invited tenders for the building of the two above-mentioned post offices and on two occasions I was the lowest tenderer. Since then, I have not yet been instructed to start the job, except for being asked for additional information about my past record (since I am a new contractor for the department) and about the tender application forms.
Thinking that some other information was missing, I had my son phone Mr. Gardner last week end to inquire about this, but he replied that everything was all right and that only the final decision remained to be given, but he did not know exactly when that would be.
As for me, I do not understand this delay. It seems to me that, after giving proof of my experience, my efficiency and financial soundness, I should start the work immediately.
Therefore, I appeal to you because you are well acquainted with all those projects and I would be grateful for some explanation in this regard.
Respectfully yours,



ARTHUR LANGLOIS

[Stage Direction]
On May 17, the minister himself wrote the following to Mr. Langlois:
I thank you for your letter of April 22, 1960 in which you inquire about the awarding of contract for those two projects.
In order to make a complete assessment of your tenders, we have conducted a thorough investigation concerning the works you performed, and their quality, and into your general experience and financial situation. We have visited the Mont Joli area where you carried out many of your works before moving to Ste Rose de Lima in 1959.
The inquiry revealed that, though your financial means were considered adequate, the over all construction of your buildings, we were told, was
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
of very low quality. It has been noted that the finish of your work was of a very inferior grade. Apparently, a houseowner had to supervise your work to get better results and, even in spite of that supervision, there were some defects.
In view' of this situation, I cannot but recommend to the treasury board to by-pass your tender and to allocate the contract, in each case, to the second lowest bidder.
(Text):
On receiving that letter, the contractor, Mr. Langlois, wrote back to the minister and I quote from a photostatic copy of what he wrote at the time:
(Translation):
Sir,
I just read your letter of May 17, 1960, and I was most surprised when informed of your decision with regard to the above-mentioned post offices. I am given as a reason that my previous work was carried out in a rather inferior manner and I am apparently not qualified to work for your department. I do not know, sir, who gave you such information-if anybody did-which caused your decision; but I may tell you that it is quite inaccurate and false. Some scandalmongers may be at the root of that story. I challenge anyone to ask any of my customers whether they were satisfied with my work; for, in the past, they were always the ones to recommend me for new contracts.
However, Mr. Minister, could it not rather be a purely political motive, in view of the fact that following an interview with Mr. Bourbonnais, M.P. for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, on Thursday, May 19 at 3.15 P.M., the latter advised me after a lengthy conversation that he had promised those jobs to contractors in his constituency and that if he backed out "they would kill him" in the next elections. Those were his very words. At that point, I said I did not blame him and that I understood his position. Furthermore, Mr. Bourbonnais promised me his support for other future contracts.
Mr. Minister, I am not blaming the people responsible for present developments, but I do not want my reputation tarnished without cause. Every job I have done in the past was found quite satisfactory. I did jobs ten times more difficult than post offices, and I was always respected just as I respected my contracts.
(Text):
In my opinion, this is a very poor explanation given by the minister for refusing to grant the contract to the lowest tenderer. He says that he had certain inquiries made around Mont Joli to see if this man, who had never worked before for the Public Works Department, was giving satisfaction to those for whom he had worked. I do not know where the minister got his information, but I state now that he was ill-informed. Then the minister passed on this information to the treasury board, when it really amounted only to hearsay that he had obtained from the region of Mont Joli. I can prove that what the minister said about the inefficiency of the contractor is completely untrue. I have

here a letter from the C.N.R. The division engineer first sent a telegram which was in these words:
Arthur Langlois,
253 St. Joseph Blvd.,
Hull, Quebec.
This is to state that you have performed services for the Canadian National Railways in providing an extension to our express building at Mont Joli in 1956, value of contract being in the vicinity of $16,000 and that your work was very satisfactory.
M. B. Martin Division Engineer, C.N.R.
In the letter which is not quite the same, the writer says this:
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that Mr. Arthur Langlois constructed an extension to our Express Building at Mont Joli, Quebec, in 1956, valued at approximately $16,000.
This contract was successfully completed in a workmanlike manner to the complete satisfaction of the railway.
Yours truly,
R. M. Wickwire, Building Engineer.
(Translation):
In addition, Mr. Langlois did some work for the Banque Canadienne Nationale, a well known corporation which is not in the habit of squandering its money or letting it go down the drain. Here is the letter he received in that regard on July 11, 1960.
To whom it may concern:
This is to certify that Mr. Arthur Langlois, general contractor, of Mont Joli, was responsible in the year 1956 for carrying out an enlargement and improvement work on the Banque Canadienne Nationale building at Mont Joli, P.Q., under contract from the bank.
The work consisted of building a new vault and carrying out considerable improvements to the building, both outside and inside, at a cost of approximately $35,000. It was done in a satisfactory way.
(Text):
This is the reason why I am questioning these reports the minister has said he received from Mont Joli relating to the past construction of Mr. Langlois. I prefer to take the view-and I am positive that this is the reason-that the minister is returning to an old principle which was abandoned over 40 years ago and is going back to the patronage system in order to please some members of parliament, as was stated by the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I really think that the minister, by doing so, is not doing justice to the federal government which did away with this kind of patronage system in years past.
In the government of Ontario, for things much less important than that, three ministers were obliged to resign their seats because they bought shares in a natural gas

corporation which was not a property of the government. Here we have a man who has the responsibility of granting contracts, as has been done over the last 40 years, to the lowest tenderer if the lowest tenderer is financially sound and can execute the work to the satisfaction of the department. I have here proof that Mr. Langlois has been working for Canadian National Railways and that he has been working for the Canadian Bank of Commerce to their perfect satisfaction. He was refused. I do not know where the minister obtained his information. However, if he intends to go back to the old patronage system, I believe there is only one thing for him to do, namely to resign his seat as a minister of the crown.
Furthermore, I believe the Prime Minister put him in his present post because he seemed to be so greatly scandalized over what happened with respect to the printing bureau. He seemed to be posing as the most just man we could find on earth. If the Prime Minister had known that he would resort to that kind of practice in the Department of Public Works I am sure he would never have placed him there and I think the Prime Minister should ask for his resignation right away.
David James Walker: I should be delighted to supply the last speaker with the particulars of the Hudson post office and Hudson Heights post office. Two of our investigators unanimously found this in connection with the Hudson post office, and I am reading from the report. Extensive investigation into the qualifications of the lowest bidder, who was Arthur Langlois, has shown that while the financial resources of Mr. Langlois are adequate, he possesses a very poor record of workmanship. I also note that he was the same person who was the low bidder on the Hudson Heights post office and that for the same reason he was not granted the contract. As a matter of fact, in an order for return on July 15 to the hon. member for Levis' question No. 64, all this information was given by me to the house. In addition to Hudson and Hudson Heights there are three other instances: Ga-liano, British Columbia; Eskasoni, and also Whycocomagh in Nova Scotia. There will be another one which I hope the hon. member for Levis will raise, namely St. Maxime de Scott. I want him to raise that in due course. I do not blame him for not doing so until the items come up for consideration.
As the hon. member for Hull, who made that astounding peroration knows too well, it is our duty to see to it that the public interests are protected and that one of the grossly irregular things for any department to do would be to grant a contract to a
Supply-Public Works
person who was incompetent to execute it. That was clearly demonstrated by the manner in which the printing bureau and the printing bureau building was erected. That was brought out fully to the satisfaction of everyone.
Since the hon. member for Hull asked the question and suggests that during the prior administration no contracts were awarded except to the lowest tenderer, I might also say that I should be happy to produce for him, since he has asked for them, a list of the contracts not awarded to the lowest tenderer during the years 1955 and 1956. If he wants me to do so I should also be glad to follow that up and give him the contracts, and the time and place, for just as many years back as he would care to go, if he would just name to me now the years that he would like me to investigate. Perhaps he would like the information back to the beginning of the 22 years of Liberal administration. That information is available.
I am not suggesting at this time that in many of those instances there were not good and justifiable reasons for not awarding the contract to the lowest tenderer, particularly since a new deputy was appointed in 1954, namely General Young. If the hon. member for Hull will let me know what he wants we will go back as far as he likes. If he wishes us to do so we will also produce the reasons why the lowest tenderer did not get the contract. In this sense it must be obvious to all members of the committee that the Department of Public Works is doing a very much needed public duty by keeping scallywags and incompetent people, even though they might be friends of the hon. member for Hull, from getting contracts which they might be incapable of fulfilling.


Alexis Pierre Caron: The minister says that he has found in years past some contracts which were not given to the lowest bidder. There is no doubt about that. As I said, that might be the case on some occasions when a contractor was financially unsound or when he had previously worked for the department and his work had not been found satisfactory. These are the reasons which have been followed in the past. But the minister tells us he had an inquiry made by an official of his department. I do not know where he went or if he went to see the Conservative candidates over there to try to find fault. But there is one thing I have here. I have a telegram and a letter from the C.N.R. which is a responsible firm. Whenever they give a contract they supervise to see that it is carried out properly. I have a letter here from another important firm,

Supply-Public Works
the Banque Canadienne Nationale, and when they give a contract they supervise it even more closely than any government does. They answer that they are completely satisfied with the contractor who worked for them.
If the minister wants to give us names, I hope he will give us all the names. I hope he will tell us who gave information about Mr. Langlois. If that information is wrong, I want Mr. Langlois to have the right to sue these people for defamation. Let the minister give the names of the informants. Let the minister say where this information was obtained, and give us the names and addresses of these informers and then I think Mr. Langlois will be in a better position to prove that the information the minister was given is really not the truth.


David James Walker: How many years back would you like me to go for this information?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Give the information you are asked about your own administration.


Alexis Pierre Caron: I want to have this information first of all, and then, if he likes, the minister can go back as far as he pleases, but let him give us all the information, not information chosen to suit his own purposes.
(Translation) :


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I want to thank the Minister of Public Works, most sincerely for the attention he always gave to any request of the chambers of commerce and the economic committees in my riding.
I also want to thank his deputy minister and all his staff for the kind information they always gave me each time I resorted to their services.
Of all requests made by the various public bodies in my riding, there are two very important ones I want to point out to this house tonight, because they are both of capital importance to the economic development of my district.
There is, first and foremost, Mr. Chairman, the improvement of Chandler harbour, which has been asked for the last few years. You are doubtlessly aware that this town has a very prosperous industry, the Gaspesia Sulphite, which manufactures pulp. That company recently decided to build another factory for newsprint which will give employment to a number of people, not only in Chandler, but in the adjoining parishes. I therefore hope that the Department of Public Works will follow up this request, because

it is of great importance, more particularly so that my riding in the future may benefit from a new industry.
The chamber of commerce also requested the improvement of the harbour in Grande Riviere. There again, another company is waiting for this project to be accepted or carried out by the department, before starting to construct a factory for processing fish.
Mr. Chairman, like all citizens in my riding, I would like my district to benefit from those two industries which are absolutely essential, as I said before, for the development of Gaspesia.
I have no doubt whatever that this request will be agreed to, since the departmental officials have already begun to consider the matter. In fact, a sort of small scale model has been prepared. Surveys were made and all the stone required was found on the spot. I trust those works and experiences will continue and that, in the near future, I shall be able to tell the people of my constituency, that those long-awaited improvements will be carried out.
Mr. Chairman, a moment ago, I heard the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) express deep concern for the fact that two contracts, according to him, had not been granted to the lowest bidder.
Allow me, first of all, to tell you that since I have been elected member for the constituency of Gaspe, I have never bothered recommending one contractor instead of another. The only thing I want to have for my constituency are achievements on the part of the Department of Public Works, and as long as I obtain those achievements, I will not bother with the name of the contractor or of the builder.
However, Mr. Chairman, as you know, the cost of living has gone up very much and I find it very strange that contractors can accept contracts to build post offices for $16,000, when the estimate cost of such a building is around $22,000 or $25,000. I feel that what happened in my constituency is now happening again. I have not looked into the matter, but I must say that I have received several complaints about a contract for the building of a post office having been granted to someone outside the constituency. In fact, while that post office was being built to help solve the unemployment situation, the contractor came in my constituency with two or three employees and a sub-contractor so that the building of that post office does not provide any work for the people of that community.

Mr. Chairman, the other day the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), upon learning that a building was to be constructed in his constituency, urged the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to call tenders in his constituency only and not outside. May I say that I share his views, regardless of what the hon. member for Hull may think about it.
Thus, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Minister of Public Works that from now on tenders for the construction of small post offices be called in my constituency only and it matters little who gets the contract, whether he be a Liberal, a C.C.F.'er or a Conservative, I am sure that jobs will thus be provided for our people at home and that it will help reduce unemployment.
Mr. Chairman, I also heard the hon. member for Hull refer to two bids and call for the resignation of the Minister of Public Works. I wonder why the hon. member for Hull, when he was sitting in this house and his government was in power, did not call for the resignation of the person who let the contract for the national printing bureau, which was to be built for a certain amount and eventually cost three times that amount? I regret that at that time, the hon. member did not raise cries of scandal and-


Alexis Pierre Caron: Was anything proven in that matter?


Roland Léo English: Well, Mr. Chairman, I feel it would have been much more reasonable for the hon. member, at the time, to report the fact to the house, because it involved a building running into millions of dollars, whereas now, he attaches vital importance to the construction of post office buildings costing $16,000 or $18,000.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Public Works has always made it a point to let contracts in a fair and equitable manner.
I also know that in my constituency, a contractor got a contract to build a house on Anticosti island. He was to do the work early in the season; unfortunately, there was some delay, and instead of having his materials delivered by ship, the contractor had to use aircraft. At the time, I asked that he be allowed some compensation; however, I was told it was against government policy. I made no complaint, Mr. Chairman; I accepted that decision though I knew full well that extras had been allowed in such cases as the national printing bureau.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I think if you went back over the years, we would find a number
Supply-Public Works
of things. I would be very pleased if the Minister of Public Works could supply us with information on all contracts awarded over the past 12 or 15 years.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. English) referred to me in connection with the printing bureau. He told me that I should have asked the minister to resign when the contract was granted for the construction of the printing bureau. So, it seems that the hon. member for Gaspe got his information only at the public accounts inquiry where the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), acting as a prosecutor, judge and everything else, could not find one irregularity, because the contract had been granted to the lowest bidder. Besides, those who suggested that this building was built in a swamp did not know a thing about it. This building was built on a gravel soil; in fact, we had to dig 17 feet lower than expected because of the large stones and the enormous rock deposits which were there. So, if there was water in the basement, it is not because it was built in a swamp. If the Minister of Public Works, who led the famous investigation, had known something about construction, he would have known that, by being forced to dig 17 feet lower than expected, they went at least 20 feet lower than Brewery's creek level, which caused water to seep through rock. But, all the nonsense we heard at this inquiry was false and came from the fertile imagination of the present Minister of Public Works who did not know a thing about it and who acted as a judge, and especially as a man that was shocked by works that had been properly prepared and properly carried out, after tenders that had been called in a regular manner.
When additional works were performed on instructions from the same Minister of Public Works, those works were carried out at the same price per cubic foot.
At all events, I know for one thing that I have no knowledge at all of the riding of the hon. member for Gaspe, but since he knows nothing of the Hull riding, he should at least stop talking about it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, may I put a
question to the hon. member for Hull?
Could the hon. member for Hull explain why it is that, after completion of the printing bureau, an amount of $850,000 had to be spent to repair the air conditioning system, which was a scandal in itself?

Supply-Public Works


Alexis Pierre Caron: The architect gave a clear enough answer to this question. And when a fine architect like Mr. Cormier who is known throughout the world answers such questions, his word has a lot more weight than that o f the member who has just spoken, and of the minister who does not know anything.


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I wish to add only a few words to what the member for Hull has just said.
At the outset of my remarks, I extended hearty congratulations to all employees of the Department of Public Works, and among them were people in the department's employment for many years. Some of those conscientious officials made certain statements at the time that building was under construction; the hon. member for Hull must know that subsequently attempts were made to get rid of them.
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to prolong this discussion but I should like to draw the attention of the minister to a statement he made a while ago and ask him if he would not consider revising it because I think it is a serious one and it is that which has led to all this discussion. I believe the minister made this statement as an aside because there was no reason for his saying it. He was discussing another matter altogether.


David James Walker: What year was that?


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment ago.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Approximately 15 minutes ago.


Lionel Chevrier: Yes. What the minister said- and he will correct me if I have written it down incorrectly-was this. He indicated that all those who built the printing bureau were incompetent and inefficient. I am now inviting the minister to give consideration to an amendment of that statement. I say to him that it is an unfortunate statement and an inaccurate statement. I do not think the minister would want to do an injustice to those contractors and particularly the main contractor of the building, namely Concrete Construction Limited.
I shall go a step further than inviting the minister to amend his statement. I doubt very much if the minister who has had a great deal of experience in the courts as he

told us the other evening would make this statement outside the house.
Having said that I should like to put on the record the opinion of the United States equivalent to the Canadian Queen's printer who came here no longer ago than last year and inspected the printing bureau. His statement appears in an article in the Ottawa Citizen of November 5,	1959, entitled
"Printing Bureau Wonderful Job". The article states:
The United States public printer describes the printing bureau in Hull as "one of the finest printing plants I've ever seen. I only wish we had had the architect for some of our plants."
Raymond Blattenberger, who In Washington corresponds to the Queen's printer in Ottawa, made a special trip here to look over the controversial Hull plant which was subject to a parliamentary committee inquiry last year.
He was Charmed
The public printer described himself as charmed by the plant's design, surprised at the efficiency of its operation.
Ernest Cormier, Montreal architect responsible for the building, had a rough ride from Conservative members of the committee which inquired into the plant's building.
"He certainly did a wonderful job as the architect," says Mr. Blattenberger.
The public printer's plants in Washington are multiple storey affairs. "The best operation is always on one floor and that is what you have here," he said.
Informed that there had been considerable criticism of the design of the plant, Mr. Blattenberger said that was to be expected.
"No matter how good a job you do you can always be investigated and criticized," he said. "Whoever the architect was for your plant, he did a magnificent job."
In the light of the statement of a perfect stranger who came here and visited the building which is certainly a treat to the eye, and in the light of what the minister said, I ask him in all seriousness if he will not in fairness give consideration to revising the statement he made.


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I want to add to what I have said by saying that this term "incompetent and inefficient" includes all those who were responsible for the planning and the execution of this building and particularly the architect, Mr. Cormier.


Lionel Chevrier: I would invite the minister to listen the name-


David James Walker: My hon. friend knows all that very well. He was at the inquiry. He heard all about it.


Lionel Chevrier: 
John Whitney Pickersgill: He would not dare to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: He certainly would not.


Maurice Bourget: To come back to the case mentioned by the hon. member for Hull, can the minister tell us who made the inquiry into the technical ability of Mr. Langlois, and who signed the report that the minister received?


David James Walker: As the hon. member for Levis knows, because he himself was a very competent parliamentary assistant to the minister of public works, two officials of the department made the investigation. As my friend well knows, since he often took this position, we do not disclose the names of those officials because if we did we could not expect them to act in a straightforward and fearless manner.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Will the minister give the names of those who were interviewed, because this is an important accusation against a man who never worked before for the Department of Public Works. I should like to have the names of the informers who said that his work was not satisfactory. That is what I want to get. If the minister does not want to give the names of those who made the inquiry that is all right, but I should like to have the names of those who spoke about the contract; otherwise, I would ask the minister to change the information he gave to the treasury board because he was ill informed and he ill informed the treasury board which is certainly a very grave thing to do. I accuse him of playing party politics in this matter.


David James Walker: I always consider the source; that does not beget any reply.


Maurice Bourget: This is a very important question. Here is a case where tenders were submitted and the lowest one was $6,080 lower than the others. I think the committee should know because this is an important amount and I do not think the architects or the employees of the department who made the report will object to the minister giving their names in the committee. We have to know whether it is only a letter that the minister received from someone or whether it was really a report from a man who had some experience in the business and made a thorough inquiry to find out exactly whether Mr. Langlois was really qualified or not.
This comes to my mind because the hon. member for Hull has given two responsible firms. The minister will agree with me that the Canadian National Railways is quite a responsible company and the Banque Cana-dienne Nationale is also a reliable institution.
Supply-Public Works
In all fairness to a man who has lost a contract I would ask the minister to give the committee the information as to who made the report, who investigated this man, and also give the committee the contents of the report; otherwise we shall have to take other means through the public accounts committee to find out exactly what happened. We shall have to ask the two employees of the department to appear before the committee and state exactly how they found out and on what grounds they made the report which they gave to the minister that Mr. Langlois had not the technical ability to carry out the contract.
(Translation):


An hon. Member:: The Liberals are the ones who made the report.
(Text):


David James Walker: In reply to my friend, they were senior officials.


Maurice Bourget: That is quite all right, Mr. Chairman. I think we are entitled to know. This is a very serious case and the minister must realize it. Here we are putting aside a contractor who did work for two big institutions. He had letters of commendation saying that the work he did was satisfactory to them. Surely if he can work to the satisfaction of the Banque Canadienne Nationale and of the C.N.R. he is capable of doing work for the government of Canada. The minister should tell us who are the employees in the department who made the report, where the investigation took place, where did they meet Mr. Langlois and all the information necessary in the circumstances.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The consideration that the minister is showing for the two officials of his department will be very touching to all those who remember the way he dragged the names of officials through the mire only two years ago in a committee of this house.


Lionel Chevrier: Did the officers of whom the minister speaks consult the Canadian National Railways officials and the Banque Canadienne Nationale to ascertain from them whether the work of this contractor was satisfactory? Will the minister answer my question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: He is not even listening.


Jacques Flynn: Shall item 327 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


Jacques Flynn: I ask the hon. member-


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege, sir. My question is this. When I put my question to the minister he was talking to the Minister of Labour and was not even listening. Now, surely, we on this side of the house are entitled to a little more respect

Business of the House
than that from a minister of the crown. The simple question which I asked, to which he paid absolutely no attention, was whether those investigators of the Department of Public Works consulted the officers of the Canadian National Railways and of the Banque Canadienne Nationale to ascertain whether or not work done by the low tenderer was satisfactory?


David James Walker: Mr. Chairman, I have no idea whom they consulted but I do know that they reviewed three projects which this contractor had carried out and came to the conclusion they did without any influence from anyone. I can only count on their report and on their good judgment because, according to the deputy minister, we have always found them to be competent and fair and always strictly honest and impartial in making their judgments.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and I think on Friday the house leader gave some indication that he would tell us what we would do on Wednesday. Perhaps he could extend that for a greater portion of the week?


Mr. Churchill:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, as I announced last week, we shall take the estimates of the Department of Finance. If concluded, we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Public Works. On Wednesday we shall continue with the estimates of the Department of Public Works followed by the estimates of Department of Veterans Affairs. I do not think I can go
farther than that; it depends on the progress of the house as to how we manage with regard to the other estimates. I should like this week, if we can, to complete the estimates of the privy council, the Secretary of State and legislation, which are not large departments, but we shall have to see just how we shall make out on Tuesday and Wednesday.


Lionel Chevrier: There is another matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the house leader. I make an appeal to him in this case. It is that tomorrow, as the house leader knows, there is to be a dedication ceremony at Laurier House at 2.30 p.m. Since this dedication ceremony, attendance at which is at the invitation of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, is one which affects those of us who sit on this side of the house in an especial manner because of the fact that Laurier House was the residence of two former Liberal prime ministers of this country, I ask the minister if he will not have the house adjourn for a period of one hour from two to three o'clock to enable those of us who sit on this side of the house to attend the dedication ceremony. Otherwise it will not be possible for us to give the kind of consideration to the estimates of the Department of Finance that those estimates require. The request is not an extraordinary one and under the circumstances I wonder whether the minister would not consider it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The request will be considered and a report will be made tomorrow on orders of the day.


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

[The following Items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORT
B-General-
Air transport board-
451.	Salaries and other expenses including the Canadian delegation to the international civil aviation organization, $466,871.
Board of transport commissioners for Canada-
452.	Administration, operation and maintenance. $1,100,512.
453.	Amount to be credited to the railway grade crossing fund, in addition to the amount to be credited to the fund under the Railway Act in the current fiscal year, for the general purposes of the fund, $10,000,000.
Canadian maritime commission-
454.	Administration, $153,138.
455.	Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates, $6,088,200.
National harbours board-
456.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1960 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Halifax	 $ 943,460
Saint John	 1,077,000
Quebec	 1,576,000
Churchill	 570,000
Generally-
Unforeseen and miscellaneous	200,000
[Stage Direction]
Less-amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $1,733,361, $2,633,099.
Supply-Items Passed
Air services-
491.	Acquisition of land for control of properties in the vicinity of main terminal airports to prevent the erection of hazards to flying and for future development of new and existing main terminal airports including alternative facilities for relieving congestion thereat, $3,000,000.
Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation-
492.	Loan to the Canadian overseas telecommunication corporation in accordance with section 14 of the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation Act for additions and betterments to facilities, $17,000,000.
National harbours board-
493.	Advances to national harbours board, subject to the provisions of section 29 of the National Harbours Board Act, to meet expenditures applicable to the calendar year 1960 on any or all of the following accounts:
Reconstruction and capital expenditures-
Montreal	 $16,868,450
Vancouver	 1,257,000
'	$18,125,450
Less-Amount to be expended from replacement and other funds, $2,167,750, $15,957,700.
St. Lawrence seaway authority-
494.	Loans to the St. Lawrence seaway authority in such manner and subject to such terms and conditions as the governor in council may approve, $36,000,000.
B-General-
Canadian maritime commission-
570. Steamship subventions for coastal services, as detailed in the estimates-further amount required, $81,086.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, July 19, 1960