1960-06-02

Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1960 not exceeding $309,950,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1961; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $203,950,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $203,950,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the press dispatch came into my office only a moment or two before I came down to the chamber. Is the report true that the Prime Minister, moved by his humanitarian instincts, mounted his white charger yesterday and came to the rescue of the Sable island ponies?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: In view of the wording of the question, I must immediately answer in the negative. I would say, however, that I have received a number of requests from organizations across Canada, and also from Canadians in several provinces, protesting against what they believed was to be the inhumanitarian course of disposal of the horses on Sable island. I may say this, that there was no justification
for the statement that these horses, upon removal, were to be turned into various uses.
However, these particular animals have a long geneology. They have been with us over a period of several hundred years, and I was naturally very much touched by some of the requests that were made. I had the matter looked into, and I think it may be said with certainty that these animals and their posterity will continue to live on this island.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: I am sure the house will be delighted with the nature of the Prime Minister's interest in ponies.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement from Paris this morning by the United Kingdom that she is prepared to join the European coal and steel community and EURATOM, can the minister advise the house whether Canada was advised of this action prior to the announcement being made, and whether it involves any change in our preferential position in the United Kingdom market?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not seen the report of the announcement, Mr. Speaker.



GASOLINE-INQUIRY AS TO IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. McWilliam (Northumberland-Miramichi):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise the house whether Canada intends to import gasoline from Russia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There have been rumours of an impending deal with regard to the import of gasoline from Russia. I have no specific details whatever with regard to that matter. I do not know any of the terms that are being discussed or anything of that nature.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROFOIL CRAFT BY DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize of not having had an opportunity to send him notice of it this morning. Has the minister noted the article in the Globe and Mail magazine section of May 28 to the effect that the Dartmouth naval research establishment is working on developing a hydrofoil craft which is not "for commercial or military use"?
Will the minister advise the house why this scientific study is being done by the defence research board when it is not of a military nature or requirement?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: My impression was that this study had a military application.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1958-59 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to tell the house when we might expect a statement from the Canadian wheat board regarding the final payment on the grain sold in the 1958-59 crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Canadian wheat board closed out the 1958-59 wheat account on May 20 and is presently completing all accounting details related to this crop pool. Details of the results of this account will be available early in June-perhaps this week; if not this week, then next week-at which time an announcement will be made in regard to the amount of the transfer into the 1959-60 account and the final payment rates on each of the grades of wheat delivered to the pool.



NORTHERN ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) asked me whether any requests have yet been received from the Ontario government for federal financial assistance for the relief of the victims of the recent floods in northern Ontario.

I am now informed that conversations have taken place between Hon. Joseph W. Spooner, minister of lands and forests of the province of Ontario, and officials of the government. My office was informed by Mr. Spooner yesterday afternoon that a letter is now being prepared and will be forwarded to the Minister of Finance today.



POINTE GATINEAU, QUE.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) directed a question to me, which I said I would take as notice, as to whether the Prime Minister had received a request for help for Pointe Gatineau following the flood. An examination has been made of the records and no request has been made to any department of government in that connection.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works further to the subject I raised on Monday. Will the minister now advise the house whether the federal government or its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, were consulted by the province of Ontario prior to the rejection by Ontario of the city of Ottawa's subsidized low-rental housing project for the underprivileged?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: So far as my knowledge goes certainly I, as the minister responsible for reporting to the house for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was not consulted.


John Richard Garland: Do I take that to mean that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were not consulted?


David James Walker: They may have been in an unofficial way, but to oblige the hon. member who is so interested in housing I will be glad to make that inquiry and tell him the result.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I would like to direct a question to either the Minister

of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Justice, whichever one happens to have jurisdiction over this matter. Has either minister received any representations from the Chinese community of Vancouver protesting the methods used in the investigation into the alleged illegal entry into Canada of people from China? Could the minister indicate, if this is so, what action is contemplated as a result of these representations?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no representations, and I gather by long distance communication that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not received any either.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the telegram sent to the flag officer, Atlantic coast, requesting that the ships engaged in the naval exercise, which includes H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, be returned to Halifax in time for Canadian naval personnel to vote in the Nova Scotia election on June 7?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, that telegram has not been drawn to my attention.


Chesley William Carter: A supplementary question.
Would the minister assure the house that he will look into the matter with a view to granting this request?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to look into the matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the questions asked on April 4, 1960 and April 29, 1960 respectively, and the replies of the Minister of Finance to the effect that salary increases are anticipated for the House of Commons staff, would the minister indicate when the increases will be effective and whether they will be retroactive to April 1, I960?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will be a matter for the commissioners of internal economy to decide. The matter is under consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Alexis Caron (Hull):: As I cannot direct my question to Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is there anything new about the salary increases for the personnel of the House of Commons?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member heard the last question. I think I should refer him to that question and my answer to it.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister who are the commissioners of internal economy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has that information available, as have all members.


William Arnold Peters: I have never heard of them.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF QUEEN'S PRINTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Azellus Denis (St. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether the nomination of the Queen's printer is still under serious and snappy consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the answer is in the affirmative.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the acting minister of northern affairs whether the government has received any application or approach from the government of Nova Scotia with a view to the establishment of a second national park in that province.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Aciing Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Not
as far as I am aware. I will have the matter inquired into and will find out, however.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. S-28, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us, Bill No. S-28, consists of six clauses repealing the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1931, and containing the usual provisions regarding the making of orders and regulations implementing the agreement, the relationship of the act to other legislation and the coming
4442	HOUSE OF
Australian Trade Agreement Act into force of the act. The new trade agreement is attached as a schedule to the bill.
The decision to review the 1931 trade agreement was made at the commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal in September, 1958. The new agreement was negotiated in Canberra in March and April, 1959 by a Canadian delegation led by the late John H. English, deputy minister of trade and commerce. It is the third trade agreement between Canada and Australia, the first having been concluded in 1925 and the second in 1931.
The new agreement does not involve any changes in actual rates of duty from those presently in effect. It does, however, make some important improvements in the type of tariff treatment and the margins of preference which Australia binds or guarantees to Canadian goods. There are also concessions of a similar nature on the Canadian side. In addition, the agreement includes various new provisions dealing with such matters as the application of anti-dumping duties and consultation on economic matters.
The new agreement provides for bindings or guarantees of actual rates of duty on 12 items or subitems in the Australian tariff, whereas no rates of duty were bound under the old agreement. It also provides for guaranteed margins of preference on 53 items or subitems compared with the 33 covered by the 1931 agreement. From the Canadian point of view the new agreement not only provides increased safeguards and improved access for our exports, but establishes a better balance between concessions granted and received.
With respect to Canadian imports from Australia, the effect of the new agreement is to provide for the continuation, without substantial change, of most of the concessions which were accorded to Australia by the 1931 agreement and by a supplementary order in council which became effective October 1, 1937. It also binds in Australia's favour free entry of certain Australian products- notably raw wool, sausage casings and raw sheepskins-which were not covered by the 1931 agreement but which in fact have been free of duty for many years.
The new agreement provides also that Australia shall continue to enjoy the benefits of Canada's British preferential tariff rates in respect of all goods not specifically named. In the case of a number of products of particular interest to Australia the existing margins of preference are bound against reduction. In the case of dairy products, Canada is committed only to accord Australian dairy products the benefits of the British preferential rates of duty or any lower rates accorded to a third country.


In general, the effect of the changes which are proposed in schedule A to the agreement is to bring it up to date and to take account of changes which have taken place during the 29 years since the former agreement was negotiated.
The new agreement modifies the provisions relating to the application by Canada and Australia of anti-dumping duties to one another's goods. In the 1931 agreement each country exempted the goods of the other from their anti-dumping duties. However, in cases where material injury was being done to domestic producers either country could, after three months' notice, apply its general tariff rates. Canada and Australia agree in the new agreement that they will normally not apply anti-dumping duties to one another's products. However, article VI of the agreement provides that in cases of injury to domestic industry there shall be consultations between the two governments, and if a mutually satisfactory solution does not result within 60 days anti-dumping duties may be applied.
There is also a provision in the new agreement establishing procedures under which either government may obtain a release from obligations assumed under the agreement in order to bring about an increase in rates of duty recommended by its tariff board. The article provides for consultation regarding compensation for the concession which is being withdrawn, and if agreement is not reached for the withdrawal of equivalent concessions.
Provision is made for the setting up of consultative procedures to discuss matters arising out of the agreement and also a variety of other questions of importance to the two countries, such as import restrictions and instability in international commodity trade. This should result in much closer co-operation between Canada and Australia in the general field of international trade relations as well as the solution of any specific problems which may arise.
Two committees are being set up in order to implement this part of the agreement, the one in Canberra under the chairmanship of the secretary of the Australian department of trade and the other in Ottawa with the deputy minister of trade and commerce as chairman. To facilitate these arrangements both countries have recently appointed trade officials to one another's capitals.
With regard to consultations concerning import restrictions, hon. members will recall that an exchange of correspondence on this subject between Australian and Canadian authorities was tabled in the house on March 22. These letters set forth certain reciprocal

understandings regarding the use of import restrictions and provide for consultations regarding their application.
When the new agreement is ratified it will run for a period of three years. After this time it may be terminated on written notice of six months by either government. Thus it will provide a stable basis for the development of trade between the two countries during the next three years, and there will then be an opportunity to modify it if this appears necessary in the light of developments over this period.
The conclusion of this new trade agreement comes at a most opportune time from the point of view of Canadian exporters. Earlier this year Australia took a major step toward the removal of the import restrictions which it had been maintaining during the post-war period for balance of payments purposes. Effective February 24 Australia completely eliminated controls from 800 million of its imports, representing about 90 per cent of its total annual imports. Moreover, discrimination against dollar goods was removed from all items except motor vehicles which, it was announced, would be freed from control effective October 1, 1960. Thus in a few months' time Canada will be on exactly the same footing as non-dollar suppliers in the Australian market.
There are about 50 products still under control in Australia from all sources and some of these, such as canned salmon and primary aluminum, are of particular interest to Canada. We are, of course, hopeful that it will be possible for Australia to dismantle these controls altogether before very long.
In recent years Australia's import controls have limited the possibilities for expanding and diversifying our exports to that market and have prevented us from making full use of the tariff preferences which our goods receive there. The liberalization measures which Australia has carried out during the last 18 months in line with decisions reached at the Montreal conference have opened up a new phase in the development of our trade with this sister nation of the commonwealth. Many Canadian goods which have not been seen in Australia for a number of years, such as wrist watches, wallpaper and outboard motors, are again appearing on the market there.
I should like to repeat in this connection some words of Australia's distinguished deputy prime minister and minister of trade, Right Hon. John McEwen, on the occasion of the signing of the new trade agreement. He said:
The increase in the total level of imports into Australia which has resulted from recent steps taken by my government, and the removal of practically all discrimination against the dollar area, should give Canadian exporters an unrivalled
Australian Trade Agreement Act opportunity to expand their sales to Australia. Also this agreement will give opportunities to the greatly expanded industries of Canada to market their manufactured products in Australia. I trust they will take advantage of these opportunities and that forthcoming decades will witness even more significant developments in our mutual trade.
Both our countries are growing vigorously and offer rapidly expanding markets for one another's goods. Businessmen in both countries have been increasingly active in exploring the possibilities for expanding the flow of trade between us. A large Canadian delegation returned a month ago from a two and a half weeks' visit to Australia. In a few days' time we will have the opportunity to extend our hospitality in Ottawa to a 40-man trade delegation, the largest ever to set out from Australia, led by the eminent Australian economist and former high commissioner to Canada, Sir Douglas Copland. This mission has already visited Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto, and is in Montreal this week.
There are already signs that the efforts of Canadian businessmen to expand and diversify trade with Australia are producing results. In the first three months of 1960 our exports to Australia totalled $19 million, compared with $11 million in the same period of the preceding year. In the whole of 1959 our exports to Australia reached $54.2 million, about 3 per cent above the 1958 level, and we sold in the Australian market some 207 individual products compared with 186 in the previous year.
Australia is our second largest market in the commonwealth and the seventh largest world market. It is of special importance as a market for the products of our forests and fisheries, and also for manufactured goods. In recent years our main exports to Australia have been newsprint, wood pulp, lumber, canned fish, motor vehicles, aluminum, asbestos and steel.
Canada is also important as a market for Australian goods. In 1959 our imports from that country totalled $41.2 million, and this figure would be even higher if it included the large quantity of Australian wool which Canada imports through the United Kingdom. Australia's principal sales in the Canadian market are agricultural products such as sugar, dried fruits and wool.
Our two countries have much in common. While we are competitors in some fields, our economies are to a considerable extent complementary. It is therefore logical and mutually advantageous to expand the range and volume of the trade flowing in both directions. In expressing our feelings about Canada's relations with Australia and our hopes for this new trade agreement, I can again do no better than to quote Right

Australian Trade Agreement Act Hon. John McEwen. In a foreword to the attractive brochure issued in connection with the Australian trade commission to Canada he has written:
Canada and Australia are strongly linked through the kinship of the British commonwealth with similar loyalties and similar democratic government. This link also extends to a mutual trading partnership which has stood for a great many years. The recent trade agreement discussions, during which the 1931 Canada-Australia trade agreement was revised, should consolidate even further this close relationship.
I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to bring before the house the trade agreement with Australia for ratification. I commend it to the attention of hon. members.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the bill now before the house to approve the Canada-Australia trade treaty I think there will be a remarkable degree of accord indicated on both sides of the house. As I understand the agreement, it does not introduce any new principle but rather represents the bringing up to date of the trade relations of the two countries, the last agreement having been signed almost 30 years ago.
The agreement itself was quite fully described by the minister, but I attach as much significance to the correspondence exchanged by way of amplification and explanation of the agreement which was tabled in the house some weeks ago. To me the significant provisions are those in the agreement dealing with the matter of consultation and the elaborations of that subject in the correspondence.
After the war the Australian government unfortunately found it necessary to have import controls of one sort or another by reason of their shortage of dollar exchange, and it is timely that this agreement has been signed because, so far as Australia is concerned, there is no longer the same necessity for such controls applying against countries seeking to export to them, which controls I am quite sure they felt were undesirable.
To my way of thinking the machinery of consultation is the important part of this whole relationship, because the necessity of keeping trading relations between the two countries up to date tends to be overlooked in view of the great distance between our two countries; and even though Australia is a very important market for Canada, it is not our most pressing market. I would hope that the minister in discharging his administrative responsibility will do all he can to assure that the machinery of consultation between the two governments is kept in good


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this intelligent and industrious octet in this corner of the building to express our support for the principle and purpose of this bill. Like the
Australian Trade Agreement Act previous speaker, I think it is most appropriate that we should be discussing this proposed trade agreement between Canada and Australia at a time when the largest trade mission that has ever visited Canada from Australia, according to press reports, is now visiting Canada under the leadership of Sir Douglas Copland, who everyone knows from his previous service in Canada as high commissioner as a good friend of Canada and one who understands Canadian views and will do his best to promote trade and understanding between the two countries.
I noted, Mr. Speaker, according to press reports that Sir Douglas mentioned that at the present time Canada enjoys a rather big advantage with respect to our trade relationships. Let me say first, with respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), who regretted that the duration of the treaty was not for more than three years, that I understand his point of view. However, I think the criticism is rather academic, because if this trade relationship is carried on in the future as it has been in the past there is no question about the arrangement being continued and further treaties signed to the advantage of both countries.
In the opinion of this group this trade treaty will further cement the commonwealth, particularly in view of the fact that Canada will now, on the whole, be placed on an equality with the non-dollar suppliers to Australia. I believe that is quite an advance, Mr. Speaker. This bill also assists in freer trade, which is something in which this group firmly believes. We believe in free trade, as much as possible on a worth-while basis, because we believe that is one of the things that create understanding between countries and work toward peace. According to the minister's statement the purpose is to promote freer trade relations, and the bill is the result of concessions being granted by both sides.
In our opinion the widening of opportunities for consultation is an excellent provision, and also the establishment of these committees, because we live in a world in which there are rapidly changing circumstances. These committees, under the terms of this bill, will now have an opportunity to meet and consult and make the adjustments that are required in the light of changed circumstances and of experience. We think that is all to the good.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as one coming from British Columbia I may express hope for the further liberalization of trade relationships between Canada and Australia which will provide for increased sales of our lumber and our fish products. As a result of this

Australian Trade Agreement Act new trade treaty I trust we shall have increased sales erf the tree fruits of British Columbia, particularly apples. We have had an expanding market in that direction in recent years. To give credit where it is due, I must say it has been owing to the activity of our trade commissioner in Australia in placing before Australian purchasers and the Australian trade the grades, qualities and quantities of apples that were available from British Columbia, a thorough understanding of our marketing procedures and so on.
In conclusion all I can say is that we are confident that this bill contains the right principle, because it provides for committees representing both governments, for continuing consultation to meet changing conditions and changing circumstances, and for the consequent adjustments. We are certain that the future will indicate that this was a wise step to the advantage of both Canada and our sister nation of the commonwealth, Australia.


Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for any great length of time, but I should not like the discussion of this resolution to be concluded without saying a word in support of it and to repeat what those who have preceded me have said, namely that it is a happy circumstance that it should be introduced and, I hope, given unanimous approval at a time when we are welcoming in Canada an Australian mission headed by one whom we have good cause to know and admire. I refer to the former Australian high commissioner in Canada, Sir Douglas Copland, an extremely stimulating and intelligent person indeed whom we shall be very glad to see in Ottawa again next week.
Australia, of course, is an energetic and developing sister nation in our commonwealth. The minister has already pointed out the growing importance of the trade between our two countries. That trade in the normal course of events should grow as the two countries grow. Its potential is perhaps even more important than its actuality at the present time.
It is interesting to realize in connection with Australian development that the rate of capital investment in Australia over the last two or three years has been even higher than it has been in Canada. I think it has been 27 per cent of the gross national product, whereas in our country I believe the figure is just below that. Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that Australia has not the same kind of at least geographical access to a neighbour which could supply unlimited resources for development if it so desired. So all of this 27 per cent has come


from Australian sources except 10 per cent, whereas in Canada I think only about-and I may be wrong in my figure-70 per cent has come from domestic sources, a fact which I think has an interesting significance in relation to our own situation. As one of the members of the Australian mission is reported as having said the other day, "You have gone too far in your dependence on foreign capital". Perhaps if that capital had been as easily accessible to Australia as it has been to Canada more of it might have gone into that country.
At the same time I think it is also true to say that the Australian government has exercised a kind of control-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-over investment which we have not found so necessary in Canada. In the situation which faces us, with our own greater dependence on foreign capital, it is not likely that we would be able to participate to any great extent, as 1 do not think we have done in the past in this capital development in Australia. Perhaps the time is coming however-and I have seen a reference to this matter recently in connection with the Australian mission- when Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations could be a source of expansion into Australia rather than have that expansion, when it occurs, come from the parent companies. For one thing a Canadian subsidiary would have more experience in dealing with a smaller market. This is something which in the future may be of some advantage to us.
We talk a great deal, and quite rightly, about the importance to Canada of the development of the freest possible trade in the widest possible Atlantic area-Atlantic free trade; about the building up of the Atlantic economic community. Nothing could be much more important for us than that, of course. But a discussion of this kind makes us conscious of the fact that even the Atlantic area would not be enough, that we have important trading partnerships within the commonwealth. In the step which I hope we are taking to associate Canada with this European development we must not forget that somehow or other we must bring into that association, if it can be done, other nations of the commonwealth so this area will have an even wider expansion than the north Atlantic.
All I need say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that we welcome this arrangement. It is perhaps not as far-reaching as it might have been, but it is a useful one. It will help both countries, and I think it will play a good part in strengthening the economic and other relations between the two countries. In that connection perhaps I should reiterate what has already been said on this subject by the

hon. member who just preceded me, namely that we owe a special debt of gratitude to officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs who over the years have played such an important role in developing and strengthening these good relationships.


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: As
a member from British Columbia, and more specifically from the constituency of Vancouver South, may I say that we are particularly interested in this trade agreement. I was greatly struck by the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about our preoccupation with Atlantic matters and pointed out that on the other side of this nation lies an equally vast ocean with equally great trade opportunities awaiting development.
This is a new agreement which will bring a measure of stability, so that importers and exporters will know the conditions under which they can conduct business. There is the relaxation of currency controls, and the fact that over the last few years we have improved communications with Australia to a tremendous extent. We now have modern, fast ocean-going liners complete with refrigeration space making regular sailings between Vancouver and Australian and New Zealand ports. The Canadian flag air carrier is based in Vancouver, with services by air to New Zealand and Australia.
We on the west coast are tremendously interested in the development of increased trade with Australia and other countries in the Far East. We welcome the thought left with us by the minister, namely that even the few remaining items which affect us to a considerable extent will shortly be released from currency restrictions.
We realize that trade is a two-way street. We realize that if we are going to sell, we must buy. The economy of Australia is largely complementary to ours. We welcome the thought of increased trade both coming in and going out.
We think this is a step toward that larger pattern of trade, particularly within the commonwealth, which is getting away from a purely North American trade pattern. We welcome this agreement and we are sure that in years to come this trade will increase and not only will double but may triple and go even further than that.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words in welcoming and supporting second reading of this bill, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia. I do so from two bases, one sentimental and one materialistic.
2,	1960
Australian Trade Agreement Act
The sentimental basis is because I have been told by some that I am half kangaroo. I think I am one of the blessed men in that my mother was born in Australia, my father was born in England, and I live in Canada. If you can beat that combination I would like to know how. So I say that on a sentimental basis I am very happy about the bill now before us.
I appreciate very much the opportunity I had last fall of spending some six weeks in Australia as a member of the commonwealth parliamentary association. In that period of six weeks I had the opportunity of talking with some of the premiers and cabinet ministers of the various states of Australia, and I became quite disturbed at some of their indications as to a change in trade relationships between Canada and Australia, particularly because I felt it would have an effect on my province of British Columbia. It is because of what I heard there that I want to express my personal appreciation of the visit to Canada of the Australian trade delegation, and I was pleased to read in the press their enthusiasm about what they maintain is the success of their mission. I too look forward to meeting with some of them this coming week.
I would like to suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that trade is not a one-way street. Trade is something which has to be worked for and fought for, and in expressing our terrific appreciation at the visit of the Australian trade commission I think in turn we should send one just >as strong, virile and enthusiastic to Australia, and not only to Australia but to other parts of the commonwealth as well.
Very briefly I want to support what the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, namely that Canada is an exporting nation. Canada depends upon exports for its very livelihood and standard of living. We have already seen the development in Europe of the Inner Six and the Outer Seven; and if we read the journals of the world we can see the possibility -the probability-of other economic formations being brought into being, perhaps in the Latin American countries as well.
This poses a very serious problem to Canada. We must give consideration to these developments, but I believe that something we can do now is to have a closer relationship and greater exchange between governments and industry, between members of the commonwealth, because there in the commonwealth I think lies the greatest economic expansion in the world in the way of transfer from one country to another of the produce which we are able to export.

Australian Trade Agreement Act
I would just like to say that sentimentally I welcome this agreement. On a material basis I welcome it, though I certainly hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will see to it that we do not remain satisfied just with the passage of a trade agreement which will be in effect for three years but that we will reciprocate with Australia and send a trade mission ourselves into every part of the commonwealth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few minutes to conclude this debate which has shown that the house is unanimous in recording its approval, as it will in a few minutes, of the Canada-Australia trade agreement. We have had an expression of opinion here today which I think indicates the bond that links Canada and Australia very closely, not only the bond of commonwealth attachment but the bond which is established through trading relations which have been good over the years.
I think the trade mission which is arriving on Sunday and will be in Ottawa on Monday will appreciate the fact that the House of Commons has acted in this manner today. The measure before us is of importance, but by the good sense of the house we are not spending overly much time on it. That is not because we do not realize that this matter affects greatly the economies of both Australia and Canada; I think it is because we believe that the job has already been done by those who discussed the trade agreement in the conferences which were held, and it is left now to the House of Commons to put its stamp of approval on a first class piece of work which was done by the officials on both sides. Our trade with Australia is important and we hope it will grow, just as they hope their trade with us will expand.
I mentioned in the course of my earlier remarks that a large group of Canadian businessmen have been in Australia on a trade mission of their own and have just returned. I hope before too long it will be possible for us to send to Australia another trade mission in order to further explore the possibilities of trade with that country; and in the light of the present agreement, with air travel now available, it is possible to expand our trade activities around the world as has been suggested. Later on this session I hope to be able to put before the house some ideas we have in that regard.
The hon. member for Ottawa West asked for an explanation of the appointment of


officials in the two capitals. We have had trade commissioners in Australia stationed in Sydney and Melbourne, I think it is, but it seemed advisable to put a third man in the capital city, and Mr. Nickson of our department recently arrived in Australia. Similarly the Australian government has placed a commercial counsellor here in Ottawa. The advantage of that arrangement is this, and we do it in other countries of the world. The commercial counsellor living in the capital city can readily get in touch with departmental officials on matters which are of concern. We had in mind here that the problem of consultation would be met immediately by having on the spot in the capital city of each country a commercial representative. Both this country and Australia have quickly taken up that idea and those appointments have been made.


George James McIlraith: Just before the minister leaves that point, I wonder if I might ask him a question; I want to clear up the matter. As I understand it these new trade officials are in addition to the existing trade officials in each country; it is not just a change of organization?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is quite right; they are in addition to the trade commissioners already active in the two countries.


George James McIlraith: Thank you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question arose as to the length of the agreement. It is stipulated in one of the terms that it runs for three years. The 1931 agreement had a provision which stated that it would run for one year and thereafter until notice was given, and it ran for 29 years. This trade agreement, which contains a stipulation that it will run for three years, with similar notice before it is terminated, may have a very long life ahead of it. I hope it has.
I believe this marks a further step forward in our trade relations with one of our good trading customers. I can assure the Australians-and I will tell the mission this when it arrives on Monday-that Canadian businessmen will be just as keen as they are to expand business between the two countries. We have things they need, and they have materials and foodstuffs that we can use in Canada. There is a chance for businessmen in the two countries to get acquainted through trade mission activities. Behind those trade missions is the approval of both governments, as is evident from this trade agreement which is a substantial improvement over the earlier agreement. The way is clear to the advance ment of trade between Canada and Australia


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration (including the former St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers -Canadian section), $2,732,470.
Mr. Chevrier:: I expect the minister will make a statement?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Chairman, reference to the blue book on estimates will show that the main estimates for 1960-61 of the Department of Transport and the several other agencies reporting through me amount to $250,912,244. The total figure last year was $269,136,950. The greater part of the indicated decrease of approximately $19 million pertains to the department proper, and in the course of my remarks I shall draw attention to the major items included in the decrease.
During the past few years I have dealt with these estimates according to the three main services of the department, namely canals, marine and air. This format was selected because it made for ease of reference to the blue book. From the tenor of the remarks made by hon. members in the past I gathered that they found the format satisfactory.
Before turning to the canals service, however, let me deal with the matter of the size of our departmental establishment. Last year I reported a total strength of 13,407 employees for all positions, either full time or part time. This figure was increased to 13,620 in last year's supplementary estimates. The various programs covered by the estimates now before this committee will require the employment of 14,196 individuals, or an increase of approximately 4 per cent. In brief, the increase is related to what may be referred to as normal growth arising from the operation of additional ships, airports, navigational aids, etc.
Turning now to the canals service, it will be noted that the four votes appearing on page 73 total slightly under $5 million. This means we contemplate a reduction in expenditure of close to $2,500,000 as compared to the figure for last year. This substantial change is related partly to some expected improvement in operating costs of the nontoll canals transferred to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Mainly, however, it is due
Supply-Transport
to the completion of a number of large construction projects on those canals for which moneys were voted last year. An example of this was the bridge across the Lachine canal at Ville St. Pierre; $350,000 was voted for that work. The closing of the Soulanges canal is another significant contributing factor.
There are two capital items which stand out in these canal appropriations. First, we are providing $270,000 for the government's contribution toward the new high-level bridge at Kars, which will replace our old swing bridge and fixed bridge spans on the Rideau canal. Second, a further $530,000 is included for rehabilitating the old bed of the second Welland canal. This is a project we have embarked upon following entry into agreement with the several municipalities concerned.
Total funds needed for our marine operations will approximate $43 million. The appropriation for administration, operation and maintenance of our departmental fleet, as well as the chartering of vessels to supplement that equipment, accounts for more than 40 per cent of the figure I have just mentioned.
This administrative responsibility extends to the design, construction, operation, repair, maintenance, etc., of vessels engaged in many different types of work. These operational roles include supply of lighthouses on coastal and inland waters, operation of a weather station in the Pacific ocean, icebreaking and ice patrols, sea transportation of supplies to the D.E.W. line, the mid-Canada line, joint weather stations, and stevedoring at northern points of call.
As would be expected in a vote of this size and general scope in which there are 17 different kinds of expenditures, we find various increases and decreases. The net change, though, is quite small, comparatively speaking; $490,654, to be exact. On the increase side, the chief change pertains to salaries and wages, which are up some $768,000, and this is due to a 10 per cent salary revision for ships' crews approved in 1959, and the commissioning this year of the new icebreaker John A. Macdonald. This diesel-electric, triple screw icebreaker, powered by engines developing 18,000 horsepower, will stand comparison with any icebreaking ship in the world. As for the decreases, these relate mainly to a sharply decreased volume of cargo to be transported to Frobisher and some D.E.W. line stations because of completion of large construction projects. During the 1959 shipping season the total sealift to the many northern points, that is to say for all government departments and for United States government account, amounted to no less than 102,000 tons.

Supply-Transport
Before leaving this particular vote I wish to mention one development of the past year which I am sure will meet with your approval. When I explained our main estimates last year I referred to our take-over in 1959 of the sealift to D.E.W. line stations on the east coast of Baffin island. I stated this meant that Canada would then be performing the entire sealift for D.E.W. line stations on Canadian soil. This program of progressive take-over will be extended even further in 1960. In recent months an agreement has been reached between the Department of Transport and the United States air force whereby we have undertaken to provide transportation of the supplies and equipment for the several Gap-Pine stations along the Labrador coast. It is certainly gratifying to note the increasing capability being demonstrated by Canadian personnel, both commercial and governmental, in the performance of this difficult work. I would like to take this opportunity of commending, for their splendid cooperation, the United States government agencies with which we have been working. Unquestionably that spirit of co-operation has greatly facilitated the task of my department.
During the past year our program for the construction of new vessels and repair of existing vessels has gone forward quite rapidly. Consequently we are planning in terms of a substantial reduction in capital outlay. Since our 1959-60 estimates were approved we have accepted deliveries of several ships. The larger of these, apart from the Sir John A. Macdonald, are the Camsell, which will be the first Canadian icebreaker assigned to support shipping in the western Arctic; two shallow draft, icebreaking and buoy vessels with search and rescue qualities, namely the Simon Fraser, operating from Victoria, and the Tapper operating from Charlottetown; three units, the Sir William A lexander working out of Halifax and the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Wolfe working out of St. John's, Newfoundland, on supply work and light icebreaking; and the Alexander Henry, a supply light icebreaker ship for service in the upper great lakes, based at Parry Sound.
Residents of the immediate areas will no doubt be pleased to learn that the two ferry vessels, one for the Pelee Island-Ontario service and the other for the Bell Island-Newfoundland service, will be delivered in the very near future. Our proposed program contemplates preparation of plans and specifications this year for certain additional units, particularly replacements for two or three more of our older agency supply ships and possibly replacements for our ocean weather station ships. Among the items
[Mr. Hees.J
presently under study is a cable-laying ship would would be strengthened for icebreaking work as well.
Regardless of my expressed intention to follow the order in which the various departmental services are listed in the blue book, I wish to mention at this point an item actually covered by vote 425. This vote is somewhat similar in that it pertains to ship construction, in this case auto-ferry vessels. In December, 1959 a contract for very close to $3 million was awarded to Halifax Shipyards. It was for the construction of a ferry with capacity for 68 automobiles and 300 passengers which will ply between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The three ferries now in use include two which were built some 40 years ago. For this reason and, furthermore, because of the continued growth in traffic, construction of this additional ship is considered essential. We are seeking approval of payments totalling $1,860,000 to be made in this fiscal year.
Operation and maintenance of aids to navigation is a work which continues from year to year at an unusually consistent rate. This will be the case again during the coming year. The estimated outlay of $6 million provides for a program basically the same, both as to volume and make-up.
During the past few years we have been pushing ahead with a program of replacing the wharves and buildings located at our marine agency depots. This work of rehabilitation is essential because the existing structures are very old and quite inadequate to meet present day requirements. This program may take up to 10 years to complete, but it is aimed at providing at such ports as St. John's, Newfoundland; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec, province of Quebec; Sorel, Quebec; Prescott, Ontario; Parry Sound, Ontario; Victoria, British Columbia; and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, a complex consisting of a modern wharf, office and stores building, shops building, etc.
Up to the present time very satisfactory progress has been achieved. This type of construction must be phased over a period of approximately three years in each instance. The stages of construction on some of these projects are such that there will be a reduction in expenditure in 1960-61. For example, the sum of $400,000 was required last year for the new wharf at the St. John's, Newfoundland agency. The second stage of that project is the construction of the office and stores building, and approximately $80,000 will be sufficient for this purpose.

The granting of wage increases in 1959 to ships' personnel is a consideration which also had to be covered in appropriations related to deficits on ferry services. Examination of those items will disclose that we are providing approximately $800,000 additional for the Borden-Tormentine and Sydney-Newfound-land ports ferry operations, and the wage increase accounts for most of that revision. Whilst referring to ferry operations I might mention a rather sizeable expenditure of $400,000 to improve conditions at North Sydney, where heavy congestion of shipments occurred due to inadequacy of railway trackage. To remedy this it is proposed to lay additional trackage and lengthen five existing yard tracks.
Improvement of facilities and equipment required to expedite and facilitate traffic moving to Newfoundland coastal points is being attended to as rapidly as possible. I spoke last summer of our intention to proceed with construction of two passenger-cargo vessels. One of these will be ready in the fall of 1960, the other in the spring of 1961. Whereas $800,000 was allotted for the wharves and freight sheds at Corner Brook and Lewisporte, we must provide well over $2 million to cover the next stage of the work.
I shall now attempt to cite the highlights of our air services, the listing for which begins on page 77. I use the word "attempt" intentionally because this particular service embraces a wide and varied assortment of responsibilities and operations. It is a role which has grown tremendously in size and nature as transportation by air continues its explosive expansion.
The aggregate of the several appropriations related to our telecommunications branch is down slightly from last year, the reduction being just under 4 per cent. The major part of this change is related to the construction or acquisition of buildings and equipment for radio aids to air and marine navigation. Nevertheless the proposed capital outlay is very substantial, for it totals $12,252,000. Something like $2 million of this will be devoted to extension of our program for the installation of instrument landing systems to facilitate the landing of aircraft under poor weather conditions. We are estimating $1.9 million for new or improved low and high frequency aids such as marine radio beacons and non-directional beacons for the various airways across Canada.
In the make-up of this vote the term "communications" appears frequently, and some $5.5 million is allotted for this. The types of equipment are far too numerous for me to attempt any general enumeration. One of the
Supply-Transport
very large requirements is for the installation of transmitters at marine stations where the existing equipment, in many cases as old as 40 years, does not meet the frequency tolerances demanded. Also, at many aeradio stations in northern Canada the present high frequency equipment is subject to blackouts caused by sun spot activity. To assure reliable communications we must supplement with low frequency equipment. The construction of dwellings for personnel at isolated or semi-isolated locations will cost upward of $1.5 million.
The estimated combined costs of both administering and operating our meteorological service in 1960-61, as well as attending to the necessary capital requirements of that service, differ very little from last year's costs. It is true that the printed estimates show a very substantial increase, an increase of $2,325,000 to be exact. However, the actual increase is far less. This year we have included approximately $2 million for services we provide on behalf of the Department of National Defence. In previous years this amount was incorporated in national defence estimates.
Before leaving the meteorological estimates, I do wish to refer to a subject of which I have made mention on numerous occasions. Recruitment of properly qualified personnel for the meteorological service has for the past several years been indeed one of our most difficult problems. Individuals possessing the required qualifications are in demand in other quarters such as in the teaching profession. Recently we have granted salary increases which we expect will improve matters. Further improvement in this connection is under way, and we are carrying out a long term program with respect to recruitment and training. We are very hopeful that these measures will tend to overcome our difficulties, but it appears as though it will take a few years to remedy the situation.
During the course of the statement I gave to the committee last year I pointed out that we were seeking approval of funds for civil aviation requirements which were 17 per cent in excess of those voted for the previous year. For the coming year, I am happy to report, we have managed to plan a program which dollar-wise represents a reduction of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. It is a program designed to satisfy what we believe to be the most urgent demands of aviation. It will not, mind you, begin to satisfy all quarters. One has to be in close touch daily with the situation to form any true appreciation of the number, variety, extent, etc. of the demands presented by this, the jet age. Many of the problems are obvious to every

Supply-Transport
one of us-longer, wider and stronger runways, bigger aircraft, larger air terminal buildings, more convenient parking areas, and so forth. This is not so, however, with what one might call the hidden requirements.
Air traffic control is a good case in point. Ten years ago controlled landings and takeoffs were occurring in Canada at the rate of 800,000 per year but in the coming year the number will exceed 3| million. Add to this the factor of jet aircraft travelling at three times the speed. The old system involving elaborate display boards in control centres with slips of paper indicating position, altitude and speed of aircraft is being superseded by technological developments utilizing various types of radar, the transfer of radar pictures to closed circuit television, and possibly the adoption of electronic computers to perform speedily the wide variety of calculations.
Here is another clear-cut illustration of the demands generated by technological advancement in aircraft design. Very recently we have taken steps to establish a new high altitude airway, above the 24,000 foot level, for the use of jet aircraft exclusively. Air traffic control is but one of the demands; yet the expenditure this year will total over $7 million, including services and facilities supplied to the Department of National Defence but paid for by the Department of Transport.
Another example I might cite is that of aircraft rescue and fire fighting services. Here we have a problem to which intensive study has been and is being given by all countries directly affected by the advent of jet aircraft. Obviously this task is magnified by the weight, passenger capacity and landing speed of the jet airliner, even though at many airports the R.C.A.F. performs a major part of the function. To illustrate the expansion in this area, we have ordered 13 additional large fire fighting trucks to supplement the existing 78. At present we employ 137 fire fighters at airports but now we must hire an additional 102 and the wage bill alone will reach approximately $1.5 million yearly. Over and above this we have on order a number of crash trucks, water tenders and aerial ladders.
In the area of construction associated with new or improved air terminal buildings, runways, landing strips, heating plants, entrance roads and the many other facilities that go into the make-up of the modern airport, we are forging ahead very satisfactorily. During the coming year the terminal buildings at Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Regina will be ready for operation and we will be proceeding with the initial stages of the new layout of the airports at Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Despite the unceasing demand for the many improved facilities, we have managed, in keeping with the general budgeting policy, to prepare a 1960-61 program entailing an expenditure of approximately $8 million less than the appropriation approved for 1959-60. The proposed outlay totals $52 million, of which $18 million is earmarked for airport terminal buildings. If time permitted I would single out for the committee's information some of the more outstanding projects interspersed among the list, which runs to several pages. In lieu of that I have had prepared a statement enumerating the projects in the $100,000 or over category for which provision is made in this vote but which are not shown in the details given in the blue book. I shall be glad to furnish a copy of this to any member desiring it. I might also add that the summary details our marine construction projects as well.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will be grateful to the minister for the excellent statement he has just given to us which will assist us very materially in the discussion of these estimates. I think the committee will also be happy to have before it a list of the projects costing over $100,000 which the department intends to put into being during the course of the present fiscal year.
The minister, as has been the case in the past, has divided his statement, generally speaking, under three heads, namely water, air and rail facilities. As one listened to the remarks made by the minister one matter primarily attracted our attention and that is the tremendous amounts that are being spent from year to year by the Department of Transport. While it is true that there has been a decrease this year, mainly, I think, because of the large expenditure last year for the St. Lawrence seaway, the expenditures which are made by this huge department are indicative of the importance of the part it is playing in the field of transportation.
There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who sit on this side of the house, and I think this applies to most hon. members who have given the subject of transportation any thought, that because of the age in which we live the department must of necessity take on greater importance, and I am wondering whether the government has given consideration to a division of the responsibilities of the department. I say this with all deference to the minister. It is not that I think that he is incapable of fulfilling the duties which a minister of transport must fulfil, but I think that consideration should be given to this matter having regard to the very important duties and responsibilities that fall on the

Department of Transport. This may not be a popular suggestion so far as some members of the department are concerned but nevertheless I think that if the government has not already given this matter consideration it should do so because of the tremendous importance of the department and because of the fact that it is gathering greater and greater momentum as time and technological development go on.
It may well be that the department could be divided into two parts with railway and canal services forming one department and aviation forming another. The minister will say that this is not a novel or new idea. In fact it is not because I know that before we left office in 1957 serious consideration was being given by the former prime minister to a division of the department although not necessarily along these lines. It seems to me that the duties and responsibilities of the department are such that as time goes on the importance of the department, if not in this year then certainly in the near future, will almost compel the government to divide these responsibilities into at least two parts.
I come to another matter with which the minister did not deal, unfortunately. I would have thought that in the course of his statement the minister would have given some indication of the policies of the government with reference to certain aspects of his department. What is the policy of the government with reference to air services? What is the policy of the government with reference to bilateral air agreements? What is the policy of the government in the field of scheduled and non-scheduled air services? There has been not the slightest indication by the minister on this occasion, and I am sorry to say on previous occasions, of these policies, and because of certain matters to which I have referred in the past and to which I intend to refer briefly now, there should I think be a clear-cut declaration of policy on the part of the government in so far as these fields are concerned.
I think that had the policy been defined by the minister it would have been much easier for those of us who sit on this side of the house, and who like to be constructive in our criticism, to have disposed more quickly of the matters that are under discussion at the moment. On prior occasions I stated that the government was giving away Canadian sovereignty in the air, and that it was discriminating against small air lines in favour of the larger, more powerful ones and, in turn, because of that, the government was discriminating against the outlying regions of our country. At that time the minister
Supply-Transport
made light of my remarks and passed them over as being nonsensical or ridiculous.
I am sorry that he felt disposed to deal with them in that manner because the events that have taken place since have indicated that the remarks made at that time were not only serious but have been supported by the evidence which was given in a committee of the house. I think it was stated by the minister on one occasion that I spoke on behalf of monopoly and vested interests. Unfortunately for the air lines concerned, it now turns out that it is the converse which is true. Not only have the smaller air lines become apprehensive of what is taking place in the field of aviation, but Trans-Canada Air Lines particularly have become extremely anxious about the position in which they find themselves because of the policy of the government with reference to bilateral air agreements, consequent upon the policy of the government in the field of international aviation.
I should like to refer for a moment now to the evidence given before the committee on railways, air lines and shipping by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I made the statement in the house at one juncture that because of the budget for Trans-Canada Air Lines, which the minister tabled in the early part of the session and which indicated that in order to purchase new equipment the amount of many available would be the sum of nil dollars from net income; I had not drawn a conclusion at the time, but I asked a qusetion as to whether or not this might well be indicative of a position in which Trans-Canada Air Lines might find itself because of the international aviation policy of the government. The minister thought that that conclusion was not justified. None the less when Trans-Canada Air Lines tabled its report for 1959 it indicated that its net income was the lowest for all time in its history, namely about $152,000.
Later when the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines gave evidence before the committee he indicated that the loss of revenue from the operation of B.O.A.C. into Toronto would amount to $6 million gross revenue per year, and that the loss of revenue arising out of the recent bilateral route which was awarded by the government and the onward rights which were awarded to Air France and Lufthansa from Montreal to Chicago would amount to an actual loss to Trans-Canada Air Lines of $200,000 per year. The statement which was made at the time, and which I repeat now, is that because of these bilaterals which granted Lufthansa, Alitalia and Air France onward rights from Montreal

Sup p ly-Transport
to Chicago which T.C.A. does not possess, and who are going to compete directly with T.C.A., there would eventually be a substantial loss. In this particular case Trans-Canada Air Lines has not got a non-stop flight from Montreal to Chicago. It must come down at Toronto and is, therefore, at a loss in so far as competition goes with these foreign air lines and because of the policy of the government in this field Trans-Canada Air Lines has been detrimentally affected.
While I am not able to go as far, perhaps, as some of the witnesses went before the committee on railways and shipping, I believe it is safe to conclude that in the year 1960 the financial position, the profit and loss position of Trans-Canada Air Lines will be worse than it was in 1959. I should like to place on the record here, for the benefit of those who were not members of this committee, the questions and answers which can be found on page 340 of proceedings No. 3 of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, for Thursday, March 31, 1960:


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question in a different field, and it is this: What has been the effect on T.C.A.'s operations of the prolongation of the B.O.A.C. operations to Toronto?


Mr. McGregor:: It has only been in effect since March 1 and it is, therefore, a little bit early to say. However, we have calculated the effect of what would be a gross revenue loss of about $6 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Per year?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, per year. It is a figure which will have a tendency to be cut in half by the pooling.


Lionel Chevrier: I see. I suppose that accounts for the pooling agreement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. on the trans-Atlantic flight?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, it played its part.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it now in operation?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, also as of March 1.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask a similar question with reference to the other air carriers-Lufthansa and Air France-operating directly from the continent to Montreal-Chicago non-stop, and its effect on the revenue position of T.C.A.?


Robert Henry McGregor: We estimated that, Mr. Chevrier, but, as I say, it is difficult to say that because a passenger is carried on that non-stop operation he necessarily would have travelled on T.C.A. had that operation not existed. We have an estimated figure, but I must say it is no better than that. We can give you that, included in our report.
Later there was added as an appendix to the report the amount which I mentioned earlier, namely appendix E, "Trans-Canada Air Lines, forecast impact on T.C.A. of recent bilateral route awards" as affected by Air France and Lufthansa on the Montreal-Chicago route of $200,000 per year. The anxieties which were expressed at the time by those of us who took part in this debate have now been confirmed by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. So much so have they been confirmed that the president has

found it necessary to enter into a pooling arrangement with B.O.A.C. in connection with the north Atlantic services performed by T.C.A. The loss to T.C.A. from the granting of these onward rights is substantial. I think that consideration ought to be given at once by the minister to a renegotiation of these bilateral agreements or, in the alternative, to a renegotiation of the bilateral agreement with the United States which would give the T.C.A. and other Canadian carriers the right to operate into certain lucrative airports of the United States and would offset the losses that have been caused by the negotiation of these recent bilateral agreements.
It seems to me that all of this has been done in the name of competition. No one was more anxious that there should be competition than was my friend the Minister of Transport when he sat on this side of the house. However, when he moved over to the other side of the house he had an expert look into this whole field of transportation and there was produced the Wheatcroft report. I have no fault to find with the Wheatcroft report. On the contrary; I think the Wheatcroft report is excellent in many respects. Unfortunately, however, the minister has not seen fit to follow that report. The competition to which Trans-Canada Air Lines is being subjected is going to mean financial loss to the company.
But I believe this position of competition also applies in the field of domestic air services. I think it is unfortunate that the minister did not see fit to indicate to the committee what the government policy was with reference to those services. I think it can also be said that in this field of domestic air services there is on the part of the government, through the initiation of the minister, a tendency to allow far too much competition. That tendency was indicated by the decontrol of groups C and B, the one on July 18, 1958 and the other on December 21, 1958. The opening up of these two categories of air services to competition was a serious matter. The result has been a tremendous number of bankruptcies. Certainly there have been a larger number of bankruptcies than anyone would have expected would occur.
I placed on the order paper a starred question in connection with this matter. The answer the minister gave was that six aviation companies had gone into bankruptcy since July 18, 1958, the date of the announcement of the decontrol of group C; that 38 air companies had applied for suspension of services; that 15 companies had applied for cancellation of their permits; and that 15 companies had had their permits cancelled. It seems to me that this is cleanly indicative

of this new policy of competition in every field which has meant that many of these companies have been unable to carry on. They had difficulties previously but those difficulties became insurmountable and it was not possible for them to carry on; hence these bankruptcies and these suspensions of services.
This is exactly what the air industries and transport association foreshadowed in their brief to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport at the annual association meeting which they held in Montreal in October of last year and again in a subsequent meeting which they held in Victoria some short time ago.
There is also an extremely unsatisfactory situation with regard to Autair Helicopter Services. Surely the minister has not given the house a satisfactory answer in so far as this company is concerned. I have no intention of repeating what I said on an earlier occasion dealing with the subject of Autair Helicopter Services. However, I want to say one thing, namely that there is in existence an air transport board which functions in accordance with the terms of the Aeronautics Act. I am sorry to tell the minister that he has not allowed the air transport board to function in accordance with the terms of this act but has interfered with the functions of the air transport board on at least two occasions. The first occasion is that of Autair Helicopter Services and the other is that of Georgian Bay Airways Limited.
In the case of Autair Helicopter Services, an application was made by that company before the air transport board. A public hearing was held by the board in Montreal and after careful consideration by the members of the air transport board they declined to grant the application. However, upon appeal the minister overruled the board. I say now, as I said before, that the minister should not have interfered in a judicial matter. Had it been purely a question of fact, that would have been an entirely different matter. However, it was not purely a question of fact; it was a matter of a judicial nature. When the Aeronautics Act was passed by this parliament I think the intention clearly was that while an appeal lay to the minister in certain circumstances, in so far as the legal aspect was concerned the matter was for the air transport board to determine.
The result has been extremely unfortunate in so far as this company is concerned and in so far as the air transport board is concerned. With the overruling of the board by the minister we have no proof of financial responsibility. A number of accidents have taken place. I believe there have been seven, four in 1959 and three already in 1960, in connection with Autair Services Limited.
Supply-Transport
A letter written by the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services has gone unanswered. No attention has been paid to this regulating and governing body by an air services corporation which exists and which is subject to the jurisdiction of the board.
I would like to put this letter on Hansard. It is dated February 4, 1959 and was obtained in answer to a notice of motion tabled in this house. It is addressed by the secretary of the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services and reads:
Dear Sir,
This is further to our letter of January 7th in connection with the removal of the restriction limiting your company to the use of certain helicopters under board decision No. 1111.
Our audit section finds that it cannot make a proper study of your application because it ha* no up to date financial information other than operating reports for the period from commencement of operations to December 31, 1958. The following information should be provided:
(1)	A balance sheet of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. as at December 31, 1958.
(2)	A consolidated balance sheet of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. and subsidiaries as at December 31, 1958.
(3)	Full information regarding all helicopters acquired or to be acquired since the date of the above balance sheet, including type or types, estimated cost and proposed method of financing purchase.
(4)	Full information regarding terms of repayment of any long term debts which may be included in the above suggested balance sheets.
As soon as the above has been received, your application will be further processed.
As far as I know there has not only been no reply to that letter, but there has been an utter and total disregard by an aircraft company operating in this country under the jurisdiction of the air transport board of that governing body. If I am wrong in that assumption I hope the minister will correct me, but I gathered from the information which was obtained earlier that Autair Helicopter Services paid no attention whatsoever and carried on as if the air transport board had never existed at all. In fact, not only did they carry on; they had been operating in the province of Quebec without a licence for a period of several months. I made that statement on an earlier occasion and I repeat it now. The minister said that they did not operate with his knowledge and that may well be; but the point is that the air transport board has in its possession information which would indicate that they did operate without a licence and that the owner of that corporation operated with a private licence only. That certainly is contrary to the rules and regulations established under the Aeronautics Act and applicable to other aircraft companies in Canada.

Supply-Transport
I think the minister should not have interfered with the decision of the board, because if he had not interfered with the decision of the board this company would have either had to abide by the regulations of the air transport board and its procedures or it would not have been able to operate at all.
There is a great deal more than that in connection with this matter. This company has had its insurance cancelled twice. It has also obtained from the government, through the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, a very important contract on the polar shelf involving several hundred thousand dollars. What about these professional men, these workers skilled and otherwise, who are being transported by this company in the north, that not only has had its insurance cancelled but which presently is insured by an unrecognized company in the United States? From the information I have indications are that this company may also cancel the insurance of the company as they have been unable to find any insurance adjuster to handle the accidents which were listed by the minister which took place in 1960.


The Deputy Chairman:: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. I was under the impression that I had unlimited time; I am apparently in error. I am grateful to the committee and I will try and shorten this as much as I can.
I was going on to say that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys gave indication some time ago that this company had had experience on the D.E.W. line. His statement was that the pilots of Autair Helicopter Services had had experience on the D.E.W. line. The information I have is that at the time the contract was awarded and this company was preparing to leave for the polar shelf, which was in April, 1960, there were three pilots in the employ of that company. One of them had a total experience of bush flying of 30 days which he had acquired at Knob Lake three years ago; neither of the other two pilots on the polar continental shelf contract had had any previous Arctic experience.
I think the least the minister can do is to hold an investigation, as he was asked to do by those of us who sit on this side of the house. He should hold an investigation

at least for the safety of those people who may be transported on the helicopters of this company. Surely this is not asking too much. If we were asking this with no evidence of what had transpired I think the minister would be well within his rights in refusing. But we are asking an investigation of a company that has had no experience in operating on the polar shelf; that has already had seven accidents; that has had its insurance cancelled twice; and, most important of all, it is a company whose application was turned down by the governing body in the Department of Transport dealing with these applications after a hearing held in Montreal. For that reason I again say that the minister was in error in overruling the air transport board, in granting the application, and that because of the reasons I have given, which I believe to be serious, there should be a full investigation by the minister into the operations of this company.
Before I resume my seat I would like to say a word about Georgian Bay Airways Limited. This to my mind is a more serious situation than that of Autair Helicopter Services. This case is more serious because when the application was made for a class 4 charter commercial air service with group B aircraft the air transport board declined the application after hearing testimony in Timmins. Incidentally, may I tell the minister that although a motion was passed for the production of the decision of the board, the transcript of the evidence and several other items, I have not received these yet and I hope it will be possible for me to obtain them in due course.
In the case of Georgian Bay Airways Limited, the application was made for a class 4 charter commercial service with group B aircraft and it was declined by the air transport board after the air transport board had given careful consideration, not only to the position of this company in so far as its equipment was concerned but also in so far as its over-all position was concerned.
In this case the minister did not overrule the board. He did worse than that; he changed the law. The minister, by order in council, passed a regulation which amended the law and which allowed Georgian Bay aircraft company to make another application for practically the same service. I would like to refer to the order in council which changed the regulations. It is P.C.60/65 dated January 15, 1960 and the substantive part of the order reads as follows:
The commercial air service regulations are amended by revoking subsection (1) of section 6 and substituting therefor the following:
6. (1) 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.
Until that time an application such as was made by Georgian Bay Airways Limited was controlled by section 15(3) of the Aeronautics Act which reads:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
The air transport board, after hearing evidence at Timmins, came to the conclusion that in the light of the present and future public convenience and necessity the application should not be granted.
My submission is that the minister should have amended the act. He ought not to have allowed this company to enter by the back door, by making an amendment to these regulations, but he should have come forward and amended the Aeronautics Act, stipulating that the present and future public convenience and necessity provision was no longer required to be shown by aircraft companies of this kind, but that in future they need only show proof of public interest if that was the intention. I maintain that when so much has been said by those who sit on the other side of the house about a bill of rights, if there are two methods by which a result can be brought about-and I submit there were not-then at least the least objectionable method is the one which should have been taken.
Again I should like to bring this to the attention of the committee. It is doubtful whether in view of what has been done that the air transport board may not be liable to legal action for having done something by virtue of an order in council which should have been done by virtue of an amendment to a statute. So it seems to me that in this sense the matter is more serious than the Autair case.
The granting of this licence was a circumventing of parliament. It confirms exactly what the air industries and transport association have been saying to the Prime Minister and the government, namely what is the use of having an air transport board if its decisions are to be circumvented, in one case by the minister overruling the board and in the other case by the passing of an order in council which cancels what is contained in the act? It seems to me that this is a direct challenge to the functions of the air transport board, and that the action taken in this case strikes at the very root of parliament.
There are a number of other items which I should like to discuss, but the committee
Supply-Transport
has been generous. I will not proceed further than to mention them. There is the very important question of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. There have been contradictory statements in this respect. The minister made a statement at Baie Comeau. The Prime Minister made a directly opposite statement at Halifax. I have the statements here and can put them on record. Certainly, the minister made his views perfectly clear in so far as winter navigation was concerned. It was also made quite clear in the speech delivered by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works. I quote from the speech made by the minister to the Dominion Marine Association and the lake carriers association on January 22, 1958:
With this group of ships available it should be possible within the next few years to meet virtually all the requirements in the St. Lawrence and gulf areas including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed to the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence, even as far as Quebec, and in the gulf and Atlantic areas generally.
When this was put to the minister in the course of questions on orders of the day, he interjected: "Up to but not necessarily as far as Quebec."
I wish to place on record in Hansard what the Prime Minister said in Halifax and in Saint John. The right hon. gentleman wanted, surely, to reassure the people of those two ports, and he did reassure them according to the report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of November 16, 1959, when the following appeared:
He reassured Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick, port officials by saying his government has no plans to keep the St. Lawrence river open in winter. Reports of such a scheme have brought protests from maritime shipping men who say the winter business they depend on may be lost.
Again in the Ottawa Citizen of November 19 the following appeared:
Transport Minister Hees said Tuesday maritime ports have no reason to worry about plans to keep ports along the St. Lawrence north shore open during the winter months.
In fact, he told reporters as he entered a cabinet meeting, north shore communities had told him that they probably would buy their supplies in Saint John or Halifax if their ports are kept open. The maritimes will definitely benefit from this, he said.
I am wondering if this is another case where the government is proceeding without plans or is it simply a matter of prevarication, because there can be no doubt about the minister's statement where he said that winter navigation would be provided, if it were required and necessary, right up to the port of Quebec.
I wish to say just a word about the construction of an additional bridge. Perhaps we can get some explanation of this from the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. He is

Supply-Transport
the hon. gentleman who asked a question in the house one day. I do not think he received a satisfactory reply but there is no doubt about the minister's statement in that respect.
Let me say a final word about the construction of a new bridge between Montreal and the south shore east of the Jacques Cartier bridge. I have on more than one occasion beginning in 1957 referred to a report which is in the Department of Transport entitled "The St. Lawrence Ship Channel and Montreal Harbour Committee of 1950; report on the terms of reference thereof". This is a report which dealt with the construction of facilities in the Montreal harbour and east of that harbour that would have to be undertaken following the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. The report is a voluminous one. I have only the report dealing with one reference but there are four or five references. Somewhere in this report it is stated that a bridge should be constructed east of the Jacques Cartier bridge linking Montreal and the south shore. I advocated this again in 1958 and saw that sometime afterwards the associate minister of defence had indicated his approval of construction of that nature. In fact, I believe the hon. gentleman went to an association or group in Montreal and said he thought they should make representations for the construction of that bridge.
The point I want to make now is that the minister certainly did not give his colleague very much assistance in that respect when he wrote to the mayors of the municipalities on the south shore. I will not embarrass the minister by putting the correspondence on the record but the minister wrote a letter under date of February 13, 1959 to all of the mayors, the concluding part of which would indicate that regardless of other considerations the course of wisdom for whichever authority might assume responsibility would be to wait at least until the effects of the new Champlain bridge could be examined before undertaking the very substantial financial outlay which would be involved in the construction of yet another bridge.
The minister has in his possession a survey of traffic in Montreal made by traffic experts of the city of Montreal and province of Quebec over the bridges which indicates the probable effect of all of the bridges, the Jacques Cartier bridge, the Victoria bridge and the new Champlain bridge. Notwithstanding that, there are in the city of Montreal, I believe, experts who have come to the conclusion that another bridge is necessary. I know that decisions like this cannot be taken overnight and must be given careful consideration but I urge the minister in the

light of the traffic report which he has received-I guess it is dated 1957-and in the light of the representations which I am sure must have been made to him by many groups and associations in the city of Montreal to give consideration now to the planning and surveying that might be necessary for the construction of an additional bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge.
There are other matters with which I should like to deal but I will leave them for consideration as the various items of the department come up during the course of the discussion in this committee.
(Translation):


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he would allow me a question.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Martial Asselin: The hon. member has referred to winter navigation. May I ask whether he himself and his party are in favour of winter navigation up to Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I can very easily answer that question, because I have answered it on two previous occasions. The first time was at Quebec, where I had gone to give a talk, and the second was in reply to a question I was asked last winter during our party convention at the Chateau Laurier.
The reply to the question of the hon. member for Charlevoix is as follows: our party is in favour of providing services when they are required to promote industry where necessary, whether it is a matter of supplying icebreakers or other services to promote winter navigation to a port such as Quebec, for instance.
Now, as regards Atlantic ports, in reply to a question by a member from the maritime provinces about Saint John and Halifax harbours, I added that if the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines had accepted my recommendation that an economic study be made of the impact of the St. Lawrence seaway on every part of Canada, we might be in a position to know if the impact on those ports has been favourable or otherwise. And should the results be adverse as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), and others are inclined to believe, the government could then take proper remedial steps.
However, with regard to winter navigation to the port of Quebec, my party, as the record shows, did everything that the Quebec port authorities had asked for.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question of the hon. member, if he does not mind.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Mr. Fisher:: I do not want to interfere with the hon. member's questioning but perhaps he will have an opportunity to ask questions later. At times the Minister of Transport strikes me as being a rather gay socialist and at others as a fay free enterpriser. The previous speaker has given an indication as to where these free enterprise instincts have led the minister as far as Autair, T.C.A., and the Georgian Bay commitments are concerned.
I thought the minister was somewhat bland in his outline and in his reference to the fact that his department has shown only a 4 per cent growth. I remember that the hon. member in opposition-forgive me for ever bringing up the way people handle themselves in opposition-urged the previous administration to cut down the growing government service. Now the hon. gentleman's tune has changed. If this scale of growth is across the board we can imagine what will be the size of the civil service if this government remains in power for as long as the previous one.
I expected that the minister might have given us in addition to an outline of the work of his department a review of the transportation picture in Canada. It is in a rather bad snafu. I think this stems from the fact that Canadians cannot and never have been able to make up their minds, just as the minister has not, whether transport is to be an ancillary or a main field of government enterprise. If you want to put it more directly, where should private enterprise fit into the transport picture? I have never been able to see that we have any definite public consensus as to this situation.
I have been following very closely the hearings of the royal commission on transportation. I think the report of their proceedings now covers pretty close to 20,000 pages. The commission has sat throughout the country in the various provinces and has received a tremendous number of briefs. In glancing at the proceedings it is apparent that one can enumerate a tremendous number of transportation problems throughout the country, and it seems to me that with such a vigorous minister, a minister with so much pep and energy and with so much enthusiasm, we might expect more leadership with regard to our transportation problems than we are getting from him or are likely to get from the royal commission.
79951-0-281
Supply-Transport
I think it is fair for me to comment about the royal commision that in the main it has spent most of its time, as a result of the crossexamination by railway counsel and counsel for the western provinces, on the problem of the Crowsnest rates, which is one of the fundamental transportation enigmas in Canada. But when you examine the briefs that have been presented by the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the Atlantic provinces you get a picture of our transportation problems that is much broader than merely the Crowsnest rates and, Lord knows, the Crowsnest rates are problem enough.
If we start in the maritimes field we find a wide difference of opinion over the Chignecto canal. There are wide differences of opinion as between Halifax and Saint John and Quebec with respect to the topic mentioned by the previous speaker, winter shipping on the St. Lawrence river. It is apparent from the brief presented by the province of Quebec that that province feels very strongly and intends to insist-one might almost say demand-that the shipping season be extended on the St. Lawrence, and it is also apparent from the scope of the enterprises that are being established and have been established in Labrador that a much longer shipping season is expected out of Seven Islands. What is involved is not only a full ocean shipping season for the transport of ore to the east coast of the United States but also a longer shipping season into the port of Montreal. I have figures here indicating that the difference between the cost of goods landed at Halifax or Saint John and shipped westward into Upper Canada, as the maritimers say, and goods landed at Montreal is on the average somewhere between $12 and $16 a ton. This indicates to me a rather enormous potential saving for shippers and the economy.
But against this the minister has to balance, as we do, the effect on the maritime ports that would result from encouraging the transfer of shipments to Montreal. This is one of the very large issues in the eastern part of Canada into which the development of the Chignecto canal and even the causeway to Prince Edward Island perhaps fit. It is something that indicates the turmoil in our transportation situation at the present time and the need for clear leadership.
I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that there seems to be a contradiction in the policy or what masquerades as the policy of the government with respect to winter ship-talking to an engineer who is familiar with ping on the St. Lawrence. I gather from the Montreal harbour situation that if sufficient research were put into the matter it might be possible to do something about preventing at least for the month of December

Supply-Transport
and perhaps lor another month early in the spring the building up ol ice from the bottom that takes place in the channels of Montreal harbour and really chokes off the shipping season sooner than one might expect. If that particular problem could be prevented in the stretch of water up as far as Montreal harbour there would certainly seem to be no reason why we should not be considering not only winter shipping into Quebec city but winter shipping into Montreal. I think we have to realize that until some real revolution in technology occurs the locks up river from Montreal are not going to be open for any longer period.
With regard to the general transportation problems of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Johnson, who presented the Quebec brief to the royal commission on transportation, was very forthright in his demands and requests for a whole host of things in terms of transportation services. He ranged all the way from insisting that the signs at Dorval airport should be in both languages to the argument that it was unfair that the Ontario Northland railway happened to tap part of Quebec. He went further and argued that the railway building policy of the government of Canada had not been fair to Quebec and he had a number of statistical analyses showing that development by the railways of Canada had resulted in less mileage per capita in Quebec than anywhere else.
He followed up this argument, which I personally could not appreciate, with something that I could appreciate, the need of a more forthright developmental policy by the railways in opening up Quebec's resources. Before he finished he went so far as to say that if the federal government would not give aid the province would not hesitate at all to jump into the field with truck highways or railroads.
When we come to the submissions of the province of Ontario we find that in the main the brief is a very extreme criticism of the Canadian railways. The point is made repeatedly that the province of Ontario is not satisfied with the railway services it has got. The opinion is expressed very strongly that the reason highway development and truck transportation have advanced as much as they have is that the railways have not given the service that they should, that they have become decadent industries in a dynamic economy. Again this is something that I personally cannot quite swallow but it emphasizes what has become a fairly popular view about our railway problems in Canada.
Again, the tragedies in terms of employment that have occurred on the railways, the dislocation of the labour force, the shifting

of the labour force, the problems at Stratford and London about which the minister has been probed, indicate that all is not well within this field and that we need forthright leadership. I hope the minister noted that the report of the parliamentary committee on the government railways contained one very succinct paragraph indicating strong dissatisfaction with the role played by Canadian National Railways in its public relations with the communities that the railway services. I think the minister has to do a job of interpreting that paragraph to the Canadian National management because one of the most serious of all employment problems, one that fits into the transportation picture, is the great cut-back that has taken place and is going to take place in the railway labour force. There is a need for the very best of relations between the railways, the unions and the communities involved to see that this is done in as fair a way as possible.
We would suggest to the minister that he should be in a position to outline to us what the government accepts as its responsibility in so far as this dislocation is concerned. He probably knows that at the present time the responsibility is diffuse. The province accepts some responsibility and the Department of Labour accepts some but we are not sure where the railways stand. They have agreements with the unions that are not particularly clear, and it seems to me that the minister could play a much larger role than he has. I think he should be embarrassed by the part he has played in situations such as the London one where all he did was to get up and say that the president of the C.N.R. had refused to meet a delegation or that the C.N.R. did not feel it could consider this matter at the present time.
I could interject here, Mr. Chairman, and say that the minister has a great predilection to concentrate his interests, his public speeches, his optimism, upon the air service side of transportation. We have a total picture of transportation in Canada into which the government has been feet first for a long time. We have pipe lines, air transportation, highway transportation, water transportation and canals, in addition to air services. If the railway situation, in economic terms, has become decadent, if we have an over-mature or declining industry, then it seems to me, and I think the minister knows this, that it raises very real problems in so far as the dislocation of the labour force is concerned.


George Harris Hees: Might I just point out something to the hon. member. I know there is a municipality in his own riding, I believe, the municipality of Sioux Lookout, which had a

problem that the hon. member for Port Arthur brought to my attention. I had the Canadian National officials go there for a special meeting with the town council of Sioux Lookout, and as a result of that a very satisfactory arrangement was worked out. I received a very nice letter from the mayor of Sioux Lookout which told me how pleased he was with the situation.
I made a special request of the president of the Canadian National, even after they had completed their examination of the London situation. A complete re-examination of the whole situation was made from top to bottom but unfortunately they could not come to any different conclusion. However, this was not through lack of effort on my part or interest on my part, and nothing could be done to change the decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister, but Sioux Lookout is just outside my constituency. I am interested in it because it was my birthplace. I agree that the compromise arrangement is satisfactory in the short term, but what I have been trying to suggest to the minister has been that there is a much larger problem here. Who is responsible, for example, for the decline or the complete disruption of communities? I am not suggesting that the government should be, but the government has accepted a special responsibility in the Elliot Lake and the Bancroft situations. What is the responsibility in so far as railway problems are concerned?
If automation is having this grave effect, as we can see it is, in the transportation industry, surely this should be a matter of concern to more than the Minister of Labour. I would suggest that it should be a very real problem for the Minister of Transport, if he is indeed in charge or his department is in charge of the over-all transportation policy for the country. You not only have to look at the dynamic part of transportation, such as jets flying faster and runways getting longer, but also at the slipping, declining parts of the transportation picture.
When you look at the situation in northwestern Ontario or northern Ontario-I thinir the minister is aware that one could go on for a very long time in so far as transportation is concerned-you can give some examples of situations about which the people are not satisfied. We are not satisfied with the way the work is progressing at the lakehead terminals. This is only indirectly connected with the minister's department since the Minister of Public Works has to bear major responsibility. The discontent is more than local. This discontent spreads over the prairies because the farmers expected so
79951-0-281J
Supply-Transport
much more from the seaway than was actually experienced. Whether it is true or false, there is a belief that this government and the previous government had not prepared facilities for helping us to compete with Duluth and the other United States ports. My own feeling is that this mood is exaggerated, but here again we have not had a clear policy integrating this problem with the highway situation and the railways with any developments that they are going to make in the lakehead terminals.
The minister is aware of the fact that the western provinces and the cities of the lake-head were so disturbed about the situation they formed a special port association with the idea of promoting the whole affair and developing more policies. This again indicates that there has been a vacuum or something close to a vacuum in the minister's department in not having an over-all policy laid down in this connection that was readily understandable. Surely when you have communities such as these that are relatively isolated, that are in a dudgeon and worked up about a number of things in this transportation picture, it indicates a lack of clarity on the part of the senior administrative agency. I would suggest to the minister that his department is responsible.
I have recently drawn to his attention complaints about icebreaking. The prairie farmers think it is important, and the lakehead communities think it is important in terms of employment that the elevators have boats at them as early as possible in the spring, and that the boats are able to get service from these elevators as late as possible in the fall. I have had accusations made at the lake-head to the effect that both the prairie farmers and the lakehead people were let down by the icebreaker service this year when the Alexander Henry was pulled out of the harbour prematurely. The ironical part of the situation is that the president of the lakehead harbour commission appointed by the minister-we will assume he is a good Conservative, and in any event he is a fine man is the head of a particular elevator. His elevator had to wait 12 days after the opening of shipping, according to the information I have, before a ship was able to get to the dock and get any grain out of that very large elevator. The reason was that the government icebreaker had not bothered to go to that particular elevator to open it up for shipping. We see, therefore, that even the minister's own friends suffered from this action.
We have a shipyard at the lakehead, and this is another aspect of the over-all transportation picture that is most unsatisfactory.

Supply-Transport
There were all these dreams sponsored by the present minister for external affairs and the Minister of Transport himself when in opposition, that when the Conservative millennium came-that would be immediately after the election-we would have a salt water fleet in being, and have a great expansion in this particular field. All I know is that our particular shipyard has not built anything of substance for a long time. I know that the shipyards in British Columbia are in a bad way and that the shipyard at Collingwood is within sight of the end of its orders. We have a depressed industry, again in this vitally important part of the transportation picture. I know the minister has given encouragement where he could by awarding contracts here and there for relatively minor craft, but the fact remains that in this aspect of the transportation picture Canada has no fleet. Where is our salt water fleet?
Again we find we have not the kind of leadership we expected from this particular department. When you get to the prairies, in so far as the transportation picture is concerned we find there are still complaints about the meteorological service provided by the department. This is in the agricultural field, so I suppose there will be western members speaking about that.
However, I should like to return to the problem with which the royal commission has been preoccupied, that is the freight rate structure and the Crowsnest pass rates. What is going to be the solution for the dilemma of the subsidy picture? I think we are entitled to know how the minister plans to handle the situation that is developing between the railways and the unions which are now in negotiation. The conciliation stage has been reached. We not only have the situation that any award to the unions will put the railways in a more difficult position, but we may have a strike. We also have the situation where the $20 million subsidy is beginning to come to an end. This is the minister's responsibilty. He fathered the bill in the house, took it into committee, brought it back and we approved it. Then $20 million was pumped into the freight rate structure of Canada. This amount was allocated for one year and that year is almost up.
The royal commission on transportation which was to give us some kind of solution to this particular problem has set up hearings for next October. If that commission comes up with any kind of substantial report many more months will ensue. Where are we going to go with the $20 million subsidy? What is the interim measure we can count on from this government to ease the burden upon the 
shippers or are they going to allow the rates to go back up to the 17 per cent picture?
Before I leave the Crowsnest rates may I say that it seems to me that the government has given us a regrettable lack of leadership and direction in this particular field. The Prime Minister gave the assurance in the house before the commission was appointed that the Crowsnest rates, in so far as the agreement was concerned, would not be touched. I think that is the kind of commitment we can understand. But this leaves the only alternative, it seems to me, of some kind of Chinese face-saving device so that the agreement does not completely lapse for the C.P.R. and then something is going to come from the taxpayers' pocket; I refer to the general taxpayers. That seems to be the only solution. That is really the basic argument underlying the royal commission on transportation.
It seems to me that we shall never clear up one of the biggest problems of the transport picture until we get leadership from this government on two things. One is a final solution, even if it must be spread over a number of years, for the grain carrying dilemmas of the railways. The second is some formula by which the railway workers' wages can be arrived at. As long as the railways are going to be controlled and regulated there must be some formula that is accepted by the nation as a whole on which these wages can find a parity.
Again we get no indication that the government is working in a leadership way to develop such a formula. It is leaving it to the normal channels which I would agree are perfectly sound in most industries. I refer to the contest between labour and management. But this is not a proper kind of contest when you have the railways so regulated as they are by the board of transport commissioners and vulnerable to decisions of this particular parliament in so far as grain rates are concerned.
I do not know whether the white goods formula is the one that needs to be transferred to the railway industry to determine the wage structure but I certainly feel that we have every right to expect leadership from the minister in developing a wage formula set-up for the railways. Despite the relationship that I or my political party might have, I would even go so far as to suggest that this formula should come no matter what management may feel about it and no matter what labour may feel about it. We need to get a working formula in this field. I am not going to suggest to the minister what it should be but I certainly suggest to him and

his department that he should be developing this policy and making it part of the public view and the public discussion, in fairness to all parties in the partnership.
As to British Columbia, we have a British Columbian in our party who will touch on what appears to be one of the fundamental transportation problems in British Columbia, namely the famed Kettle Valley railway. I know this is a vital part of the minister's responsibility. But the other aspect of the British Columbia picture that fits into the railway transportation is the long problem that province has had since confederation to get its products into the eastern Canadian market at some kind of competitive position.
It is obvious from the submission that British Columbia again has made to the royal commission on transportation that they are not satisfied. I know that one of the dilemmas here is that if you give too many concessions to British Columbia to put their goods into the eastern Canadian market, it means that they can cut the throats of suppliers much closer at hand who also have the same type of products. I am thinking in terms of fruit and lumber and situations like that. I do not know what the way out of that particular dilemma is but I certainly know that it is a large enough and strong enough issue that we need some indication from the government of what it plans to do.
One of the things we expected from the minister this session was changes in the Canada Shipping Act. I still do not know whether we are going to get them. I thought he might let us know what the situation is in so far as United States progress is concerned under their particular act, and whether he is really ready at this time to give us these changes. I know that the basic problem here is that we have never had explained fully in Canada why the head of the United States coastguard takes a so much stronger view of safety than does the minister's own department. Why is it that the admiral in charge of the United States coastguard is so strongly against the opening up of licensing to foreign ships in comparison to the lengths to which the Canadian government will go? The minister's department is quite prepared to license foreign captains and mates for navigation in the lakes and to go much further than, as I understand it, the admiral is willing to go. Why is it that this department puts a so much smaller premium on safety than does the United States coastguard? I do not think we can assume that the admiral is a fool. I think we are aware of the fact that a number of accidents are taking place in the lakes. There was a serious one in the lakes just
Supply-Transport
a few days ago in which foreign ships were involved. It seems to me that we might expect something in this particular field from the minister.
The minister gave us a survey not too long ago of what his government and the department were doing with regard to harbours. I was interested that one of the hon. members on the government side rose in his place and touted some harbours on down the lake from Oshawa. I think Oshawa is extremely lucky to have a minister in the cabinet to get the benefit of the act and the development that it is probably going to get. But the unexplained part of the minister's sermon to me is an explanation over-all as to just how this developing harbour picture along the lakes is going to fit into the overall economic development. I think we are entitled to ask this question because one of the great expectations really up until last fall was that the lakes would become open to foreign shipping and there was a real doubt that our own domestic shipping was going to be able to survive.
The minister went to Windsor last November, I believe, and gave a speech which was really an indicator that his department felt that lake shipping was going to be more than able to hold its own against foreign shipping; in other words, that there was not going to be the revolutionary switch that so many people had counted upon. This indicates that a good deal of the dreaming and many of the grandiose plans-and I think some of the dreaming and the grandiose stuff was encouraged by the hon. member for Laurier- are not coming to fruition and are most unlikely to do so. This raises in my mind the question as to how accurate these surveys may be; what are the norms or the standards that these surveys crews are taking in judging the potential both of the harbour and the hinterland of the harbour; the way it can fit in with competing harbours along the way and the whole national growth. I can underline this matter for the minister by saying how relatively disappointed the people in our part of the country and the west have been over the failure of the opening of the seaway last year to generate more traffic than it did.
A lot of people are still dissatisfied with the Welland canal tolls. Here again is another transportation problem which is still a very live topic.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I shall only be another minute or two.

Supply-Transport


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Welland canal situation is still an issue so far as tolls are concerned. The minister may think it is a dead issue but he is still getting briefs and representations. There is dissatisfaction in the west with the tolls structure, and I think here again we could expect more in the way of a final solution to the dissatisfaction over the toll structure on the Welland canal.
I would also welcome it very much if the minister later in the estimates would give us a picture of the expenditures that the United States is making along the Detroit section of the seaway, and also at Sault Ste. Marie so far as the deepening of the canal there is concerned. It certainly seems to me that when the United States is finally faced with the total cost of what they are putting up so far as the seaway is concerned, we may have opened up another argumentative chapter in the Welland canal tolls. It certainly does not make sense to me that they should deepen the Sault Ste Marie canal to the depth of the Welland canal and not expect some return from Canada. I am wondering if that return might possibly be a dropping of the tolls of the Welland canal, which as I understand it go right to the Canadian government and to no other. We hope to have the opportunity later on in the estimates to go into almost every phase of the department's activities and we look forward to seeing the minister and his friendly presence with us for many more days.


Mr. Horner (Jasper-Edson):: Would the hon. member permit a question. I was interested in his remarks with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. I wondered if the C.C.F. policy was that they would advocate scrapping these rates; but I understand he would let us down years. Is this the C.C.F.'s policy at the moment?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to remind the hon. member that I am not that big a sucker. What I was suggesting was that both the railways and the western provinces are focussing attention on the Crowsnest pass rates before the royal commission on transportation. It seems to me that this is just one part of the railway problem.
Personally I and most of my associates are not frightened by the word "subsidy" or "subvention". We know that what is going to come out of the situation, whether the agreement lasts or not, is that somehow the railways are going to be given more money.

All I was suggesting was some kind of realistic leadership from our political leaders rather than leaving it to be thrashed out ad nauseam before the royal commission. It seems to me we have had a failure of political leadership by the government in not solving this situation.
If the hon. member would like to know my recommendations in this regard they are to find out what the cost differentiation is between hauling the grain and what is actually received then some kind of formula for over the years could be prepared to see that the money comes back to the railways as far as the difference is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Having said that, I think the hon. member knows that this cost difference is very debatable. I notice someone is calling order. I believe I have the right-


Mr. Pigeon:: You have made your speech.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that in committee once someone else has got to his feet and made an interjection one can carry on for another half an hour. However, I do not intend to do that; that is all I have to say.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, nowhere else is the Minister of Transport's department so important than in my part of the country. Consequently I want to deal in general with certain aspects of the minister's department. I am thinking specifically of the marine services, the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the hotel services of the Canadian National Railways.
The principal reason, a very important one, why we consider the minister's department so important to our part of the country is that we are a province largely undeveloped from the point of view of transportation. We still do not have the services of a trans-Canada highway across our province. We still depend largely on the Canadian National Railways to transport our goods from east to west; and we are dependent on the marine services of the minister's department, including the steamship services of the Canadian National Railways, as a vital source of supply around our coast line.
We were very happy last year to see the arrival of two new icebreakers to be based at St. John's. I might say that these icebreakers are largely the result of the great personal interest the minister has taken in our part of the country and I wish to thank him for that at this moment. However, the arrival of these two icebreakers did succeed in focussing attention on a problem which I feel necessary to bring to his attention, and that is the rates of pay of seamen employed on the department's vessels.

It has been brought to my attention that seamen in the Newfoundland agency of the minister's department receive less pay than their counterparts in the Nova Scotia agency or the Prince Edward Island agency of the minister's department; and the maritime seamen receive less pay than their counterparts in the Quebec agencies. These men are doing similar work and of times are working side by side, yet their rates of pay vary and I am sorry to say very considerably. I think consideration should certainly be given to equalizing the rates of pay of these men doing similar work under similar conditions who are carrying out a very vital and necessary role in the life and trade of this nation.
The second point I would draw to the attention of the committee is under the heading of the Canadian National Railways. This is a subject I have brought to the minister's attention in previous sessions during the passage of his estimates. I refer specifically to the necessity for enlarging the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland hotel at St. John's. I believe, although I do not have the facts to back up this contention, that the Newfoundland hotel is one of the few C.N.R. hotels across Canada that actually makes a profit.
I have some very interesting figures I would like to place on record with regard to hotel accommodation. The latest available figures-[DOT] my source is the dominion bureau of statistics -indicate that Newfoundland is far behind other provinces in Canada in hotel accommodation. I realize that the minister will say this is not solely his responsibility and that he would expect free enterprise to move in and fill this gap; but when free enterprise fails to move in then I think it is his responsibility. I think specifically of Canadian National Railways.
For example, in the city of St. John's there is one major hotel-the C.N.R. Newfoundland hotel-and four small hotels with a total of 405 beds for a metropolitan city of well over 80,000 population. The city of Saint John, New Brunswick, a city of comparable size, has six hotels, with a total accommodation of 1,013. It is interesting to note that the city of Halifax which has recently had an addition made to its C.N.R. hotel, the Nova Scotian hotel, has more beds, more hotel accommodation, than the whole province of Newfoundland. I say this to underline the necessity of the Canadian National Railways making a substantial increase in the accommodation available in the Newfoundland hotel. I think sound business principles would dictate that this be done, because anyone who has had the experience of travelling through St. John's knows that this hotel is constantly
Supply-Transport
overcrowded and that one can rarely get in there. I believe the Newfoundland board of trade has brought this subject to the attention of the minister on several occasions and I hope when the minister again brings in his estimates he will be able to report that this important hotel is substantially larger than it is today.
The other matter I wish to direct to the attention of the minister at this time is the necessity of an alternative airstrip to the St. John's airport. The hon. gentleman officiated at the official opening of the magnificent new terminal at St. John's a little over a year ago. However, I am sure that he, like many other hon. members, has the experience of travelling by air in this part of the country. He knows that this is an area where flying is often hampered by dense fog and where weather conditions generally are uncertain. It happens on occasions that the airport is closed in for considerable length of time. Only a few weeks ago it was closed for eight or nine days. This necessitated the use of air facilities at Argentia, which is 90 miles out of St. John's. Passengers leaving by T.C.A. had to be transported 90 miles over secondary roads before they could get to the air carriers 90 miles away.
Were Trans-Canada Air Lines to agree to providing an alternative airstrip they would find an ideal location about 20 miles from St. John's, an area which is virtually fog free all the year round. At any rate it has longer periods of clear visibility than the particular area where the St. John's airport is located. I am thinking of the general area from 18 to 30 miles outside the city on the trans-Canada highway, a good paved road. This would be an ideal location for an alternative airstrip. I believe repeated representations have been made to the minister's department by various organizations in Newfoundland, including the board of trade, with regard to this matter, in addition to representations from members of the travelling public.
There is one last question I wish to raise, and it concerns a matter which is vital to all of us in that part of Canada. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will agree. I am referring to the need for the provision of an east coast ferry. As I have pointed out, the trans-Canada highway across our province will not be completed for perhaps another ten years at the rate we are going. The advantages of a ferry service between eastern Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada are too numerous to mention here. It would certainly lead to a great influx of tourists to the most populated part of the province, namely the Avalon peninsula where almost two thirds of

Supply-Transport
our population live. As things stand now, the ferry William Carson is fulfilling a vital role. Nevertheless, it is located on the extreme eastern end of the island, and until the trans-Canada highway is completed this ferry is virtually useless to the vast majority of the population. I might say to the minister that even when the trans-Canada highway is completed I think he will have to give consideration to establishing another ferry from the west coast. In any event, I would ask that the minister take this matter into consideration. I shall have further questions of a more specific nature to ask when the relevant items come up for consideration.


Mr. Granger:: The estimates of the department of the Minister of Transport are always awaited with great interest by myself and by many of the people of my constituency, because in my constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador there are two of the largest airports in the world, Goose and Gander.
The northern part of the island depends on the minister's department for its communications. I speak of the Labrador coast where radiotelephones and communications are part of the minister's responsibilities. I am thinking also of the services of the C.N.R. which are so important to northern Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador and which, again, come under the minister's jurisdiction.
Before talking about some of the things which particularly affect my riding I should like to refer to remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for St. John's East. I noted what the hon. member said regarding the need for another airstrip to supplement Torbay. As a matter of fact, I happen to be one of the passengers to whom he referred as having had to drive 90 miles from St. John's in order to board a T.C.A. flight at Argentia. I certainly endorse the hon. member's suggestion that an alternate airstrip be provided for use in the case of bad weather at Torbay.
The hon. member also mentioned the need for a new ferry. Certainly that is something with which we can all agree wholeheartedly. As to his comment about the trans-Canada highway not being finished for 10 years, it is true that if the present administration remains in power for that long it is going to take a long time to finish the trans-Canada highway, but with the change in government that has to come the trans-Canada highway is bound to go forward much quicker under the more liberal arrangements which will be made with the Atlantic provinces by the future Liberal government.

There was a small omission in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East which I should like to bring to his attention. As a matter of fact I had intended to get in touch with him about this so that he might use his influence with the Minister of Transport. My point is this: in the wintertime, particularly after a heavy snowfall, the road to the Torbay airport is frequently not ploughed properly simply because there is a small section of the road which the city says the airport should plough, and which the Department of Transport says the city should plough. On one occasion last winter the road was ploughed, shovelled or opened by someone to the width of one car. The result was that when the planes did come in after the snowfall and traffic began to accumulate at the airport, a traffic jam developed and the cars were unable to pass in either direction and the passengers had to walk. I happen, Mr. Chairman, to be a constituent of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Kucherepa:: You have an excellent member.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: As one of his constituents I am going to make an appeal to him. Some might say that my political philosophy and that of the hon. member for St. John's East are not the same and that is true-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, I don't know.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: -but let me say that I have some constituents-very few fortunately- who do not agree with the party I represent and I would expect the same treatment from my member as I accord to those constituents of mine who through faulty judgment fail to support me.
Let me now return from a discussion of the problems of my member to a discussion of the problems of my own constituents. I should like to talk to the Minister of Transport about the needs of the town of Gander. I am fortunate in the respect that I believe the minister knows this town very well. As a matter of fact, the minister was so interested in the town that he paid it a visit during the winter of 1958 when Gander was not at its best and travelling could not have been particularly comfortable. Nevertheless the minister did visit Gander during that winter and explained in a conversation there, I believe, that should his government be returned to power Gander would go up and up and up. It is in connection with Gander's future that I want to talk particularly and I am very glad that the minister has seen Gander both in the winter and again since under more pleasant and less contentious circumstances. I am always glad to welcome the Minister of Transport to my constituency.

There has been, I think understandably, quite a bit of concern on the part of the people of Gander as to its future in the jet age. Gander is probably the best example of a town created by the modern age of air travel. Gander is truly a product of the air age. It has today a beautiful modern townsite with lovely homes, one of the very best air terminals in the world and all the paraphernalia that makes for good living in a modern town including up to date schools and fine churches. Everything there depends for its sustenance and its future on what happens to Gander as an airport.
Before proceeding I should like to suggest to the minister that perhaps during the discussion of his estimates or at least before the session ends he might find it convenient to make a statement as to what he thinks the future holds for Gander. I am personally satisfied that the future of Gander is assured. We are now just entering the air age. The large number of air passengers travelling now will surely have increased tremendously, let us say 10 years from now. I read with interest an article appearing in the May issue of Flying, a widely read aviation magazine which deals with the future of air travel and the coming passenger boom in the world's airlines which would have a definite effect on Gander. The article states in part:
American spending on foreign travel in 1950 was $1,200 million: it should double that and more in this year of 1960.
I do not have time to refer to the arguments the author uses to support his contention. The article continues:
But for the air alone-and only in terms of those countries outside the U.S.S.R. and China, who report regularly to the international civil aviation organization-the curve of world scheduled passenger traffic may well go from an estimated 104 million passengers this year to about 186 million in 1970. These totals cover both domestic and international travel. Assuming that the proportionate share of international travel may increase during the decade, the volume of foreign touring by scheduled airline in 1970 may well be more than 50 million passengers per year, as compared with about 19 million today.
Another article in the same issue points out that 175,000 passengers participated in mass passenger transportation by chartered aircraft on transatlantic flights alone. With the huge increase in passenger traffic I cannot see how the modern jet plane alone will be able to account for all of it. The piston and the smaller turboprop planes will participate in this traffic. We cannot overlook the fact, however, that jet travel is increasing and becoming cheaper for the average passenger. If Gander is to compete successfully in this changing air age it will need a longer runway than it has at present. I wish to make a special appeal to the minister in this regard.
79951-0-282
Supply-Transport
As I said before, the airport at Gander represents a large investment both by the people and the government. I am sure the minister is interested in the future of Gander from both the standpoint of humanity and the standpoint of the heavy investment which the government has made in it. If Gander is to become a real jet airport it must have the facilities to handle modern jet aircraft. Gander has the best terminal building in North America. The communications facilities there are second to none in the world. The Gander oceanic air traffic control facility with its accompanying approach control facility and tower control facility are of a very high order. Gander has the latest instrument approach control system and an instrument landing system. The snow clearing facilities for the winter operation are among the best certainly on this continent if not in the world. For example, during the month of March this year the total snowfall for Gander was in excess of 65 inches yet the airport was not closed for any period in spite of this record amount of snow. What Gander does lack is a jet runway.
The longest runway at Gander is 8,600 feet. We require a minimum of 9,600 feet or in round figures 10,000 feet. The runway length presents a problem to the pilot. For example, when a pilot is landing under instrument control it may be that his approach is a little higher than normal or his speed may be somewhat faster than normal.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was recounting the splendid facilities at Gander airport. It has practically everything a modem airport needs in the way of facilities to look after aircraft landing in almost all kinds of weather. I was pointing out, however, that a longer runway is necessary if Gander is really to continue its important place in aviation during the jet age. I pointed out that the longest runway at Gander was 8,600 feet and that a runway approximately 10,000 feet long is necessary today.
For example, when a pilot is landing under instrument control he may come in a little high and fast. Normally that may not matter but if in bad weather and difficult conditions he has a long runway on which to land he is going to feel much more confident and will

Supply-Transport
make a landing when otherwise under marginal circumstances he might decide he had to go elsewhere. This is particularly important today when jets are in general use. If the investment at Gander is to be protected and if the people Who live at Gander are to have a reasonably secure future it is most necessary that a longer runway be provided.
Many of the aircraft operating through Gander are en route to or from Europe and for operational reasons the pilot has to make up his mind whether he will land at Gander or choose an alternative airport. The length of the runway definitely would be a factor in his mind. The fact that the jet age is not passing Gander by is very well illustrated by the fact that every week a number of jet aircraft land at Gander even with the handicap of what for these times is a comparatively short runway. I would ask the minister to ascertain how many of the larger jet aircraft use Gander at the present time.
Another good reason for the belief that Gander will continue to be used is the amount of freight that is handled there. Last Saturday, I believe, one of the large international airlines shipped 50,000 pounds of lobster and before the season is over they hope to ship a total of 800,000 pounds. That is one commodity alone which is being shipped from Gander. If my understanding is correct, air freight will play a very important part in commercial aviation in the future. As a matter of fact, it seems quite evident that the air transportation of passengers and freight is bound to grow enormously during the next few years. With this in mind it would seem to be a logical step to provide the great airport at Gander with one or, if possible, two runways adequate in length to handle the type of aircraft now coming into general use.
For a few minutes I should like to talk about communications on the Labrador coast. The coast of Labrador depends upon the Department of Transport for its radio communications system. The small settlements along the Labrador coast depend on radiotelephone sets for communication with the outside world. I have mentioned this matter on various occasions before. Communications on the Labrador coast are one of the matters which the Department of Transport inherited at the time of confederation. Truly the places are small and a comparatively small proportion of the population of Canada is involved, but nevertheless their problem is a real one. I would ask the minister to consider providing radiotelephones for Batteau, Williams Harbour,

Georges Cove, Fishing Ships Harbour, Spotted Island, Separation Point and Paradise.
These radiotelephone sets are small and comparatively inexpensive but their importance is very great. Their value is far out of proportion to their cost. As I have said, the communications system, through inheritance, is one of the services to be provided by the Department of Transport and I hope that in the near future these communities which are without radiotelephone sets will be provided with them. May I repeat that the cost is small but the value to the people concerned is exceedingly great. These sets may mean the difference between life and death, particularly during the long winter when the coast of Labrador is locked up tight.
With regard to airstrips, I should like to mention St. Anthony. The provincial government spent some money to develop a small airstrip at St. Anthony, one at North West River and one at Nain. Those at St. Anthony and North West River need money spent on them so that they can better handle planes particularly during the freeze-up and breakup periods. Again the amount of money required is not great but the need is most urgent. This is particularly so because these small airstrips will provide a means of communication with the hospitals on the Labrador coast and also will provide a means of transportation all year round for the people who live in these remote areas.
I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for St. John's East, in extending thanks to the minister for the icebreakers which have been serving a useful purpose in Newfoundland, especially in places in my riding like Botwood, Lewisporte and others. These places are deeply appreciative of the service of these icebreakers now located in Newfoundland.
Before I sit down, I should like to pay tribute to the officers and crews of the Canadian National coastal steamers which operate in Newfoundland waters. Naturally I am thinking of those that operate in my own district which extends from the central part of Newfoundland or which from a marine viewpoint, extend along the coast from Notre Dame bay to the northernmost part of Labrador. The crews of these ships are carrying on a very great service in the tradition of those seamen who for generations have served the coast of Newfoundland. In some parts of Newfoundland today other means of transportation are supplanting or supplementing the coastal steamer, but in northern areas the coastal steamer is extremely vital. These men are carrying on, as I said, in the great tradition of the crews of

such ships as the Glencoe, the Sagona, the Prospero and the Caribou, and they are doing so today in ships like the Nonia, the Springdale, the Burgeo and the Northern Ranger. These seamen are carrying out their work efficiently, with courtesy and kindliness and, above all, with a splendid sense of duty.
In conclusion I should like to go back to the question of Gander and ask if the minister could not find it possible to make a statement which will clarify what is likely to be the future of this important airport town.


Mr. Nugent:: I do not intend to take up very much time of the committee tonight, but I thought I should say a few words about air travel particularly because of its importance to Edmonton. Our new international airport at Edmonton is now at the stage where its runways, taxi strips and aprons are about finished and there appears to be a good possibility there will be air service out of that airport by the latter part of this year. I can assure the minister that we appreciate the thoughtfulness of his department in making sure that the original plans were changed in order that we might have runways built that would accommodate the largest and fastest long range planes that will be coming to Edmonton as a result of its position as the crossroads of the north. We have been playing a very important part in this field for years. I want to say that we appreciate the fact we will have a new airport which will assure we will be able to continue to play a very important part in long range air travel.
I am wondering a little bit tonight, however, about the local services. At the present time we have a very good T.C.A. service from Edmonton to Calgary. These two cities are less than 200 miles apart and, for years, Edmonton has had the good fortune of having a good city airport in the middle of the city. Its runways are not long enough to accommodate the modern fast transports, but they can accommodate the Viscount type of plane. The flight from Edmonton to Calgary takes about 45 minutes, and you are in the centre of the city within five minutes after getting off the plane. There are half a dozen such flights back and forth every day which accommodate a lot of people. We have a lot of businessmen out there with a lot of hustle who appreciate being able to do a day's work in another city and get back in the evening. Our new international airport is about 20 miles out of town and, depending on traffic conditions, this could mean a trip by taxi or limousine service of from half an hour to 45 minutes longer. A journey of this length by taxi is not much in relation to the long trips by air coast to coast or intercontinental 79951-0-282J
Supply-Transport
but in relation to a flight of 45 minutes duration the possibility of adding a 45-minute taxi trip is one that causes a little disquietude.
There has been no announcement by T.CA.. that they intend to discontinue the flights into the centre of Edmonton. On the other hand, they have not announced that they will continue to give service both to the new international airport and the one in the centre of the city. I think there are passengers for both, and I think both could be paying trips. I am hoping that T.C.A., when the time comes to move some of these facilities from the centre of Edmonton out to the international airport will not move them all. I hope we will still be able to have this quick trip to the very centre of the city of Edmonton.
There is a second aspect to this matter. I feel that the advantages in having an airport in the centre of the city are very great. I believe we are just starting that part of the air age in which vertical take-off flights and short run take-off flights will be coming to the fore. I feel it would be extremely hard to replace this airport. We hardly know or fully appreciate the value it may prove to be in the future. If there were to be a discontinuance of the operation of any major air line into our city centre airport this might weaken our arguments for the retention of that airport. There are other air lines such as C.P.A. and P.W.A. that are presently using this airport. I hope that T.C.A. does not set an example by moving its entire facilities out to the other airport.
I should like to say one more word about the new airport. The plans I have seen for the administration building at the new international airport indicate that it will be a credit, not only to the airport but to the country. Since Edmonton has been the northern centre for air transport for years, and since we have had many of the old bush pilots operating out of Edmonton who have done so much to open up the north and who have done so much for air travel in Canada throughout the years, it is hoped we could make a little gesture in memory of some of our air pioneers. There are plans for a plaque which they would like to have erected. I have brought to the attention of the minister a very suitable, large-sized wall space which I feel would be ideal for a mural. I hope that the small extra cost that might be entailed in making something really worth while and decorative out of that wall space will not deter the department from giving serious consideration to making this gesture to those who have done so much.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in making a few, as usual, brief remarks on the minister's estimates, I must express my appreciation of

Supply-Transport
the minister's courtesy and the promptness with which he has dealt with any problems I have brought to his attention, regardless of the branch of his department which was concerned. One must give the minister credit for his industry. I also want to express my appreciation for the courtesy and promptness I have experienced in my dealings with the deputy minister. The deputy minister reminds me of the Baldwin apples I used to grow. He is a very firm sort of person. He is a long lasting type and he has an attractive colour. I have always been extremely pleased with my relationship with the deputy minister and with his staff and the head of the various branches.
We all realize that the minister's department is a large and rapidly growing one which is required to meet new problems almost daily because of the rapid development of our country and the changing circumstances from region to region or from area to area. The only suggestion I have to make with respect to the administration at this time is that possibly we are reaching the point where there should be one or two associate ministers in the Department of Transport, particularly in view of the great development of air travel.
However, I am not going to say much along those lines at the present time because the royal commission on transportation is conducting an investigation and organizations throughout Canada are making their representations. I have been extremely pleased to note that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a representation on April 25 of this year and also British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, representing the tree fruit growers of southeastern British Columbia, some time in February. I am sure we all look forward to this report. I think it would be more appropriate to deal with policy in general and with suggestions after the royal commission on transportation has had an opportunity to hear the representations made by various organizations across Canada.
However, before leaving my constituency to attend this session I was urged by a large number of the people I have the honour to represent to take advantage of the first opportunity I had to bring to the attention of the house a problem that concerns the people of southeastern British Columbia, namely the poor passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway. I have mentioned it on previous occasions. 1 want to take this opportunity again and keep my promise to the people I have the honour to represent.
For those who are not well acquainted with the geography of British Columbia I might say that the Kettle Valley railway is a railway that commences at Hope, a point a little
[Mr. Herridge.i
over 100 miles east of Vancouver on the main line of the C.P.R., traverses the southern part of British Columbia and ends at Medicine Hat in Alberta. What I am going to say this evening has the support of all the people of southeastern British Columbia, all the chambers of commerce, the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, all the trade unions in the area, all the farmers' organizations, all the municipalities affected and all the employees of the railroad concerned.
I have dealt with the details of this question previously and I am not going to repeat myself this evening. However, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the area which this railway serves is one of the richest parts of Canada as far as the production of natural resources from our forests, our mines, our lands and our waters is concerned. The total production last year in the area served by this railway was somewhere between $300 million and $325 million. Incidentally, I might mention that a great deal of that production was as a result of the operation of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited, which I note, according to the Nelson News of April 9, 1960 had profits in 1959 of $16,704,310. When you come to realize that the Canadian Pacific railway owns at least 50 per cent of the stock of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and as a result would make between $8 million and $9 million out of the company itself last year, without the profits of the railway which are considerable because of the freight transportation, the C.P.R. should normally have a great interest in the people in the area who produce that great wealth partly to the benefit of the Canadian Pacific railway. That is part of my argument.
I remember as a boy when sections were built to Kootenay Landing, then from Nelson to Midway, later from Midway to Hope and finally between Nelson and Creston along the south shore of Kootenay lake. The operation commenced in about the year 1911. It was a very well patronized passenger and freight service throughout the year. Of course, with the coming of good roads and other forms of travel there was a reduction in the number of passengers carried by the railroad until we finally found ourselves in the last year or two served by a Budd car. We have been reduced from a full-scale passenger service with sleeping cars, baggage cars, dining cars and all the rest of it to a Budd car with no sleeping accommodation, very frequently no coffee to drink and usually dry sandwiches. That is the position to which we are reduced in the southeastern portion

of British Columbia as a result of the refusal of the C.P.R. to recognize its responsibilities to the people of this area.
Naturally this state of affairs caused protests. The people of British Columbia have a habit of not lying down when they have something about which to protest. Anyone would have noticed that had he attended the recent convention of the Canadian Legion at Windsor, B.C. The delegates soon let their voices be heard as to what they thought about certain matters, as do the people of British Columbia generally. From what I can observe we are a little bit more active in voicing our protests than are some of the people say in eastern Canada. I am amazed at how quiescent some of the maritime people are about the problems in some areas which require immediate attention, problems which would create a real storm of protest in the area I represent. However, I represent a highly intelligent vocal people who expect certain standards maintained in transportation and services of that sort.
Protests have been voiced all over the district. Representations were made to the C.P.R. by the various organizations I have mentioned. I am quite sure the minister knows about the representations-he received a good many-to the board of transport commissioners; and naturally all of them sent copies to the member for Kootenay West because they depend on him to voice their opinions in this chamber and to put forward their views. In any event, as a result of the rumpus generally throughout the district- and as a result I think of the good offices of the Minister of Transport; I always give credit where it is due-the board of transport commissioners decided to hold a hearing.
The hearing was held at Nelson, B.C. on June 22, 23 and 24 of last year, at Vancouver on July 2 and at Ottawa on July 30 and December 8, 1959. The hearing was before Mr. H. H. Griffin, assistant chief commissioner; Mr. L. J. Knowles, commissioner-I do not want any misunderstanding; that is not Mr. Stanley Knowles-and Mr. J. M. Woodard, commissioner. The appearances included Mr. K. D. M. Spence, Q.C. for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Mr. L. M. McBride, Q.C., for Nelson chamber of commerce, associated chambers of commerce, southeastern British Columbia, and joint running trades, railroad brotherhoods; Mr. A. L. Pearson and M. A. Weller for the attorney general of the province of British Columbia; Mr. Ken Smith, Mr. H. L. Robinson and Mr. Remo Morandini representing local 480, international union of mine, mill and smelter workers, Trail, B.C.; and Mr. T. S. Short-house, mayor of the city of Nelson, B.C. I
Supply-Transport
might say that all the business people I have spoken to, representatives of the chambers of commerce and so on, inform me how much they appreciated the well prepared brief by local 480 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers. They had really spent a good deal of time on research and presented a well documented and logical brief.
The hearing was held by reason of dissatisfaction existing as to the train service being furnished by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on its line between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Medicine Hat via Nelson. The board gave notice that it would hold its hearing and receive submissions as to the service. The hearings were held on the dates I have mentioned. There was represented before the board in addition to the railway company the attorney general of British Columbia; the running trades, being the brotherhood of locomotive engineers, the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and the brotherhood of trainmen; the Nelson chamber of commerce; the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, which included the chambers of commerce of Kimberley, Cranbrook, Kaslo, Creston, Nakusp, Salmo, Trail, Rossland and also Lethbridge, Alberta; the Okanagan and boundary associated boards of trade, which includes as affiliated boards those of Summer-land, Naramata, Penticton, Osoyoos, Oliver, Keremeos, Rutland, Westbank, Okanagan Falls, Greenwood and Cawston; the international mine, mill and smelter workers, being Trail, local 480; Kimberley and Riondel, local 561; Beaverdell, local 900; Nelson and district, local 901; and Greenwood-Phoenix and district, local 1013. The members of these locals and their families make up a large part of the population of the Kootenays. Also represented was the Kootenay lake general hospital and the medical associated clinic of Nelson. A submission was also received from the association of Kootenay municipalities.
Mr, Chairman, I just want to deal briefly with the judgment. I want this on the record because I am sending a copy of Hansard to a number of people who wanted to get the details of the judgment and it saves a great deal of time in having all this copied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I like to be frank about it, anyway. The summary is as follows:
Re: Service of Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Vancouver and Medicine Hat via Nelson, British Columbia.
The board of transport commissioners held a very complete hearing in this matter. The evidence was heard at Nelson, with subsequent adjourned

Supply-Transport
sessions at Vancouver and Ottawa. Members of the board travelled the line between Fort McLeod and Vancouver.
The board gave its judgment on January 4. 1960. It found that:
(1)	Since the service was begun in 1911, the railway company had made every reasonable endeavour to attract passenger traffic;
(2)	The present service (furnished by rail-diesel cars) is a curtailed one by reason of depredations and threats of depredations to the railway company's line;
(3)	A daily rail-diesel car service in each direction between Vancouver and Medicine Hat would meet the demands of the area, provided that reasonable amenities are furnished to passengers and provided that the travel time from Vancouver to Nelson would not be more than 15 hours;
(4)	The need of the residents of the area presently requires a daily service running (without any scheduled lay-overs) in each direction between Vancouver and Nelson.
The board would have ordered such service between Vancouver and Nelson if it had been satisfied that it would be safe for the railway company to comply with such an order.
Apparently it overlooked the fact that freight is going over the line daily and the employees are willing to operate the passenger trains. It continues:
It was not satisfied that it would be safe and made no order.
The province of British Columbia made a proposal toward the sharing of costs of further protection to be afforded to the railway. This did not result in any conclusion.
I do not quite know what that means. I continue:
The board concluded its judgment by saying that, at such time as
(a)	a sufficient time has elapsed without depredations occurring in the area as to remove, beyond reasonable doubt, the threat to the travelling public and to the railway, or
(b)	such protective measures have been taken as are, in the opinion of the police forces administering such measures, sufficient to protect the travelling public and the railway,
then, if the railway company has not, of its own accord, resumed a service which in the then existing circumstances meets the reasonable needs of the area, an application may be made to the board to require it to do so.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Nelson is re-applying to the board for reconsideration of this judgment in view of the changed circumstances. I have been informed of that fact not only by the chamber of commerce of Nelson but by the secretaries of the various railroad organizations directly involved along the line of the Kettle Valley railroad and a number of other organizations and persons. Apparently the hitch in this thing at the present time is this protection to the railway from the depredations of some people.
I would also like to bring to the minister's attention this aspect of matter. In the Nelson News of March 3 I read the following;
Attorney general seeks Kootenay train service.
[Mr. Herridge.)
Attorney General Bonner intends to take up again with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners the question of renewal of fulltime train service through the Doukhobor areas of the Kootenays, he told the legislature Wednesday night.
The minister replied to Kootenay member questioners in the house that the province had offered to pay a third of the cost up to $50,000 of railway protection through the Doukhobor area, providing the federal government and the C.P.R. absorbed the other two thirds.
The board of transport commissioners had promised to make an order compelling the C.F.R. to restore full service "if we would guarantee the safety of the trains".
"But I want to say to the house that I can't really guarantee safety of your securities in your safes at night,... It is impossible to expect anyone to give an absolute guarantee under the circumstances.''
I think the Attorney General of British Columbia is correct in that statement. No one can give an absolute guarantee under any circumstances today with regard to almost any matter or question.
I rose tonight, after reviewing the case very briefly indeed, to suggest on behalf of my constituents and the organizations I have mentioned that we ought to have a satisfactory passenger service resumed on the Kettle Valley railway. The people in that area would consider it quite satisfactory if they had a Budd car, and a cafe-sleeping car, so that there would be provision for meals to be taken under civilized circumstances.
In this respect I might say that I had a letter only today from a member of the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, Kootenay lodge No. 558, Nelson, British Columbia, and I will quote part of this letter. He says:
According to today's paper the kettle is still boiling here by means of a resolution passed by the B.C. chamber of commerce at their 9th annual meeting in Vancouver supporting the much needed passenger service between Medicine Hat and Vancouver-
Then he adds a postscript:
Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention that a passenger leaving Calgary is unable to obtain as much as a cup of coffee until he reaches Cranbrook due to the transfer being changed from Lethbridge to Coalhurst. The service seems to be getting worse instead of better.
I have travelled on this train from Medicine Hat to Castlegar and from Castlegar to Vancouver. I have been on the train a couple of times when you could not even get a cup of coffee. On one occasion returning from Vancouver women with children could not get a drop of milk for their children, any sandwiches to eat or refreshments of any kind. That is not good enough on a passenger train travelling through the garden of Eden which produces some $300 million to $325 million worth of wealth in this country annually.

In conclusion I do urge the Minister of Transport to use his good offices and all his influence to secure a reconsideration of this matter, in view of the fact that the provincial government has offered to pay one third of the cost of police protection on this railway. This police protection is required because of certain incidents in the past on the part of a certain sect that reside in southeast British Columbia. I urge that the federal government matches the provincial government's offer and that the minister use his good offices with the C.P.R. In this particular instance that means Mr. Crump. I ask the minister to persuade Mr. Crump to take action, because I think we will get it. I knew of him as a small boy in Revelstoke many years ago but he has gone a distance above me now that he is president of the C.P.R. and I only a humble member of parliament. But I do hope the minister uses his good offices to get the cost of this police protection shared between the province, the federal government and the railway and obtain a resumption of a satisfactory train service on the Kettle Valley railway at the earliest possible date, in fairness to the people of southeastern British Columbia.


Mr. McGee:: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? How long has it been since one of his constituents bombed the railroad?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman asked me a question which he knows is not true in the first instance. Even if he had asked me the question: how long is it since one of a certain sect bombed the railroad, I certainly would not be able to answer, correctly because it has not been proved to date exactly who caused this depredation, although there are certain suspicions. But I can assure the hon. member that the vast majority of the people of Kootenay West are very law-abiding and responsible citizens.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourbonnais:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a problem peculiar to my riding, a matter which comes under the Department of Transport. For that reason, I shall not take too much of hon. members' time.
For more than a year, all operations on the Soulanges canal have stopped. Formerly, they brought a revenue of one third to one half million dollars a year to the citizens of my constituency, not counting the amounts spent by the crews of the ships using that waterway.
Supply-Transport
Since April 1, 1960, hardly $30,000 has been spent for the maintenance of that now disused canal. This is far from being adequate revenue for keeping the economy of the Soulanges area at the same level as in the neighbouring districts.
At this time, it would be difficult to justify the expenditure of a large sum of money for the maintenance of the Soulanges canal as when the waterway was in operation. On the other hand, it would be only fair to have some work done to renew the mobile equipment of the canal, like swing bridges and lock gates. It would be unfair if that waterway, which, when it was built divided the most fertile land of the Soulanges district and modified its economic character, were simply abandoned.
As the representative of that area, I have received numerous requests from municipalities along the canal. I think those requests are fair and reasonable.
Among the most significant requests in those submissions, I shall point out the following: That running water be maintained in the canal; that municipalities have the right to draw water free of charge therein to feed their water mains; that present bridges be replaced by jetties-I note that the estimates of the Department of Transport include an amount of $100,000 for the renewal of three of those bridges-that the lighting be maintained at the entrance of the jetties; that land adjacent to the canal never be used as a public or private dump; that passage for keeping up the flow of Delisle river, of Red river and Graisse river be maintained and regularly cleaned; that the fences of land adjacent to the canal be maintained and weeds be cut regularly; and, finally, that the land belonging to the canal be taxed on the same basis as property owned by individuals.
Moreover, three municipalities, whose boundaries run along the canal, approached me to ask that they be given priority when certain lots belonging to the canal system are put up for sale.
I want to point out to hon. members that since the Soulanges canal was closed to traffic no substantial revenue has come into the district. It is therefore justified that municipalities along the canal should ask some compensation from the federal government for the taxes they are not levying on canal property, which is estimated at some $230,000.
It is also reasonable to ask that swing bridges built for the type of traffic existing 50 years ago be replaced by solid roads built

Supply-Transport
for modern vehicles, and that the lock gates
in the two strategic spots, be replaced bypermanent structures. The cost can be justified by the fact that they would eliminate the maintenance required with the bridges and lock gates in their present condition, and the hazards involved.
Once those jobs are done, the towns of Dorion, Pincourt and ile Perrot could set up a corporation to instal the lines needed to supply water to their respective populations, which on the whole represent about 20,000 people. Such a project would cost about $1 million. Such a project could be worked out in two ways, either by setting up a company formed of the municipalities of Dorion, lie Perrot and Pincourt, or by a syndicate of private interests. At present, there are many of them who are prepared to form such a syndicate. .
From past experience, following the closing down of canals such as the former Welland and Beauharnois canals, I may state that it is in the interest of the government and the areas concerned to dispose as soon as possible of this disused waterway.
In addition to being used as a water system, the Soulanges canal properties could also help the development of housing projects and of suitable locations for the establishment of light and heavy industries. The eastern end of the canal, barely two miles from the St. Lawrence seaway, lends itself very well to the establishment of primary and secondary industries.
Upon completion of the bridges connecting Montreal island to the Vaudreuil peninsula, and incorporated in the future 401 superhighway system, there is bound to be extensive housing developments in that whole section of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges peninsula. The site will be a natural one for industries, provided municipal services are adequately planned. An adequate electric power supply added to the already existing manpower and perfect highways, only drinking water supplies need be added to make that section the most attractive in every respect in the entire Montreal suburban area.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to give very serious consideration to the dredging of a 25-foot shipping channel between the St. Lawrence seaway and the east or west limits of the Soulanges canal, in case industries should be located in that area and require the type of transportation which is common along the St. Lawrence seaway.
(Text):


Mr. Tucker:: I have a few remarks I should like to make at this time concerning matters

which in my opinion are very important and urgent. Under this heading, Newfoundland again suffers. For example, the hotel accommodation at present available in St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland with an estimated population of over 80,000, is entirely inadequate. St. John's is the eastern terminal point of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the trans-Canada highway, Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships. It is also the terminal point of the C.N.R. Newfoundland service. In addition, it is the point of entry into Canada for shipping coming from the British Isles and from Europe. All this shows the urgent need of a hotel with the necessary facilities to take care of the travelling public.
The Newfoundland hotel which is owned and operated by the C.N.R. is inadequate in its accommodations and facilities for the needs of the people of Newfoundland, quite apart from the claims of the travelling public, including representatives of the government and organizations in and near St. John's which require facilities for conventions, banquets, meetings, and so on. The result is that many conferences and conventions are steered away from St. John's. This state of affairs is bad not only for the economy of the province but also from the point of view of increased transportation revenue for the Canadian National Railways and from the point of view of public relations. Immediate steps should be taken to improve this situation by providing adequate accommodation.
It cannot be said that the Newfoundland hotel does not operate at a profit because it was only a few days ago that I asked the Minister of Transport if the hotel operated with a surplus or a deficit for the years 1958-59. The minister informed me that in those years the hotel operated with a surplus of more than $300,000.
In addition, the tourist trade which has increased considerably since confederation is suffering from this inconvenience. Coupled with this we still have our narrow gauge railway. We are the only province in Canada with a railway system different from that in the other provinces across the dominion. Newfoundland is, nevertheless one of the ten provinces of Canada. The present Prime Minister said that we should have a standard gauge railway and so I ask when is the government of Canada going to give Newfoundland her rightful place in confederation and put her railway and hotel facilities on a par with those of the other provinces. If this were done it would be a step in the right direction. I ask the minister if any serious consideration has been given to the statement made by the Prime Minister in St.

John's in April of 1959, a report of which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail in these words:
Newfoundland's narrow gauge railway should be converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.
The people of Newfoundland have waited patiently for some action to be taken by the Canadian National Railways. In the light of this statement, surely after three years of study and consideration it is time to do something of a tangible nature to meet this great handicap. I would suggest that the minister have his officials make an investigation and estimate the cost of constructing a standard gauge railway from St. John's to Port aux Basques and then give the province of Newfoundland a grant for this amount which would have to be spent on the trans-Canada highway.
I am given to understand that there are two systems employed when planes make landings at airfields. One is known as I.L.S., that is instrument landing system, and the other is the G.C.A., or ground control approach system. The airport at St. John's should have all possible modern facilities. As far as I can ascertain the Department of Transport has one instrument landing system which I believe is used on runways Nos. 17 and 35. At the present time Trans-Canada Air Lines craft are more or less at the mercy of the United States officials at Pep-perrell air force base because they own and operate the ground control approach system by which planes can be talked to their landing places. Without this system the pilot must land his plane with the instrument landing system which does not allow him to land with less than a 300 foot ceiling and a forward visibility of one mile.
I appreciate the operational cost of the ground control approach but since the United States air force operates such a system and since they are vacating St. John's would it not be possible for us to buy this system which I believe is mobile. If this is not possible 1 would strongly urge the minister to install another instrument landing system at the airport at St. John's. I am told that the landing facilities there are the same today as they were 20 years ago and that no improvements have been made. With the ground control approach system planes could land with a 700 foot ceiling and one mile visibility. We have more hills and fog near the airport at St. John's than there are at many other terminals elsewhere in Canada. T.C.A. flights in Newfoundland are very popular and well patronized no doubt
Supply-Transport
because of the efficiency of the airline officials who are second to none throughout the dominion.
In my speech this year on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I made brief reference to the great need of a freight-passenger boat which would operate from St. John's to Halifax or Sydney. I cannot find words strong enough to point out the urgency and importance of the C.N.R. operating such a route. Many thousands living in Newfoundland at present hope and believe in the not too distant future we shall have most if not all of the trans-Canada highway paved. As soon as this highway meets trans-Canada specifications thousands of tourists will drive from the United States and mainland Canada to the east coast of Newfoundland. Would it not be reasonable to expect that they might wish to join a ship at St. John's and have a relaxing boat trip from St. John's to Halifax or Sydney rather than motor back approximately 600 miles from St. John's to Port aux Basques?
At this juncture I feel I must refer to the operation of the William Carson. When this boat began operating in Newfoundland a couple of years ago we thought she was too big and a waste of money. There was no doubt in the minds of many that she was more than able to look after all the passengers who cared to travel on her and was able to handle all auto traffic and commercial trucks and freight. Last year this ship carried approximately 8,050 passenger automobiles. There were 3,492 automobiles handled under the freight plan and 1,264 freight trucks. The ship made 288 round trips and carried many tons of freight. There were 37,841 passengers carried to and from Port aux Basques in 1958 and 58,435 passengers carried in 1959, an increase of 20,594. Last summer there were many times when the ship could not take care of all the passengers desiring accommodation for themselves and their cars.
Early last August my family had an experience which is a very common one to passengers and which 1 hope, should the occasion arise again, will be taken care of in a better way than it was last summer. My wife, two of my sons and myself arrived at Sydney on Sunday, August 2 at 10.30 p.m., half an hour before the scheduled sailing time. I immediately went to the ticket agent and asked if the reservations I had made in Halifax had been confirmed and I was told that they had no record of any reservations for me and that they would not be able to let me know until midnight whether we could get passage on the Carson. There was scarcely any standing room in the waiting room at North Sydney, much less seating

Supply-Transport
space. The room was crowded with passengers, many of them with babies and young children and many of them very much annoyed.
After making several trips to the ticket agent we were finally told that we could not get on the Carson but that the Burgeo was making a special trip from North Sydney to Port aux Basques to take the passengers desiring passage to Port aux Basques and that she would not be ready to sail until a couple of hours. Again the ticket agent said he could not give any assurance that we would be able to get on her. However, about 2.30 a.m. we were sold a ticket and we boarded the ship about 3.00 a.m. We found to our great dismay that no meals or lunches were being served on the boat and that there were but two stewards to take care of the passengers. We were fortunate in getting a room. Many did not.
About 8.30 a.m. we went to get breakfast but found that the salon was closed and learned that only approximately 50 per cent of the passengers, who totalled over 100, had breakfast. We arrived at Port aux Basques about 11.30 a.m. where a train was awaiting our arrival, and in a short time the train was in motion. We had to wait in line to get into the dining car and finally made it at 1.30 p.m. We then had our first meal since having lunch before leaving Halifax at noon on Sunday, the previous day. No meals were served on the train from Halifax to Truro or from Truro to North Sydney.
I tried to make a telephone call from the waiting room at Sydney to ascertain if I could get space on a T.C.A. flight but the telephones were out of order. I heard many of the passengers say that they would not make such a trip again or go through such an ordeal, and of course that goes for me as well.
Even at this time of the year if you want to go to Newfoundland or leave Newfoundland and travel by the Carson you cannot get accommodation when you require it. You must make your reservation well in advance. I would therefore ask the minister to see that proper facilities are available to take care of the travelling public going to and from the newest province of Canada so as to avoid disappointment to the travelling public and thereby avoid undue or unnecessary hardship.
I have learned recently that there are about 30 level crossing accidents involving trains and motor vehicles in Ontario alone each month, and I doubt very much that any thought is given to the strain and stress placed on a locomotive operator. This was very forcibly brought home to me last Sunday evening when, in travelling by train

from Toronto to Peterborough, I sat in a seat close to the operator and heard the whistle continually blowing. In my opinion motorists should exercise more care at railway crossings and should realize that a locomotive operator cannot swerve his train to avoid oncoming vehicles. He may apply his brakes, but as can be expected, he cannot bring his train to a sudden stop. I would therefore suggest that warning signals or stop signs be placed at all railway crossings and that the Department of Transport use every possible means to impress upon the public the importance of exercising care when approaching railway crossings.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank sincerely the minister, his parliamentary secretary and his officials for their co-operation in sending icebreakers to the assistance of the sealing steamers whenever I made such a request. I can truthfully say that at all times I have received every courtesy from the minister and his staff whenever I have referred any problem to his department since becoming a member of parliament. I feel that he will appreciate some of these matters which I have brought to his attention this evening. I have one hope, that his department will improve conditions wherever and whenever he and his officials can as far as Newfoundland is concerned.
I also want to thank the minister and his officials for assisting the sealers travelling to and from their homes to join their respective sealing ships in order to take part in the seal fishery by giving them a reduced fare last spring, which was the usual practice prior to confederation and was known locally as the sealer's ticket.
(Translation):


Mr. English:: Mr. Chairman, I have followed with much interest the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) on his department's activities. I heartily congratulate him for the magnificent job he has been doing so far. I thank him also for the interest he has always shown in my constituency. I also thank the officials of his department for their remarkable co-operation.
My reason for speaking today is that 1 wish to deal once again with a project that is close to my heart and that I should like to see carried out, not for any personal or political advantage, but in the interest of my constituency and constituents.
Ever since 1957, when I was first elected to represent the constituency of Gaspe, I have been asking that a railroad be built between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts. I raised the matter in 1958 and 1959, and I raise it again in 1960.

I am confident that the Minister of Transport and the present government will grant to the constituency of Gaspe something it has never been able to get in the past and which is vital to its economic development.
That part of my constituency, which stretches over 320 miles, includes two provincial constituencies and part of a third. In the North Gaspe area, where the distance between Matane and Gaspe is 165 miles, there is not a single railroad.
Yet, my constituency is one of the richest in ore. It has a prosperous mine, the Gaspe Copper Mines, in Murdochville, and a number of others that would, no doubt, be put in operation tomorrow if we obtained the railway we want.
Mr. Chairman, I may add that, besides the Gaspe Copper Mines, various corporations that hold mining claims are only waiting for the railway to be built to put them in operation.
May I give a few instances: In Holland township, the Gaspe Copper owns 1,518 acres; the Miller Copper has 1,600 acres; the Gaspe Metals, 400 acres; the Horn Gaspe, 200 acres and the Holland Gaspe Mines, 920 acres.
In the Lemieux township, the Federal Metal Corporation holds 9,000 acres, the Peninsula Metals Corporation Limited, 2,000 acres; the Lemieux Mining Corporation, 800 acres.
In the Boisbuisson township, the Dubuisson Mines & Lake Opemiska Mines Limited owns 80 acres; the Standard Gold Mines Limited, 40 acres; the East McDonald Mines Limited, 4,000 acres; the Gaspe Exploration & Mining Company Limited, 800 acres.
Mr. Chairman, those are some companies that own large mining concessions in my constituency, which is clear evidence of our wealth.
One of the first mines to develop in Gaspe, the Gaspe Copper Mines, provides work at present for more than 1,200 employees.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that the development of other mines will materially help reduce unemployment, because it is in developing our country, and most particularly that area, as far as I am concerned, that we shall really achieve prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, the chambers of commerce of the Gaspe riding and a number of associations adding up to more than 10,000 persons have asked me to obtain the necessary fa-
Supply-Transport
cilities for the economic development of our region. Here is what those associations and namely the March 23, 1959 issue of the magazine Commerce have to say about this:
In relation to its population, Quebec is the economic area with the least railroad facilities or the most people per mile of railway. The number of people per mile of railway is 812 in Quebec, as compared with 519 Ontario, 418 in the mari-times, 359 in British Columbia, 148 in the prairie provinces and 369 for the whole of Canada.
And the article adds:
On the other hand, there are other opinions on the subject, such as those expressed by the province of Quebec chamber of commerce and those found in a bulletin issued by the Banque Canadienne Nationale.
They might be summarized as follows- there is no doubt that the province of Quebec is far from getting as favourable a treatment as other areas; with 30 per cent of the population, it has only 11 per cent of the railroads. Many of the lines running through it are just branch lines needed to link up with the Atlantic and the prairies. Why has the Abitibi not been linked up with Montreal by way of an extension of the Montreal-Mont-Laurier railroad? Why the delay in building the Matane-Gaspe line? Unlike Quebec, southern Ontario is covered with a network of lines serving industrial centres. Railway development has been particularly active in the western provinces. Ontario has twice as many tracks as Quebec, and Saskatchewan is close behind. It is obvious that eastern Canada, and particularly Quebec, has been neglected.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this article in Commerce is true. Therefore I still wonder, even now, why we waited so long to develop so wealthy a region which can help bring prosperity while we are now complaining about unemployment. I do say that it is by giving these mineral rich regions a chance to develop that we will help reduce and even eliminate the present unemployment, not only in our province but in the whole country.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to read an excerpt of a brief prepared by the Gaspe North chamber of commerce, of Ste. Anne des Monts, Gaspe North, about proposed construction of a railroad to serve Gaspesia. Here are the conclusions of this brief:
When we ask for the building of our railway, we do not have the Impression of asking a favour or a gratuity from the federal authorities; rather are we claiming our share of public services which the people of this area of the province of Quebec are entitled to expect from their governing bodies to ensure their economic expansion and the development of their natural resources at the same rate as in the rest of the country.
Let us recall the statement made in Toronto on March 17, 1949, by Mr. S. W. Fairweather, vice president of the Canadian National: "A railway must be considered in relation to the economy of a country, because a railway is essential to the prosperity of a State and promotes wealth. Those of us who live in large cities might be mistaken, but the miner, the woodsman, the fisherman and

Supply-Transport
the farmer are fully aware of the usefulness of a railway. New resources and new fields of activity are discovered every day that can be developed by railway facilities which are the life blood of a nation.
And the brief adds:
Mr. Geo. H. Hees, the Minister of Transport, himself recognized the need for the requested railway line between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts when he said recently in western Canada: "Railways are a prerequisite to and not a consequence of progress, as railways are indeed a factor of progress."
The Gaspe North chamber of commerce concurs in the views expressed by Messrs. Hees, Gordon and others on the occasion of the official opening of the Chibougamau railway, namely that: "Two factors are essential to our national economy:
1. The development of a number of our natural resources is still being held back by the lack of transportation facilities. 2. Our railroads can still be considered as pioneer installations, and are used to open up new areas of economic development".
Here is another statement by Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the C.N.R.: "In a country such as this, where distance is a vital factor in the cost of goods, you cannot think of developing natural resources without thinking of railroads."
Mr. Chairman, I am most surprised. I wonder if really Mr. Gordon was serious when he made that statement. If he really was, why did he refuse that to the Liberal party for so many years, even at the time when my hon. friend the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was Minister of Transport? Why did he refuse it, and why does he still refuse it?
Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that for once, Mr. Gordon will translate his words into deeds and will grant to the constituency of Gaspe what it has been demanding for so many years, namely a railroad.
(Text):


Chesley William Carter: I doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether there is any other department of government which impinges more often or more intimately upon the lives of the people of my province than does the Department of Transport. When it is realized that 99 per cent of my constituents live by the sea and that 90 per cent of them earn their livelihood either on the sea or from the sea it can be readily understood that they have a special interest in this department. I should therefore like to express to the minister on their behalf appreciation of the improvements which have been carried out in my riding during the last year.
I should like to express to the minister my personal thanks for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with the problems which I have brought to him personally. I should

also like to express my appreciation of the co-operation which has always been forthcoming from the staff of his department both here in Ottawa and in the province.
When I went through my district in 1949 I remember compiling a long list of navigational aids which were required in my riding. Many of them had existed in years gone by but had been swept away by storms and other causes and had never been replaced. However, during the last 10 years a great deal has been done in this respect. The government -very wisely, in my opinion-insisted on rehabilitating the aids that were already in existence before supplying new ones. It was said that the provision of other aids could not be carried out properly until the department had been supplied with a boat which would be able to transport these aids and to service them. That boat has now been supplied and therefore that reason no longer exists. However, along the coastline in my riding there is still a gap where particular navigational aids in the form of light and whistle buoys are required. I hope that every effort will be made to supply as many as possible of these buoys in the coming year.
Many of the new houses which have been constructed as residential quarters for the keepers of lighthouses and fog alarms have been supplied with running water and electric lights but there still remain a great many lighthouses and residential quarters which do not have these facilities. I do not think these people should be compelled to wait until the building is reconstructed before these facilities are provided. These facilities are a normal part of our standard of living in Canada. A supply of electricity makes possible the use of many appliances which can lighten the work of the housewife and make life a little bit more bearable in these isolated areas. I wish the department would initiate immediately a policy of supplying every one of these residences with running water and with a Delco or similar lighting plants.
The hon. member for St. John's East brought to the attention of the minister the situation which exists on certain ships, particularly the icebreakers, with respect to the wages paid to the crews. These wages are based on the prevailing rates in the area where the men are recruited.
I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys last year, I think it was, when his estimates were before the house, and also before the Minister of Labour. This is a

situation which should be corrected but about which nothing has been done since this matter was last raised. It does not seem right to me that two people employed by the government on the same kind of ships doing exactly the same kind of work should receive a different rate of pay just because they happen to be recruited in different places.
This argument falls down completely with respect to captains and the masters of these vessels. I understand that there is a wide discrepancy in the pay of the officers on similar ships of comparable size just because they happen to be recruited in different places. This is something which ordinary justice demands should be rectified.
Another matter along this line which I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the situation with respect to assistant keepers. An assistant light keeper is not an employee of the department. He is employed, I understand, by the keeper and because he is employed by the keeper he has no status. He has no benefits of holidays or holidays with pay; I do not think he even qualifies for unemployment insurance. It is time that this situation too is corrected. I am informed that the minister's department is dealing with this matter on a sort of piecemeal basis by which about 50 of these people a year are transferred to the permanent list. That seems to me to be a very slow rate of progress. If we are going to go at the rate of 50 per year for all of Canada, then certainly it is going to be a very long time before this situation is corrected.
I should also like to express my support for the pleas put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East and by my colleague for Trinity-Conception for an extension of the Newfoundland hotel and for an alternative airstrip at Torbay. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception brought to the attention of the committee certain conditions which he experienced on the motor vessel William Carson which plies between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. I have always held the opinion that what should have been done in the first place was to supply two smaller ferries rather than one big one, but from my experience I know that the William Carson herself is not big enough to handle all the traffic available, all of the passengers who wish to travel at the peak period of the season. But what concerns me most is that the terminal facilities at Port aux Basques do not have sufficient accommodation for the travelling public.
In this connection I encountered last year a situation where a number of passengers were left in the terminal without any place to sit or lie down. Some of them were old
Supply-Transport
persons; three of them were patients who had just been discharged from the Corner Brook hospital. I personally spent hours trying to find a boarding house for them at Port aux Basques and Channel but without success because every place was filled up. So these people, old and young and some of them young children, had to spend the night lying on the floor in this new terminal, and that is a situation which should not exist in this day and age. Moreover it is a condition which can be very easily remedied because all that is necessary is for the Canadian National Railways to set up a couple of sleeping cars near the terminal and supply sleeping accommodation in that way. They can get meals at the terminal which also has sufficient washroom facilities, but as I say there is no place to lie down. I do hope the minister will bring this to the attention of the proper authorities and have something done about it.
The hon. member for Trinity-Conception mentioned the necessity of a standard gauge railway for Newfoundland. I brought this matter to the attention of Mr. Gordon when he was before the committee on government-owned railways and shipping and it was quite clear from his replies to my questions that he does not consider it his duty to take any initiative in this matter. According to him, the railway belongs to the government of Canada. He is merely acting as an agent of the government in managing that railway. He is prepared to carry out whatever rehabilitation of existing facilities is required to make the present railway adequate for its needs, but when it comes to a change of policy such as changing from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge, then it is very clear that he considers this decision ought to be made by the government and if the government makes it he is quite ready to carry it out.
As far as the point to point traffic inside the province is concerned, the narrow gauge railway perhaps serves very well. But when it comes to traffic entering the province and communications with the mainland, then the lack of a standard gauge railway imposes a very serious handicap on our economy. It adds materially to our cost of living and it handicaps our industries in shipping their products to the mainland market.
When it is considered that Newfoundland buys about $250 million worth of goods from mainland Canada it can be realized how essential it is to have those goods transported with the least possible handling and at the least possible cost. That can only be done by means of a wide gauge railway. Furthermore, Newfoundland is an underdeveloped

Supply-Transport
province and whatever possibilities it has for development will always be greatly handicapped unless modern means of transportation is supplied.
There is one thing about the Department of Transport which has puzzled me from time to time. That is this, there is a curious reluctance to make changes in the Canada Shipping Act or in other legislation or regulations which apply to this department. This, I think, is an attitude which is more characteristic of the Department of Transport than of any other government department. It seems to me that these laws are regarded as a sort of Procrustes' bed, or like the laws of the Medes and Persians which cannot be changed and ought not to be changed. Everything must fit into it. If you are a little too tall, you have to lop a bit off, and if you are a little short you have to be stretched out. Anyway, nothing can be done to change these laws.
One example of this is supplied by the laws which govern harbour administration. We have, of course, national harbours and we have certain laws under which they are administered. Then we have a class of small harbours that we call public harbours, and these are administered by harbour masters. Most of the harbours in Newfoundland are not big enough to be administered as national harbours and yet they cannot be administered satisfactorily by means of harbour masters under the public harbours act. For one thing, a harbour master is one man in an isolated spot far away from St. John's from which he would have to get advice in case something cropped up with which he could not deal. Sometimes, on a week end, St. John's has to get advice from Ottawa and when we close down early on Friday and wake up late on Monday a lot of things can happen which could not be dealt with at all. I have always felt the harbour master should be responsible to a local body on the spot in the community. We have such bodies. One such body is the pilotage commission. We have several pilotage commissions which are doing excellent work, and there is nothing wrong at all with giving them responsibility for harbour administration. It would mean a very simple change in the act to give them that power and it would not in any way interfere with their pilotage duties.
Prior to confederation we had small harbour boards of our own. These bodies do not know, at the moment, where they stand at all. They were set up under provincial legislation. At the time of confederation their sources of revenue were cut off, but they still have obligations which they have retained and which they have tried to discharge in the best manner possible. However, in carrying out these obligations they

have been at a very serious disadvantage. These small bodies could be recognized under our Canada Shipping Act and used to better advantage than is possible in the case of harbour masters under the public harbours act. I hope the minister will give some thought to this matter and assume a more flexible attitude toward these suggestions.
Another strange thing which I have never been able to understand is the regulation which prohibits a man from getting a master's certificate if he has to wear eye glasses. A person can get a driver's licence to drive a motor car at 60 or 80 miles an hour even though he may wear glasses. I think he can get a licence to pilot an aircraft at hundreds of miles an hour. But if he is going to get a licence or certificate to pilot a boat, to steer a boat or captain a boat he cannot get it if he wears glasses. But the strange thing is this: if he can once get a certificate he can go blind the next day and still retain it. The wearing of glasses simply prevents him getting a certificate. This seems to me to be a nonsensical state of affairs, and something should be done about it. Today good men are being prevented from getting a master's certificate simply because of this regulation, while other men, often less able, are qualified to get certificates.
Another suggestion which I made to the minister last year or the year before, I think, and about which nothing has been done, concerned the need for a change in the water carriers act in so far as it applies to C.N.R. coastal vessels. In Newfoundland we have a railway running in the interior, but most of my people live on the coast and the natural communications for them is by means of a coastal boat operated by the C.N.R. In other words these coastal boats perform the same service on the sea as do the railways on land. The same railway, the C.N.R., operates a boat from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. That boat is a part of the railway. The coastal boats which connect with this ferry, the William Carson, are not part of the railway. The William Carson, the ferry which runs across the strait, because it is part of the railway is not subject to the provisions of the water carriers act. The William Carson is not the only one concerned. There are, I think, as many as 10 or 12 ships on this run. Should any mishap occur to any of these boats, such as happened to the Cabot Strait some years ago when a lot of goods were lost because the ship ran ashore, since the ship was not subject to the water carriers act the people who lost their goods were given compensation. But should one of the coastal boats run ashore and freight be damaged or lost, the person who loses it has no redress at all,

because these ships are covered by the water carriers act. It does seem to be strange that the same company should be operating boats under two different arrangements when it affects the lives of the people in two different ways-that a person can have freight on one boat and if it gets lost he can get compensation, though if he has freight on another boat, owned by the same company, he can recover nothing should the freight be lost or damaged.
Before I sit down I want to remind the minister once again about the problem of oil pollution which has caused us a great deal of trouble in Newfoundland and which has become particularly acute during the past season. We all know that this is an international problem and that only an international solution will be satisfactory. There is, however, something which could be done. I do not know whether the minister has done it yet or not. However, I do hope he will be able to tell us when he replies that he has appointed a full time inspector whose job it would be to go around and inspect those vessels which transport oil and land oil on different points of our coast. There are some other points I should like to bring up but I have covered the main ones and shall reserve the others for another time.


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order for me to follow the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I have just been advised that he is leaving for the west coast this evening and wishes to speak. Would it be in order if he were to speak now and I were to follow him?


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni.


Mr. McQuillan:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleague the hon. member for Coast-Capilano for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words at this time. I have brought the problem of coastal transportation on the coast of British Columbia to the attention of the minister on numerous occasions and I wish once again to bring it to his attention. I do not know what the answer is but I do know there is a problem. To date I have not been able to convince the department that a problem exists. Once again I should like to request that a thorough investigation be made of this matter because it is serious and annoying and works a hardship on the residents of coastal communities.
We have a coastal transportation system now composed of antiquated and inadequate ships operated by a number of companies inadequately financed. Perhaps there is not sufficient traffic to support a private company operating on its own in those areas. In any event to a large extent the burden is passed
Supply-Transport
on to the people in the area in the form of high freight rates. For example, the cost of shipping a ton of potatoes to Port Hardy is often equal to the price paid to the wholesaler in Vancouver. The cost of freight on a loaf of bread is eight cents. The service is infrequently and completely inadequate. I suggest with all respect that at the first opportunity the minister appoint a team of investigators to come out west and travel the length of the coast, to interview the people served by these coastal services and listen to their story and to interview those providing the services and hear their story and then endeavour to come up with some solution to this problem.
When I look at the blue book-unfortunately most of our constituents cannot or do not look at it-one of the first things that impresses me is the millions of dollars that are spent in the maritimes, despite the fact that we hear hon. members complaining that more should be spent there; and the millions that are spent along the St. Lawrence as compared with the few paltry dollars that are being provided by the department for coastal transportation along the Pacific coast. I believe a subsidy is now paid amounting to approximately $300,000. I do not know whether subsidies are the answer but I am aware that the companies apparently are not making sufficient money to allow them to provide new and modern equipment and to furnish the necessary services at reasonable rates.
One of the unfortunate things about these poor, infrequent and high cost freight services on the coast is that they discourage people from living in that area. This would perhaps be all right if it were a non-productive area but it is a very productive area in the sense of producing raw material. I think I am safe in saying that the people who live on the upper coast of British Columbia are perhaps responsible for more dollar production of basic materials than any other group of people in any other section of Canada. I would ask once again that the minister give more than serious consideration to my request and that he appoint an investigating team to come out to the coast and make a thorough survey of the whole problem. I would even suggest that the minister come out and make a trip up the coast on one of our steamship services. I know that the hon. gentleman could pass over very quickly from Vancouver to Prince Rupert in a Viscount but he will not have any real understanding of the problems of the coastal area unless he travels from point to point on one of the obsolete steamships operating in the system we now have.

Business of the House


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and as much of next week as the house leader may be disposed to give us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the estimates of this department. Should they be finished in good time we have the estimates of the Post Office Department and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys available.
The legislative items for next week will be as follows. We will start Monday with the second reading of Bill No. C-58, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, order No. 5 on today's order paper. This will be followed by order No. 7 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. C-63, to amend the Old
Age Security Act. The other items would then be No. 1 on today's order paper, No. 2 and No. 3 in that order dealing with harbour commissioners. The next item would be No. 17 on today's order paper, a motion standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture referring certain business to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
If that business is completed on Monday and Tuesday we would take up the budget resolutions on Wednesday and then on Thursday and Friday take up estimates starting with those of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the other departments available. For instance, if transport were not finished we would take transport, post office, mines and technical surveys and fisheries. Any changes that have to be made in that tentative program will be announced in plenty of time for hon. members to adjust themselves to the change.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 3, 1960


Donald Methuen Fleming: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures in the year 1960 not exceeding $309,950,000 and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1961; to authorize the national company to issue securities to provide amounts required for the authorized expenditures; to provide that, except as expressly provided, the aggregate principal amount of securities outstanding at any time shall not exceed $203,950,000; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal and interest of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the Minister of Finance to make loans to the said company secured by such securities and not exceeding $203,950,000 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the national system.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not giving him notice, but the press dispatch came into my office only a moment or two before I came down to the chamber. Is the report true that the Prime Minister, moved by his humanitarian instincts, mounted his white charger yesterday and came to the rescue of the Sable island ponies?


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the wording of the question, I must immediately answer in the negative. I would say, however, that I have received a number of requests from organizations across Canada, and also from Canadians in several provinces, protesting against what they believed was to be the inhumanitarian course of disposal of the horses on Sable island. I may say this, that there was no justification
for the statement that these horses, upon removal, were to be turned into various uses.
However, these particular animals have a long geneology. They have been with us over a period of several hundred years, and I was naturally very much touched by some of the requests that were made. I had the matter looked into, and I think it may be said with certainty that these animals and their posterity will continue to live on this island.


George James McIlraith: I am sure the house will be delighted with the nature of the Prime Minister's interest in ponies.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George James McIlraith: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the announcement from Paris this morning by the United Kingdom that she is prepared to join the European coal and steel community and EURATOM, can the minister advise the house whether Canada was advised of this action prior to the announcement being made, and whether it involves any change in our preferential position in the United Kingdom market?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have not seen the report of the announcement, Mr. Speaker.



GASOLINE-INQUIRY AS TO IMPORTS FROM RUSSIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Roy McWilliam: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister advise the house whether Canada intends to import gasoline from Russia?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There have been rumours of an impending deal with regard to the import of gasoline from Russia. I have no specific details whatever with regard to that matter. I do not know any of the terms that are being discussed or anything of that nature.

Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



REPORTED DEVELOPMENT OF HYDROFOIL CRAFT BY DEFENCE RESEARCH BOARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I apologize of not having had an opportunity to send him notice of it this morning. Has the minister noted the article in the Globe and Mail magazine section of May 28 to the effect that the Dartmouth naval research establishment is working on developing a hydrofoil craft which is not "for commercial or military use"?
Will the minister advise the house why this scientific study is being done by the defence research board when it is not of a military nature or requirement?


George Randolph Pearkes: My impression was that this study had a military application.



WHEAT-INQUIRY AS TO FINAL PAYMENT FOR 1958-59 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Norris Ormiston: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Is the minister in a position to tell the house when we might expect a statement from the Canadian wheat board regarding the final payment on the grain sold in the 1958-59 crop year?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Canadian wheat board closed out the 1958-59 wheat account on May 20 and is presently completing all accounting details related to this crop pool. Details of the results of this account will be available early in June-perhaps this week; if not this week, then next week-at which time an announcement will be made in regard to the amount of the transfer into the 1959-60 account and the final payment rates on each of the grades of wheat delivered to the pool.



NORTHERN ONTARIO


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) asked me whether any requests have yet been received from the Ontario government for federal financial assistance for the relief of the victims of the recent floods in northern Ontario.

I am now informed that conversations have taken place between Hon. Joseph W. Spooner, minister of lands and forests of the province of Ontario, and officials of the government. My office was informed by Mr. Spooner yesterday afternoon that a letter is now being prepared and will be forwarded to the Minister of Finance today.



POINTE GATINEAU, QUE.    STATEMENT ON REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Caron) directed a question to me, which I said I would take as notice, as to whether the Prime Minister had received a request for help for Pointe Gatineau following the flood. An examination has been made of the records and no request has been made to any department of government in that connection.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works further to the subject I raised on Monday. Will the minister now advise the house whether the federal government or its agency, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, were consulted by the province of Ontario prior to the rejection by Ontario of the city of Ottawa's subsidized low-rental housing project for the underprivileged?


David James Walker: So far as my knowledge goes certainly I, as the minister responsible for reporting to the house for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, was not consulted.


John Richard Garland: Do I take that to mean that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation were not consulted?


David James Walker: They may have been in an unofficial way, but to oblige the hon. member who is so interested in housing I will be glad to make that inquiry and tell him the result.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I would like to direct a question to either the Minister

of Citizenship and Immigration or the Minister of Justice, whichever one happens to have jurisdiction over this matter. Has either minister received any representations from the Chinese community of Vancouver protesting the methods used in the investigation into the alleged illegal entry into Canada of people from China? Could the minister indicate, if this is so, what action is contemplated as a result of these representations?


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have received no representations, and I gather by long distance communication that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has not received any either.



ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Speaker, may I address a question to the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister's attention been drawn to the telegram sent to the flag officer, Atlantic coast, requesting that the ships engaged in the naval exercise, which includes H.M.C.S. Bonaventure, be returned to Halifax in time for Canadian naval personnel to vote in the Nova Scotia election on June 7?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, that telegram has not been drawn to my attention.


Chesley William Carter: A supplementary question.
Would the minister assure the house that he will look into the matter with a view to granting this request?


George Randolph Pearkes: I shall be very pleased to look into the matter.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Arnold Peters: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the questions asked on April 4, 1960 and April 29, 1960 respectively, and the replies of the Minister of Finance to the effect that salary increases are anticipated for the House of Commons staff, would the minister indicate when the increases will be effective and whether they will be retroactive to April 1, I960?


Donald Methuen Fleming: That will be a matter for the commissioners of internal economy to decide. The matter is under consideration.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Alexis Pierre Caron: As I cannot direct my question to Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Finance. Is there anything new about the salary increases for the personnel of the House of Commons?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the hon. member heard the last question. I think I should refer him to that question and my answer to it.


William Arnold Peters: A supplementary question. May I ask the minister who are the commissioners of internal economy?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has that information available, as have all members.


William Arnold Peters: I have never heard of them.



INQUIRY AS TO APPOINTMENT OF QUEEN'S PRINTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Azellus Denis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Prime Minister whether the nomination of the Queen's printer is still under serious and snappy consideration?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the answer is in the affirmative.



NATIONAL PARKS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask the acting minister of northern affairs whether the government has received any application or approach from the government of Nova Scotia with a view to the establishment of a second national park in that province.


Douglas Scott Harkness: Not
as far as I am aware. I will have the matter inquired into and will find out, however.



AUSTRALIAN TRADE AGREEMENT ACT


Gordon Minto Churchill: the second reading of Bill No. S-28, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill now before us, Bill No. S-28, consists of six clauses repealing the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1931, and containing the usual provisions regarding the making of orders and regulations implementing the agreement, the relationship of the act to other legislation and the coming
4442	HOUSE OF
Australian Trade Agreement Act into force of the act. The new trade agreement is attached as a schedule to the bill.
The decision to review the 1931 trade agreement was made at the commonwealth trade and economic conference in Montreal in September, 1958. The new agreement was negotiated in Canberra in March and April, 1959 by a Canadian delegation led by the late John H. English, deputy minister of trade and commerce. It is the third trade agreement between Canada and Australia, the first having been concluded in 1925 and the second in 1931.
The new agreement does not involve any changes in actual rates of duty from those presently in effect. It does, however, make some important improvements in the type of tariff treatment and the margins of preference which Australia binds or guarantees to Canadian goods. There are also concessions of a similar nature on the Canadian side. In addition, the agreement includes various new provisions dealing with such matters as the application of anti-dumping duties and consultation on economic matters.
The new agreement provides for bindings or guarantees of actual rates of duty on 12 items or subitems in the Australian tariff, whereas no rates of duty were bound under the old agreement. It also provides for guaranteed margins of preference on 53 items or subitems compared with the 33 covered by the 1931 agreement. From the Canadian point of view the new agreement not only provides increased safeguards and improved access for our exports, but establishes a better balance between concessions granted and received.
With respect to Canadian imports from Australia, the effect of the new agreement is to provide for the continuation, without substantial change, of most of the concessions which were accorded to Australia by the 1931 agreement and by a supplementary order in council which became effective October 1, 1937. It also binds in Australia's favour free entry of certain Australian products- notably raw wool, sausage casings and raw sheepskins-which were not covered by the 1931 agreement but which in fact have been free of duty for many years.
The new agreement provides also that Australia shall continue to enjoy the benefits of Canada's British preferential tariff rates in respect of all goods not specifically named. In the case of a number of products of particular interest to Australia the existing margins of preference are bound against reduction. In the case of dairy products, Canada is committed only to accord Australian dairy products the benefits of the British preferential rates of duty or any lower rates accorded to a third country.


In general, the effect of the changes which are proposed in schedule A to the agreement is to bring it up to date and to take account of changes which have taken place during the 29 years since the former agreement was negotiated.
The new agreement modifies the provisions relating to the application by Canada and Australia of anti-dumping duties to one another's goods. In the 1931 agreement each country exempted the goods of the other from their anti-dumping duties. However, in cases where material injury was being done to domestic producers either country could, after three months' notice, apply its general tariff rates. Canada and Australia agree in the new agreement that they will normally not apply anti-dumping duties to one another's products. However, article VI of the agreement provides that in cases of injury to domestic industry there shall be consultations between the two governments, and if a mutually satisfactory solution does not result within 60 days anti-dumping duties may be applied.
There is also a provision in the new agreement establishing procedures under which either government may obtain a release from obligations assumed under the agreement in order to bring about an increase in rates of duty recommended by its tariff board. The article provides for consultation regarding compensation for the concession which is being withdrawn, and if agreement is not reached for the withdrawal of equivalent concessions.
Provision is made for the setting up of consultative procedures to discuss matters arising out of the agreement and also a variety of other questions of importance to the two countries, such as import restrictions and instability in international commodity trade. This should result in much closer co-operation between Canada and Australia in the general field of international trade relations as well as the solution of any specific problems which may arise.
Two committees are being set up in order to implement this part of the agreement, the one in Canberra under the chairmanship of the secretary of the Australian department of trade and the other in Ottawa with the deputy minister of trade and commerce as chairman. To facilitate these arrangements both countries have recently appointed trade officials to one another's capitals.
With regard to consultations concerning import restrictions, hon. members will recall that an exchange of correspondence on this subject between Australian and Canadian authorities was tabled in the house on March 22. These letters set forth certain reciprocal

understandings regarding the use of import restrictions and provide for consultations regarding their application.
When the new agreement is ratified it will run for a period of three years. After this time it may be terminated on written notice of six months by either government. Thus it will provide a stable basis for the development of trade between the two countries during the next three years, and there will then be an opportunity to modify it if this appears necessary in the light of developments over this period.
The conclusion of this new trade agreement comes at a most opportune time from the point of view of Canadian exporters. Earlier this year Australia took a major step toward the removal of the import restrictions which it had been maintaining during the post-war period for balance of payments purposes. Effective February 24 Australia completely eliminated controls from 800 million of its imports, representing about 90 per cent of its total annual imports. Moreover, discrimination against dollar goods was removed from all items except motor vehicles which, it was announced, would be freed from control effective October 1, 1960. Thus in a few months' time Canada will be on exactly the same footing as non-dollar suppliers in the Australian market.
There are about 50 products still under control in Australia from all sources and some of these, such as canned salmon and primary aluminum, are of particular interest to Canada. We are, of course, hopeful that it will be possible for Australia to dismantle these controls altogether before very long.
In recent years Australia's import controls have limited the possibilities for expanding and diversifying our exports to that market and have prevented us from making full use of the tariff preferences which our goods receive there. The liberalization measures which Australia has carried out during the last 18 months in line with decisions reached at the Montreal conference have opened up a new phase in the development of our trade with this sister nation of the commonwealth. Many Canadian goods which have not been seen in Australia for a number of years, such as wrist watches, wallpaper and outboard motors, are again appearing on the market there.
I should like to repeat in this connection some words of Australia's distinguished deputy prime minister and minister of trade, Right Hon. John McEwen, on the occasion of the signing of the new trade agreement. He said:
The increase in the total level of imports into Australia which has resulted from recent steps taken by my government, and the removal of practically all discrimination against the dollar area, should give Canadian exporters an unrivalled
Australian Trade Agreement Act opportunity to expand their sales to Australia. Also this agreement will give opportunities to the greatly expanded industries of Canada to market their manufactured products in Australia. I trust they will take advantage of these opportunities and that forthcoming decades will witness even more significant developments in our mutual trade.
Both our countries are growing vigorously and offer rapidly expanding markets for one another's goods. Businessmen in both countries have been increasingly active in exploring the possibilities for expanding the flow of trade between us. A large Canadian delegation returned a month ago from a two and a half weeks' visit to Australia. In a few days' time we will have the opportunity to extend our hospitality in Ottawa to a 40-man trade delegation, the largest ever to set out from Australia, led by the eminent Australian economist and former high commissioner to Canada, Sir Douglas Copland. This mission has already visited Vancouver, Winnipeg, and Toronto, and is in Montreal this week.
There are already signs that the efforts of Canadian businessmen to expand and diversify trade with Australia are producing results. In the first three months of 1960 our exports to Australia totalled $19 million, compared with $11 million in the same period of the preceding year. In the whole of 1959 our exports to Australia reached $54.2 million, about 3 per cent above the 1958 level, and we sold in the Australian market some 207 individual products compared with 186 in the previous year.
Australia is our second largest market in the commonwealth and the seventh largest world market. It is of special importance as a market for the products of our forests and fisheries, and also for manufactured goods. In recent years our main exports to Australia have been newsprint, wood pulp, lumber, canned fish, motor vehicles, aluminum, asbestos and steel.
Canada is also important as a market for Australian goods. In 1959 our imports from that country totalled $41.2 million, and this figure would be even higher if it included the large quantity of Australian wool which Canada imports through the United Kingdom. Australia's principal sales in the Canadian market are agricultural products such as sugar, dried fruits and wool.
Our two countries have much in common. While we are competitors in some fields, our economies are to a considerable extent complementary. It is therefore logical and mutually advantageous to expand the range and volume of the trade flowing in both directions. In expressing our feelings about Canada's relations with Australia and our hopes for this new trade agreement, I can again do no better than to quote Right

Australian Trade Agreement Act Hon. John McEwen. In a foreword to the attractive brochure issued in connection with the Australian trade commission to Canada he has written:
Canada and Australia are strongly linked through the kinship of the British commonwealth with similar loyalties and similar democratic government. This link also extends to a mutual trading partnership which has stood for a great many years. The recent trade agreement discussions, during which the 1931 Canada-Australia trade agreement was revised, should consolidate even further this close relationship.
I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to bring before the house the trade agreement with Australia for ratification. I commend it to the attention of hon. members.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with the bill now before the house to approve the Canada-Australia trade treaty I think there will be a remarkable degree of accord indicated on both sides of the house. As I understand the agreement, it does not introduce any new principle but rather represents the bringing up to date of the trade relations of the two countries, the last agreement having been signed almost 30 years ago.
The agreement itself was quite fully described by the minister, but I attach as much significance to the correspondence exchanged by way of amplification and explanation of the agreement which was tabled in the house some weeks ago. To me the significant provisions are those in the agreement dealing with the matter of consultation and the elaborations of that subject in the correspondence.
After the war the Australian government unfortunately found it necessary to have import controls of one sort or another by reason of their shortage of dollar exchange, and it is timely that this agreement has been signed because, so far as Australia is concerned, there is no longer the same necessity for such controls applying against countries seeking to export to them, which controls I am quite sure they felt were undesirable.
To my way of thinking the machinery of consultation is the important part of this whole relationship, because the necessity of keeping trading relations between the two countries up to date tends to be overlooked in view of the great distance between our two countries; and even though Australia is a very important market for Canada, it is not our most pressing market. I would hope that the minister in discharging his administrative responsibility will do all he can to assure that the machinery of consultation between the two governments is kept in good


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of this intelligent and industrious octet in this corner of the building to express our support for the principle and purpose of this bill. Like the
Australian Trade Agreement Act previous speaker, I think it is most appropriate that we should be discussing this proposed trade agreement between Canada and Australia at a time when the largest trade mission that has ever visited Canada from Australia, according to press reports, is now visiting Canada under the leadership of Sir Douglas Copland, who everyone knows from his previous service in Canada as high commissioner as a good friend of Canada and one who understands Canadian views and will do his best to promote trade and understanding between the two countries.
I noted, Mr. Speaker, according to press reports that Sir Douglas mentioned that at the present time Canada enjoys a rather big advantage with respect to our trade relationships. Let me say first, with respect to the remarks made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith), who regretted that the duration of the treaty was not for more than three years, that I understand his point of view. However, I think the criticism is rather academic, because if this trade relationship is carried on in the future as it has been in the past there is no question about the arrangement being continued and further treaties signed to the advantage of both countries.
In the opinion of this group this trade treaty will further cement the commonwealth, particularly in view of the fact that Canada will now, on the whole, be placed on an equality with the non-dollar suppliers to Australia. I believe that is quite an advance, Mr. Speaker. This bill also assists in freer trade, which is something in which this group firmly believes. We believe in free trade, as much as possible on a worth-while basis, because we believe that is one of the things that create understanding between countries and work toward peace. According to the minister's statement the purpose is to promote freer trade relations, and the bill is the result of concessions being granted by both sides.
In our opinion the widening of opportunities for consultation is an excellent provision, and also the establishment of these committees, because we live in a world in which there are rapidly changing circumstances. These committees, under the terms of this bill, will now have an opportunity to meet and consult and make the adjustments that are required in the light of changed circumstances and of experience. We think that is all to the good.
I trust, Mr. Speaker, that as one coming from British Columbia I may express hope for the further liberalization of trade relationships between Canada and Australia which will provide for increased sales of our lumber and our fish products. As a result of this

Australian Trade Agreement Act new trade treaty I trust we shall have increased sales erf the tree fruits of British Columbia, particularly apples. We have had an expanding market in that direction in recent years. To give credit where it is due, I must say it has been owing to the activity of our trade commissioner in Australia in placing before Australian purchasers and the Australian trade the grades, qualities and quantities of apples that were available from British Columbia, a thorough understanding of our marketing procedures and so on.
In conclusion all I can say is that we are confident that this bill contains the right principle, because it provides for committees representing both governments, for continuing consultation to meet changing conditions and changing circumstances, and for the consequent adjustments. We are certain that the future will indicate that this was a wise step to the advantage of both Canada and our sister nation of the commonwealth, Australia.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to detain the house for any great length of time, but I should not like the discussion of this resolution to be concluded without saying a word in support of it and to repeat what those who have preceded me have said, namely that it is a happy circumstance that it should be introduced and, I hope, given unanimous approval at a time when we are welcoming in Canada an Australian mission headed by one whom we have good cause to know and admire. I refer to the former Australian high commissioner in Canada, Sir Douglas Copland, an extremely stimulating and intelligent person indeed whom we shall be very glad to see in Ottawa again next week.
Australia, of course, is an energetic and developing sister nation in our commonwealth. The minister has already pointed out the growing importance of the trade between our two countries. That trade in the normal course of events should grow as the two countries grow. Its potential is perhaps even more important than its actuality at the present time.
It is interesting to realize in connection with Australian development that the rate of capital investment in Australia over the last two or three years has been even higher than it has been in Canada. I think it has been 27 per cent of the gross national product, whereas in our country I believe the figure is just below that. Perhaps of greater significance is the fact that Australia has not the same kind of at least geographical access to a neighbour which could supply unlimited resources for development if it so desired. So all of this 27 per cent has come


from Australian sources except 10 per cent, whereas in Canada I think only about-and I may be wrong in my figure-70 per cent has come from domestic sources, a fact which I think has an interesting significance in relation to our own situation. As one of the members of the Australian mission is reported as having said the other day, "You have gone too far in your dependence on foreign capital". Perhaps if that capital had been as easily accessible to Australia as it has been to Canada more of it might have gone into that country.
At the same time I think it is also true to say that the Australian government has exercised a kind of control-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-over investment which we have not found so necessary in Canada. In the situation which faces us, with our own greater dependence on foreign capital, it is not likely that we would be able to participate to any great extent, as 1 do not think we have done in the past in this capital development in Australia. Perhaps the time is coming however-and I have seen a reference to this matter recently in connection with the Australian mission- when Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations could be a source of expansion into Australia rather than have that expansion, when it occurs, come from the parent companies. For one thing a Canadian subsidiary would have more experience in dealing with a smaller market. This is something which in the future may be of some advantage to us.
We talk a great deal, and quite rightly, about the importance to Canada of the development of the freest possible trade in the widest possible Atlantic area-Atlantic free trade; about the building up of the Atlantic economic community. Nothing could be much more important for us than that, of course. But a discussion of this kind makes us conscious of the fact that even the Atlantic area would not be enough, that we have important trading partnerships within the commonwealth. In the step which I hope we are taking to associate Canada with this European development we must not forget that somehow or other we must bring into that association, if it can be done, other nations of the commonwealth so this area will have an even wider expansion than the north Atlantic.
All I need say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, is that we welcome this arrangement. It is perhaps not as far-reaching as it might have been, but it is a useful one. It will help both countries, and I think it will play a good part in strengthening the economic and other relations between the two countries. In that connection perhaps I should reiterate what has already been said on this subject by the

hon. member who just preceded me, namely that we owe a special debt of gratitude to officials of the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of External Affairs who over the years have played such an important role in developing and strengthening these good relationships.


Ernest James Broome: As
a member from British Columbia, and more specifically from the constituency of Vancouver South, may I say that we are particularly interested in this trade agreement. I was greatly struck by the words of the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about our preoccupation with Atlantic matters and pointed out that on the other side of this nation lies an equally vast ocean with equally great trade opportunities awaiting development.
This is a new agreement which will bring a measure of stability, so that importers and exporters will know the conditions under which they can conduct business. There is the relaxation of currency controls, and the fact that over the last few years we have improved communications with Australia to a tremendous extent. We now have modern, fast ocean-going liners complete with refrigeration space making regular sailings between Vancouver and Australian and New Zealand ports. The Canadian flag air carrier is based in Vancouver, with services by air to New Zealand and Australia.
We on the west coast are tremendously interested in the development of increased trade with Australia and other countries in the Far East. We welcome the thought left with us by the minister, namely that even the few remaining items which affect us to a considerable extent will shortly be released from currency restrictions.
We realize that trade is a two-way street. We realize that if we are going to sell, we must buy. The economy of Australia is largely complementary to ours. We welcome the thought of increased trade both coming in and going out.
We think this is a step toward that larger pattern of trade, particularly within the commonwealth, which is getting away from a purely North American trade pattern. We welcome this agreement and we are sure that in years to come this trade will increase and not only will double but may triple and go even further than that.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say a few words in welcoming and supporting second reading of this bill, respecting a certain trade agreement between Canada and Australia. I do so from two bases, one sentimental and one materialistic.
2, 1960
Australian Trade Agreement Act
The sentimental basis is because I have been told by some that I am half kangaroo. I think I am one of the blessed men in that my mother was born in Australia, my father was born in England, and I live in Canada. If you can beat that combination I would like to know how. So I say that on a sentimental basis I am very happy about the bill now before us.
I appreciate very much the opportunity I had last fall of spending some six weeks in Australia as a member of the commonwealth parliamentary association. In that period of six weeks I had the opportunity of talking with some of the premiers and cabinet ministers of the various states of Australia, and I became quite disturbed at some of their indications as to a change in trade relationships between Canada and Australia, particularly because I felt it would have an effect on my province of British Columbia. It is because of what I heard there that I want to express my personal appreciation of the visit to Canada of the Australian trade delegation, and I was pleased to read in the press their enthusiasm about what they maintain is the success of their mission. I too look forward to meeting with some of them this coming week.
I would like to suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that trade is not a one-way street. Trade is something which has to be worked for and fought for, and in expressing our terrific appreciation at the visit of the Australian trade commission I think in turn we should send one just >as strong, virile and enthusiastic to Australia, and not only to Australia but to other parts of the commonwealth as well.
Very briefly I want to support what the Leader of the Opposition mentioned, namely that Canada is an exporting nation. Canada depends upon exports for its very livelihood and standard of living. We have already seen the development in Europe of the Inner Six and the Outer Seven; and if we read the journals of the world we can see the possibility -the probability-of other economic formations being brought into being, perhaps in the Latin American countries as well.
This poses a very serious problem to Canada. We must give consideration to these developments, but I believe that something we can do now is to have a closer relationship and greater exchange between governments and industry, between members of the commonwealth, because there in the commonwealth I think lies the greatest economic expansion in the world in the way of transfer from one country to another of the produce which we are able to export.

Australian Trade Agreement Act
I would just like to say that sentimentally I welcome this agreement. On a material basis I welcome it, though I certainly hope that the Minister of Trade and Commerce will see to it that we do not remain satisfied just with the passage of a trade agreement which will be in effect for three years but that we will reciprocate with Australia and send a trade mission ourselves into every part of the commonwealth.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I will just take a few minutes to conclude this debate which has shown that the house is unanimous in recording its approval, as it will in a few minutes, of the Canada-Australia trade agreement. We have had an expression of opinion here today which I think indicates the bond that links Canada and Australia very closely, not only the bond of commonwealth attachment but the bond which is established through trading relations which have been good over the years.
I think the trade mission which is arriving on Sunday and will be in Ottawa on Monday will appreciate the fact that the House of Commons has acted in this manner today. The measure before us is of importance, but by the good sense of the house we are not spending overly much time on it. That is not because we do not realize that this matter affects greatly the economies of both Australia and Canada; I think it is because we believe that the job has already been done by those who discussed the trade agreement in the conferences which were held, and it is left now to the House of Commons to put its stamp of approval on a first class piece of work which was done by the officials on both sides. Our trade with Australia is important and we hope it will grow, just as they hope their trade with us will expand.
I mentioned in the course of my earlier remarks that a large group of Canadian businessmen have been in Australia on a trade mission of their own and have just returned. I hope before too long it will be possible for us to send to Australia another trade mission in order to further explore the possibilities of trade with that country; and in the light of the present agreement, with air travel now available, it is possible to expand our trade activities around the world as has been suggested. Later on this session I hope to be able to put before the house some ideas we have in that regard.
The hon. member for Ottawa West asked for an explanation of the appointment of


officials in the two capitals. We have had trade commissioners in Australia stationed in Sydney and Melbourne, I think it is, but it seemed advisable to put a third man in the capital city, and Mr. Nickson of our department recently arrived in Australia. Similarly the Australian government has placed a commercial counsellor here in Ottawa. The advantage of that arrangement is this, and we do it in other countries of the world. The commercial counsellor living in the capital city can readily get in touch with departmental officials on matters which are of concern. We had in mind here that the problem of consultation would be met immediately by having on the spot in the capital city of each country a commercial representative. Both this country and Australia have quickly taken up that idea and those appointments have been made.


George James McIlraith: Just before the minister leaves that point, I wonder if I might ask him a question; I want to clear up the matter. As I understand it these new trade officials are in addition to the existing trade officials in each country; it is not just a change of organization?


Gordon Minto Churchill: The hon. member is quite right; they are in addition to the trade commissioners already active in the two countries.


George James McIlraith: Thank you.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, the question arose as to the length of the agreement. It is stipulated in one of the terms that it runs for three years. The 1931 agreement had a provision which stated that it would run for one year and thereafter until notice was given, and it ran for 29 years. This trade agreement, which contains a stipulation that it will run for three years, with similar notice before it is terminated, may have a very long life ahead of it. I hope it has.
I believe this marks a further step forward in our trade relations with one of our good trading customers. I can assure the Australians-and I will tell the mission this when it arrives on Monday-that Canadian businessmen will be just as keen as they are to expand business between the two countries. We have things they need, and they have materials and foodstuffs that we can use in Canada. There is a chance for businessmen in the two countries to get acquainted through trade mission activities. Behind those trade missions is the approval of both governments, as is evident from this trade agreement which is a substantial improvement over the earlier agreement. The way is clear to the advance ment of trade between Canada and Australia


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Flynn in the chair.

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration (including the former St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers -Canadian section), $2,732,470.
Lionel Chevrier: I expect the minister will make a statement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, reference to the blue book on estimates will show that the main estimates for 1960-61 of the Department of Transport and the several other agencies reporting through me amount to $250,912,244. The total figure last year was $269,136,950. The greater part of the indicated decrease of approximately $19 million pertains to the department proper, and in the course of my remarks I shall draw attention to the major items included in the decrease.
During the past few years I have dealt with these estimates according to the three main services of the department, namely canals, marine and air. This format was selected because it made for ease of reference to the blue book. From the tenor of the remarks made by hon. members in the past I gathered that they found the format satisfactory.
Before turning to the canals service, however, let me deal with the matter of the size of our departmental establishment. Last year I reported a total strength of 13,407 employees for all positions, either full time or part time. This figure was increased to 13,620 in last year's supplementary estimates. The various programs covered by the estimates now before this committee will require the employment of 14,196 individuals, or an increase of approximately 4 per cent. In brief, the increase is related to what may be referred to as normal growth arising from the operation of additional ships, airports, navigational aids, etc.
Turning now to the canals service, it will be noted that the four votes appearing on page 73 total slightly under $5 million. This means we contemplate a reduction in expenditure of close to $2,500,000 as compared to the figure for last year. This substantial change is related partly to some expected improvement in operating costs of the nontoll canals transferred to the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Mainly, however, it is due
Supply-Transport
to the completion of a number of large construction projects on those canals for which moneys were voted last year. An example of this was the bridge across the Lachine canal at Ville St. Pierre; $350,000 was voted for that work. The closing of the Soulanges canal is another significant contributing factor.
There are two capital items which stand out in these canal appropriations. First, we are providing $270,000 for the government's contribution toward the new high-level bridge at Kars, which will replace our old swing bridge and fixed bridge spans on the Rideau canal. Second, a further $530,000 is included for rehabilitating the old bed of the second Welland canal. This is a project we have embarked upon following entry into agreement with the several municipalities concerned.
Total funds needed for our marine operations will approximate $43 million. The appropriation for administration, operation and maintenance of our departmental fleet, as well as the chartering of vessels to supplement that equipment, accounts for more than 40 per cent of the figure I have just mentioned.
This administrative responsibility extends to the design, construction, operation, repair, maintenance, etc., of vessels engaged in many different types of work. These operational roles include supply of lighthouses on coastal and inland waters, operation of a weather station in the Pacific ocean, icebreaking and ice patrols, sea transportation of supplies to the D.E.W. line, the mid-Canada line, joint weather stations, and stevedoring at northern points of call.
As would be expected in a vote of this size and general scope in which there are 17 different kinds of expenditures, we find various increases and decreases. The net change, though, is quite small, comparatively speaking; $490,654, to be exact. On the increase side, the chief change pertains to salaries and wages, which are up some $768,000, and this is due to a 10 per cent salary revision for ships' crews approved in 1959, and the commissioning this year of the new icebreaker John A. Macdonald. This diesel-electric, triple screw icebreaker, powered by engines developing 18,000 horsepower, will stand comparison with any icebreaking ship in the world. As for the decreases, these relate mainly to a sharply decreased volume of cargo to be transported to Frobisher and some D.E.W. line stations because of completion of large construction projects. During the 1959 shipping season the total sealift to the many northern points, that is to say for all government departments and for United States government account, amounted to no less than 102,000 tons.

Supply-Transport
Before leaving this particular vote I wish to mention one development of the past year which I am sure will meet with your approval. When I explained our main estimates last year I referred to our take-over in 1959 of the sealift to D.E.W. line stations on the east coast of Baffin island. I stated this meant that Canada would then be performing the entire sealift for D.E.W. line stations on Canadian soil. This program of progressive take-over will be extended even further in 1960. In recent months an agreement has been reached between the Department of Transport and the United States air force whereby we have undertaken to provide transportation of the supplies and equipment for the several Gap-Pine stations along the Labrador coast. It is certainly gratifying to note the increasing capability being demonstrated by Canadian personnel, both commercial and governmental, in the performance of this difficult work. I would like to take this opportunity of commending, for their splendid cooperation, the United States government agencies with which we have been working. Unquestionably that spirit of co-operation has greatly facilitated the task of my department.
During the past year our program for the construction of new vessels and repair of existing vessels has gone forward quite rapidly. Consequently we are planning in terms of a substantial reduction in capital outlay. Since our 1959-60 estimates were approved we have accepted deliveries of several ships. The larger of these, apart from the Sir John A. Macdonald, are the Camsell, which will be the first Canadian icebreaker assigned to support shipping in the western Arctic; two shallow draft, icebreaking and buoy vessels with search and rescue qualities, namely the Simon Fraser, operating from Victoria, and the Tapper operating from Charlottetown; three units, the Sir William A lexander working out of Halifax and the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and Wolfe working out of St. John's, Newfoundland, on supply work and light icebreaking; and the Alexander Henry, a supply light icebreaker ship for service in the upper great lakes, based at Parry Sound.
Residents of the immediate areas will no doubt be pleased to learn that the two ferry vessels, one for the Pelee Island-Ontario service and the other for the Bell Island-Newfoundland service, will be delivered in the very near future. Our proposed program contemplates preparation of plans and specifications this year for certain additional units, particularly replacements for two or three more of our older agency supply ships and possibly replacements for our ocean weather station ships. Among the items
[Mr. Hees.J
presently under study is a cable-laying ship would would be strengthened for icebreaking work as well.
Regardless of my expressed intention to follow the order in which the various departmental services are listed in the blue book, I wish to mention at this point an item actually covered by vote 425. This vote is somewhat similar in that it pertains to ship construction, in this case auto-ferry vessels. In December, 1959 a contract for very close to $3 million was awarded to Halifax Shipyards. It was for the construction of a ferry with capacity for 68 automobiles and 300 passengers which will ply between Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. The three ferries now in use include two which were built some 40 years ago. For this reason and, furthermore, because of the continued growth in traffic, construction of this additional ship is considered essential. We are seeking approval of payments totalling $1,860,000 to be made in this fiscal year.
Operation and maintenance of aids to navigation is a work which continues from year to year at an unusually consistent rate. This will be the case again during the coming year. The estimated outlay of $6 million provides for a program basically the same, both as to volume and make-up.
During the past few years we have been pushing ahead with a program of replacing the wharves and buildings located at our marine agency depots. This work of rehabilitation is essential because the existing structures are very old and quite inadequate to meet present day requirements. This program may take up to 10 years to complete, but it is aimed at providing at such ports as St. John's, Newfoundland; Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island; Dartmouth, Nova Scotia; Saint John, New Brunswick; Quebec, province of Quebec; Sorel, Quebec; Prescott, Ontario; Parry Sound, Ontario; Victoria, British Columbia; and Prince Rupert, British Columbia, a complex consisting of a modern wharf, office and stores building, shops building, etc.
Up to the present time very satisfactory progress has been achieved. This type of construction must be phased over a period of approximately three years in each instance. The stages of construction on some of these projects are such that there will be a reduction in expenditure in 1960-61. For example, the sum of $400,000 was required last year for the new wharf at the St. John's, Newfoundland agency. The second stage of that project is the construction of the office and stores building, and approximately $80,000 will be sufficient for this purpose.

The granting of wage increases in 1959 to ships' personnel is a consideration which also had to be covered in appropriations related to deficits on ferry services. Examination of those items will disclose that we are providing approximately $800,000 additional for the Borden-Tormentine and Sydney-Newfound-land ports ferry operations, and the wage increase accounts for most of that revision. Whilst referring to ferry operations I might mention a rather sizeable expenditure of $400,000 to improve conditions at North Sydney, where heavy congestion of shipments occurred due to inadequacy of railway trackage. To remedy this it is proposed to lay additional trackage and lengthen five existing yard tracks.
Improvement of facilities and equipment required to expedite and facilitate traffic moving to Newfoundland coastal points is being attended to as rapidly as possible. I spoke last summer of our intention to proceed with construction of two passenger-cargo vessels. One of these will be ready in the fall of 1960, the other in the spring of 1961. Whereas $800,000 was allotted for the wharves and freight sheds at Corner Brook and Lewisporte, we must provide well over $2 million to cover the next stage of the work.
I shall now attempt to cite the highlights of our air services, the listing for which begins on page 77. I use the word "attempt" intentionally because this particular service embraces a wide and varied assortment of responsibilities and operations. It is a role which has grown tremendously in size and nature as transportation by air continues its explosive expansion.
The aggregate of the several appropriations related to our telecommunications branch is down slightly from last year, the reduction being just under 4 per cent. The major part of this change is related to the construction or acquisition of buildings and equipment for radio aids to air and marine navigation. Nevertheless the proposed capital outlay is very substantial, for it totals $12,252,000. Something like $2 million of this will be devoted to extension of our program for the installation of instrument landing systems to facilitate the landing of aircraft under poor weather conditions. We are estimating $1.9 million for new or improved low and high frequency aids such as marine radio beacons and non-directional beacons for the various airways across Canada.
In the make-up of this vote the term "communications" appears frequently, and some $5.5 million is allotted for this. The types of equipment are far too numerous for me to attempt any general enumeration. One of the
Supply-Transport
very large requirements is for the installation of transmitters at marine stations where the existing equipment, in many cases as old as 40 years, does not meet the frequency tolerances demanded. Also, at many aeradio stations in northern Canada the present high frequency equipment is subject to blackouts caused by sun spot activity. To assure reliable communications we must supplement with low frequency equipment. The construction of dwellings for personnel at isolated or semi-isolated locations will cost upward of $1.5 million.
The estimated combined costs of both administering and operating our meteorological service in 1960-61, as well as attending to the necessary capital requirements of that service, differ very little from last year's costs. It is true that the printed estimates show a very substantial increase, an increase of $2,325,000 to be exact. However, the actual increase is far less. This year we have included approximately $2 million for services we provide on behalf of the Department of National Defence. In previous years this amount was incorporated in national defence estimates.
Before leaving the meteorological estimates, I do wish to refer to a subject of which I have made mention on numerous occasions. Recruitment of properly qualified personnel for the meteorological service has for the past several years been indeed one of our most difficult problems. Individuals possessing the required qualifications are in demand in other quarters such as in the teaching profession. Recently we have granted salary increases which we expect will improve matters. Further improvement in this connection is under way, and we are carrying out a long term program with respect to recruitment and training. We are very hopeful that these measures will tend to overcome our difficulties, but it appears as though it will take a few years to remedy the situation.
During the course of the statement I gave to the committee last year I pointed out that we were seeking approval of funds for civil aviation requirements which were 17 per cent in excess of those voted for the previous year. For the coming year, I am happy to report, we have managed to plan a program which dollar-wise represents a reduction of between 8 per cent and 9 per cent. It is a program designed to satisfy what we believe to be the most urgent demands of aviation. It will not, mind you, begin to satisfy all quarters. One has to be in close touch daily with the situation to form any true appreciation of the number, variety, extent, etc. of the demands presented by this, the jet age. Many of the problems are obvious to every

Supply-Transport
one of us-longer, wider and stronger runways, bigger aircraft, larger air terminal buildings, more convenient parking areas, and so forth. This is not so, however, with what one might call the hidden requirements.
Air traffic control is a good case in point. Ten years ago controlled landings and takeoffs were occurring in Canada at the rate of 800,000 per year but in the coming year the number will exceed 3| million. Add to this the factor of jet aircraft travelling at three times the speed. The old system involving elaborate display boards in control centres with slips of paper indicating position, altitude and speed of aircraft is being superseded by technological developments utilizing various types of radar, the transfer of radar pictures to closed circuit television, and possibly the adoption of electronic computers to perform speedily the wide variety of calculations.
Here is another clear-cut illustration of the demands generated by technological advancement in aircraft design. Very recently we have taken steps to establish a new high altitude airway, above the 24,000 foot level, for the use of jet aircraft exclusively. Air traffic control is but one of the demands; yet the expenditure this year will total over $7 million, including services and facilities supplied to the Department of National Defence but paid for by the Department of Transport.
Another example I might cite is that of aircraft rescue and fire fighting services. Here we have a problem to which intensive study has been and is being given by all countries directly affected by the advent of jet aircraft. Obviously this task is magnified by the weight, passenger capacity and landing speed of the jet airliner, even though at many airports the R.C.A.F. performs a major part of the function. To illustrate the expansion in this area, we have ordered 13 additional large fire fighting trucks to supplement the existing 78. At present we employ 137 fire fighters at airports but now we must hire an additional 102 and the wage bill alone will reach approximately $1.5 million yearly. Over and above this we have on order a number of crash trucks, water tenders and aerial ladders.
In the area of construction associated with new or improved air terminal buildings, runways, landing strips, heating plants, entrance roads and the many other facilities that go into the make-up of the modern airport, we are forging ahead very satisfactorily. During the coming year the terminal buildings at Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa and Regina will be ready for operation and we will be proceeding with the initial stages of the new layout of the airports at Winnipeg and Edmonton.

Despite the unceasing demand for the many improved facilities, we have managed, in keeping with the general budgeting policy, to prepare a 1960-61 program entailing an expenditure of approximately $8 million less than the appropriation approved for 1959-60. The proposed outlay totals $52 million, of which $18 million is earmarked for airport terminal buildings. If time permitted I would single out for the committee's information some of the more outstanding projects interspersed among the list, which runs to several pages. In lieu of that I have had prepared a statement enumerating the projects in the $100,000 or over category for which provision is made in this vote but which are not shown in the details given in the blue book. I shall be glad to furnish a copy of this to any member desiring it. I might also add that the summary details our marine construction projects as well.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the committee will be grateful to the minister for the excellent statement he has just given to us which will assist us very materially in the discussion of these estimates. I think the committee will also be happy to have before it a list of the projects costing over $100,000 which the department intends to put into being during the course of the present fiscal year.
The minister, as has been the case in the past, has divided his statement, generally speaking, under three heads, namely water, air and rail facilities. As one listened to the remarks made by the minister one matter primarily attracted our attention and that is the tremendous amounts that are being spent from year to year by the Department of Transport. While it is true that there has been a decrease this year, mainly, I think, because of the large expenditure last year for the St. Lawrence seaway, the expenditures which are made by this huge department are indicative of the importance of the part it is playing in the field of transportation.
There is no doubt in the minds of those of us who sit on this side of the house, and I think this applies to most hon. members who have given the subject of transportation any thought, that because of the age in which we live the department must of necessity take on greater importance, and I am wondering whether the government has given consideration to a division of the responsibilities of the department. I say this with all deference to the minister. It is not that I think that he is incapable of fulfilling the duties which a minister of transport must fulfil, but I think that consideration should be given to this matter having regard to the very important duties and responsibilities that fall on the

Department of Transport. This may not be a popular suggestion so far as some members of the department are concerned but nevertheless I think that if the government has not already given this matter consideration it should do so because of the tremendous importance of the department and because of the fact that it is gathering greater and greater momentum as time and technological development go on.
It may well be that the department could be divided into two parts with railway and canal services forming one department and aviation forming another. The minister will say that this is not a novel or new idea. In fact it is not because I know that before we left office in 1957 serious consideration was being given by the former prime minister to a division of the department although not necessarily along these lines. It seems to me that the duties and responsibilities of the department are such that as time goes on the importance of the department, if not in this year then certainly in the near future, will almost compel the government to divide these responsibilities into at least two parts.
I come to another matter with which the minister did not deal, unfortunately. I would have thought that in the course of his statement the minister would have given some indication of the policies of the government with reference to certain aspects of his department. What is the policy of the government with reference to air services? What is the policy of the government with reference to bilateral air agreements? What is the policy of the government in the field of scheduled and non-scheduled air services? There has been not the slightest indication by the minister on this occasion, and I am sorry to say on previous occasions, of these policies, and because of certain matters to which I have referred in the past and to which I intend to refer briefly now, there should I think be a clear-cut declaration of policy on the part of the government in so far as these fields are concerned.
I think that had the policy been defined by the minister it would have been much easier for those of us who sit on this side of the house, and who like to be constructive in our criticism, to have disposed more quickly of the matters that are under discussion at the moment. On prior occasions I stated that the government was giving away Canadian sovereignty in the air, and that it was discriminating against small air lines in favour of the larger, more powerful ones and, in turn, because of that, the government was discriminating against the outlying regions of our country. At that time the minister
Supply-Transport
made light of my remarks and passed them over as being nonsensical or ridiculous.
I am sorry that he felt disposed to deal with them in that manner because the events that have taken place since have indicated that the remarks made at that time were not only serious but have been supported by the evidence which was given in a committee of the house. I think it was stated by the minister on one occasion that I spoke on behalf of monopoly and vested interests. Unfortunately for the air lines concerned, it now turns out that it is the converse which is true. Not only have the smaller air lines become apprehensive of what is taking place in the field of aviation, but Trans-Canada Air Lines particularly have become extremely anxious about the position in which they find themselves because of the policy of the government with reference to bilateral air agreements, consequent upon the policy of the government in the field of international aviation.
I should like to refer for a moment now to the evidence given before the committee on railways, air lines and shipping by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. I made the statement in the house at one juncture that because of the budget for Trans-Canada Air Lines, which the minister tabled in the early part of the session and which indicated that in order to purchase new equipment the amount of many available would be the sum of nil dollars from net income; I had not drawn a conclusion at the time, but I asked a qusetion as to whether or not this might well be indicative of a position in which Trans-Canada Air Lines might find itself because of the international aviation policy of the government. The minister thought that that conclusion was not justified. None the less when Trans-Canada Air Lines tabled its report for 1959 it indicated that its net income was the lowest for all time in its history, namely about $152,000.
Later when the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines gave evidence before the committee he indicated that the loss of revenue from the operation of B.O.A.C. into Toronto would amount to $6 million gross revenue per year, and that the loss of revenue arising out of the recent bilateral route which was awarded by the government and the onward rights which were awarded to Air France and Lufthansa from Montreal to Chicago would amount to an actual loss to Trans-Canada Air Lines of $200,000 per year. The statement which was made at the time, and which I repeat now, is that because of these bilaterals which granted Lufthansa, Alitalia and Air France onward rights from Montreal

Sup p ly-Transport
to Chicago which T.C.A. does not possess, and who are going to compete directly with T.C.A., there would eventually be a substantial loss. In this particular case Trans-Canada Air Lines has not got a non-stop flight from Montreal to Chicago. It must come down at Toronto and is, therefore, at a loss in so far as competition goes with these foreign air lines and because of the policy of the government in this field Trans-Canada Air Lines has been detrimentally affected.
While I am not able to go as far, perhaps, as some of the witnesses went before the committee on railways and shipping, I believe it is safe to conclude that in the year 1960 the financial position, the profit and loss position of Trans-Canada Air Lines will be worse than it was in 1959. I should like to place on the record here, for the benefit of those who were not members of this committee, the questions and answers which can be found on page 340 of proceedings No. 3 of the committee on railways, air lines and shipping, for Thursday, March 31, 1960:


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question in a different field, and it is this: What has been the effect on T.C.A.'s operations of the prolongation of the B.O.A.C. operations to Toronto?


Robert Henry McGregor: It has only been in effect since March 1 and it is, therefore, a little bit early to say. However, we have calculated the effect of what would be a gross revenue loss of about $6 million.


Lionel Chevrier: Per year?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, per year. It is a figure which will have a tendency to be cut in half by the pooling.


Lionel Chevrier: I see. I suppose that accounts for the pooling agreement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. on the trans-Atlantic flight?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, it played its part.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it now in operation?


Robert Henry McGregor: Yes, also as of March 1.


Lionel Chevrier: Could I ask a similar question with reference to the other air carriers-Lufthansa and Air France-operating directly from the continent to Montreal-Chicago non-stop, and its effect on the revenue position of T.C.A.?


Robert Henry McGregor: We estimated that, Mr. Chevrier, but, as I say, it is difficult to say that because a passenger is carried on that non-stop operation he necessarily would have travelled on T.C.A. had that operation not existed. We have an estimated figure, but I must say it is no better than that. We can give you that, included in our report.
Later there was added as an appendix to the report the amount which I mentioned earlier, namely appendix E, "Trans-Canada Air Lines, forecast impact on T.C.A. of recent bilateral route awards" as affected by Air France and Lufthansa on the Montreal-Chicago route of $200,000 per year. The anxieties which were expressed at the time by those of us who took part in this debate have now been confirmed by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. So much so have they been confirmed that the president has

found it necessary to enter into a pooling arrangement with B.O.A.C. in connection with the north Atlantic services performed by T.C.A. The loss to T.C.A. from the granting of these onward rights is substantial. I think that consideration ought to be given at once by the minister to a renegotiation of these bilateral agreements or, in the alternative, to a renegotiation of the bilateral agreement with the United States which would give the T.C.A. and other Canadian carriers the right to operate into certain lucrative airports of the United States and would offset the losses that have been caused by the negotiation of these recent bilateral agreements.
It seems to me that all of this has been done in the name of competition. No one was more anxious that there should be competition than was my friend the Minister of Transport when he sat on this side of the house. However, when he moved over to the other side of the house he had an expert look into this whole field of transportation and there was produced the Wheatcroft report. I have no fault to find with the Wheatcroft report. On the contrary; I think the Wheatcroft report is excellent in many respects. Unfortunately, however, the minister has not seen fit to follow that report. The competition to which Trans-Canada Air Lines is being subjected is going to mean financial loss to the company.
But I believe this position of competition also applies in the field of domestic air services. I think it is unfortunate that the minister did not see fit to indicate to the committee what the government policy was with reference to those services. I think it can also be said that in this field of domestic air services there is on the part of the government, through the initiation of the minister, a tendency to allow far too much competition. That tendency was indicated by the decontrol of groups C and B, the one on July 18, 1958 and the other on December 21, 1958. The opening up of these two categories of air services to competition was a serious matter. The result has been a tremendous number of bankruptcies. Certainly there have been a larger number of bankruptcies than anyone would have expected would occur.
I placed on the order paper a starred question in connection with this matter. The answer the minister gave was that six aviation companies had gone into bankruptcy since July 18, 1958, the date of the announcement of the decontrol of group C; that 38 air companies had applied for suspension of services; that 15 companies had applied for cancellation of their permits; and that 15 companies had had their permits cancelled. It seems to me that this is cleanly indicative

of this new policy of competition in every field which has meant that many of these companies have been unable to carry on. They had difficulties previously but those difficulties became insurmountable and it was not possible for them to carry on; hence these bankruptcies and these suspensions of services.
This is exactly what the air industries and transport association foreshadowed in their brief to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport at the annual association meeting which they held in Montreal in October of last year and again in a subsequent meeting which they held in Victoria some short time ago.
There is also an extremely unsatisfactory situation with regard to Autair Helicopter Services. Surely the minister has not given the house a satisfactory answer in so far as this company is concerned. I have no intention of repeating what I said on an earlier occasion dealing with the subject of Autair Helicopter Services. However, I want to say one thing, namely that there is in existence an air transport board which functions in accordance with the terms of the Aeronautics Act. I am sorry to tell the minister that he has not allowed the air transport board to function in accordance with the terms of this act but has interfered with the functions of the air transport board on at least two occasions. The first occasion is that of Autair Helicopter Services and the other is that of Georgian Bay Airways Limited.
In the case of Autair Helicopter Services, an application was made by that company before the air transport board. A public hearing was held by the board in Montreal and after careful consideration by the members of the air transport board they declined to grant the application. However, upon appeal the minister overruled the board. I say now, as I said before, that the minister should not have interfered in a judicial matter. Had it been purely a question of fact, that would have been an entirely different matter. However, it was not purely a question of fact; it was a matter of a judicial nature. When the Aeronautics Act was passed by this parliament I think the intention clearly was that while an appeal lay to the minister in certain circumstances, in so far as the legal aspect was concerned the matter was for the air transport board to determine.
The result has been extremely unfortunate in so far as this company is concerned and in so far as the air transport board is concerned. With the overruling of the board by the minister we have no proof of financial responsibility. A number of accidents have taken place. I believe there have been seven, four in 1959 and three already in 1960, in connection with Autair Services Limited.
Supply-Transport
A letter written by the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services has gone unanswered. No attention has been paid to this regulating and governing body by an air services corporation which exists and which is subject to the jurisdiction of the board.
I would like to put this letter on Hansard. It is dated February 4, 1959 and was obtained in answer to a notice of motion tabled in this house. It is addressed by the secretary of the air transport board to Autair Helicopter Services and reads:
Dear Sir,
This is further to our letter of January 7th in connection with the removal of the restriction limiting your company to the use of certain helicopters under board decision No. 1111.
Our audit section finds that it cannot make a proper study of your application because it ha* no up to date financial information other than operating reports for the period from commencement of operations to December 31, 1958. The following information should be provided:
(1)	A balance sheet of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. as at December 31, 1958.
(2)	A consolidated balance sheet of Autair Helicopter Services Ltd. and subsidiaries as at December 31, 1958.
(3)	Full information regarding all helicopters acquired or to be acquired since the date of the above balance sheet, including type or types, estimated cost and proposed method of financing purchase.
(4)	Full information regarding terms of repayment of any long term debts which may be included in the above suggested balance sheets.
As soon as the above has been received, your application will be further processed.
As far as I know there has not only been no reply to that letter, but there has been an utter and total disregard by an aircraft company operating in this country under the jurisdiction of the air transport board of that governing body. If I am wrong in that assumption I hope the minister will correct me, but I gathered from the information which was obtained earlier that Autair Helicopter Services paid no attention whatsoever and carried on as if the air transport board had never existed at all. In fact, not only did they carry on; they had been operating in the province of Quebec without a licence for a period of several months. I made that statement on an earlier occasion and I repeat it now. The minister said that they did not operate with his knowledge and that may well be; but the point is that the air transport board has in its possession information which would indicate that they did operate without a licence and that the owner of that corporation operated with a private licence only. That certainly is contrary to the rules and regulations established under the Aeronautics Act and applicable to other aircraft companies in Canada.

Supply-Transport
I think the minister should not have interfered with the decision of the board, because if he had not interfered with the decision of the board this company would have either had to abide by the regulations of the air transport board and its procedures or it would not have been able to operate at all.
There is a great deal more than that in connection with this matter. This company has had its insurance cancelled twice. It has also obtained from the government, through the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, a very important contract on the polar shelf involving several hundred thousand dollars. What about these professional men, these workers skilled and otherwise, who are being transported by this company in the north, that not only has had its insurance cancelled but which presently is insured by an unrecognized company in the United States? From the information I have indications are that this company may also cancel the insurance of the company as they have been unable to find any insurance adjuster to handle the accidents which were listed by the minister which took place in 1960.


Charles Edward Rea: I am sorry to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee give unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you. I was under the impression that I had unlimited time; I am apparently in error. I am grateful to the committee and I will try and shorten this as much as I can.
I was going on to say that the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys gave indication some time ago that this company had had experience on the D.E.W. line. His statement was that the pilots of Autair Helicopter Services had had experience on the D.E.W. line. The information I have is that at the time the contract was awarded and this company was preparing to leave for the polar shelf, which was in April, 1960, there were three pilots in the employ of that company. One of them had a total experience of bush flying of 30 days which he had acquired at Knob Lake three years ago; neither of the other two pilots on the polar continental shelf contract had had any previous Arctic experience.
I think the least the minister can do is to hold an investigation, as he was asked to do by those of us who sit on this side of the house. He should hold an investigation

at least for the safety of those people who may be transported on the helicopters of this company. Surely this is not asking too much. If we were asking this with no evidence of what had transpired I think the minister would be well within his rights in refusing. But we are asking an investigation of a company that has had no experience in operating on the polar shelf; that has already had seven accidents; that has had its insurance cancelled twice; and, most important of all, it is a company whose application was turned down by the governing body in the Department of Transport dealing with these applications after a hearing held in Montreal. For that reason I again say that the minister was in error in overruling the air transport board, in granting the application, and that because of the reasons I have given, which I believe to be serious, there should be a full investigation by the minister into the operations of this company.
Before I resume my seat I would like to say a word about Georgian Bay Airways Limited. This to my mind is a more serious situation than that of Autair Helicopter Services. This case is more serious because when the application was made for a class 4 charter commercial air service with group B aircraft the air transport board declined the application after hearing testimony in Timmins. Incidentally, may I tell the minister that although a motion was passed for the production of the decision of the board, the transcript of the evidence and several other items, I have not received these yet and I hope it will be possible for me to obtain them in due course.
In the case of Georgian Bay Airways Limited, the application was made for a class 4 charter commercial service with group B aircraft and it was declined by the air transport board after the air transport board had given careful consideration, not only to the position of this company in so far as its equipment was concerned but also in so far as its over-all position was concerned.
In this case the minister did not overrule the board. He did worse than that; he changed the law. The minister, by order in council, passed a regulation which amended the law and which allowed Georgian Bay aircraft company to make another application for practically the same service. I would like to refer to the order in council which changed the regulations. It is P.C.60/65 dated January 15, 1960 and the substantive part of the order reads as follows:
The commercial air service regulations are amended by revoking subsection (1) of section 6 and substituting therefor the following:
6. (1) 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.
Until that time an application such as was made by Georgian Bay Airways Limited was controlled by section 15(3) of the Aeronautics Act which reads:
The board shall not issue any such licence unless it is satisfied that the proposed commercial air service is and will be required by the present and future public convenience and necessity.
The air transport board, after hearing evidence at Timmins, came to the conclusion that in the light of the present and future public convenience and necessity the application should not be granted.
My submission is that the minister should have amended the act. He ought not to have allowed this company to enter by the back door, by making an amendment to these regulations, but he should have come forward and amended the Aeronautics Act, stipulating that the present and future public convenience and necessity provision was no longer required to be shown by aircraft companies of this kind, but that in future they need only show proof of public interest if that was the intention. I maintain that when so much has been said by those who sit on the other side of the house about a bill of rights, if there are two methods by which a result can be brought about-and I submit there were not-then at least the least objectionable method is the one which should have been taken.
Again I should like to bring this to the attention of the committee. It is doubtful whether in view of what has been done that the air transport board may not be liable to legal action for having done something by virtue of an order in council which should have been done by virtue of an amendment to a statute. So it seems to me that in this sense the matter is more serious than the Autair case.
The granting of this licence was a circumventing of parliament. It confirms exactly what the air industries and transport association have been saying to the Prime Minister and the government, namely what is the use of having an air transport board if its decisions are to be circumvented, in one case by the minister overruling the board and in the other case by the passing of an order in council which cancels what is contained in the act? It seems to me that this is a direct challenge to the functions of the air transport board, and that the action taken in this case strikes at the very root of parliament.
There are a number of other items which I should like to discuss, but the committee
Supply-Transport
has been generous. I will not proceed further than to mention them. There is the very important question of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. There have been contradictory statements in this respect. The minister made a statement at Baie Comeau. The Prime Minister made a directly opposite statement at Halifax. I have the statements here and can put them on record. Certainly, the minister made his views perfectly clear in so far as winter navigation was concerned. It was also made quite clear in the speech delivered by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works. I quote from the speech made by the minister to the Dominion Marine Association and the lake carriers association on January 22, 1958:
With this group of ships available it should be possible within the next few years to meet virtually all the requirements in the St. Lawrence and gulf areas including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed to the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence, even as far as Quebec, and in the gulf and Atlantic areas generally.
When this was put to the minister in the course of questions on orders of the day, he interjected: "Up to but not necessarily as far as Quebec."
I wish to place on record in Hansard what the Prime Minister said in Halifax and in Saint John. The right hon. gentleman wanted, surely, to reassure the people of those two ports, and he did reassure them according to the report which appeared in the Montreal Gazette of November 16, 1959, when the following appeared:
He reassured Halifax and Saint John, New Brunswick, port officials by saying his government has no plans to keep the St. Lawrence river open in winter. Reports of such a scheme have brought protests from maritime shipping men who say the winter business they depend on may be lost.
Again in the Ottawa Citizen of November 19 the following appeared:
Transport Minister Hees said Tuesday maritime ports have no reason to worry about plans to keep ports along the St. Lawrence north shore open during the winter months.
In fact, he told reporters as he entered a cabinet meeting, north shore communities had told him that they probably would buy their supplies in Saint John or Halifax if their ports are kept open. The maritimes will definitely benefit from this, he said.
I am wondering if this is another case where the government is proceeding without plans or is it simply a matter of prevarication, because there can be no doubt about the minister's statement where he said that winter navigation would be provided, if it were required and necessary, right up to the port of Quebec.
I wish to say just a word about the construction of an additional bridge. Perhaps we can get some explanation of this from the hon. member for Saint John-Albert. He is

Supply-Transport
the hon. gentleman who asked a question in the house one day. I do not think he received a satisfactory reply but there is no doubt about the minister's statement in that respect.
Let me say a final word about the construction of a new bridge between Montreal and the south shore east of the Jacques Cartier bridge. I have on more than one occasion beginning in 1957 referred to a report which is in the Department of Transport entitled "The St. Lawrence Ship Channel and Montreal Harbour Committee of 1950; report on the terms of reference thereof". This is a report which dealt with the construction of facilities in the Montreal harbour and east of that harbour that would have to be undertaken following the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. The report is a voluminous one. I have only the report dealing with one reference but there are four or five references. Somewhere in this report it is stated that a bridge should be constructed east of the Jacques Cartier bridge linking Montreal and the south shore. I advocated this again in 1958 and saw that sometime afterwards the associate minister of defence had indicated his approval of construction of that nature. In fact, I believe the hon. gentleman went to an association or group in Montreal and said he thought they should make representations for the construction of that bridge.
The point I want to make now is that the minister certainly did not give his colleague very much assistance in that respect when he wrote to the mayors of the municipalities on the south shore. I will not embarrass the minister by putting the correspondence on the record but the minister wrote a letter under date of February 13, 1959 to all of the mayors, the concluding part of which would indicate that regardless of other considerations the course of wisdom for whichever authority might assume responsibility would be to wait at least until the effects of the new Champlain bridge could be examined before undertaking the very substantial financial outlay which would be involved in the construction of yet another bridge.
The minister has in his possession a survey of traffic in Montreal made by traffic experts of the city of Montreal and province of Quebec over the bridges which indicates the probable effect of all of the bridges, the Jacques Cartier bridge, the Victoria bridge and the new Champlain bridge. Notwithstanding that, there are in the city of Montreal, I believe, experts who have come to the conclusion that another bridge is necessary. I know that decisions like this cannot be taken overnight and must be given careful consideration but I urge the minister in the

light of the traffic report which he has received-I guess it is dated 1957-and in the light of the representations which I am sure must have been made to him by many groups and associations in the city of Montreal to give consideration now to the planning and surveying that might be necessary for the construction of an additional bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge.
There are other matters with which I should like to deal but I will leave them for consideration as the various items of the department come up during the course of the discussion in this committee.
(Translation):


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he would allow me a question.


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Martial Asselin: The hon. member has referred to winter navigation. May I ask whether he himself and his party are in favour of winter navigation up to Quebec?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I can very easily answer that question, because I have answered it on two previous occasions. The first time was at Quebec, where I had gone to give a talk, and the second was in reply to a question I was asked last winter during our party convention at the Chateau Laurier.
The reply to the question of the hon. member for Charlevoix is as follows: our party is in favour of providing services when they are required to promote industry where necessary, whether it is a matter of supplying icebreakers or other services to promote winter navigation to a port such as Quebec, for instance.
Now, as regards Atlantic ports, in reply to a question by a member from the maritime provinces about Saint John and Halifax harbours, I added that if the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines had accepted my recommendation that an economic study be made of the impact of the St. Lawrence seaway on every part of Canada, we might be in a position to know if the impact on those ports has been favourable or otherwise. And should the results be adverse as the hon. member for Saint John-Albert (Mr. Bell), and others are inclined to believe, the government could then take proper remedial steps.
However, with regard to winter navigation to the port of Quebec, my party, as the record shows, did everything that the Quebec port authorities had asked for.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask another question of the hon. member, if he does not mind.
(Text):


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not want to interfere with the hon. member's questioning but perhaps he will have an opportunity to ask questions later. At times the Minister of Transport strikes me as being a rather gay socialist and at others as a fay free enterpriser. The previous speaker has given an indication as to where these free enterprise instincts have led the minister as far as Autair, T.C.A., and the Georgian Bay commitments are concerned.
I thought the minister was somewhat bland in his outline and in his reference to the fact that his department has shown only a 4 per cent growth. I remember that the hon. member in opposition-forgive me for ever bringing up the way people handle themselves in opposition-urged the previous administration to cut down the growing government service. Now the hon. gentleman's tune has changed. If this scale of growth is across the board we can imagine what will be the size of the civil service if this government remains in power for as long as the previous one.
I expected that the minister might have given us in addition to an outline of the work of his department a review of the transportation picture in Canada. It is in a rather bad snafu. I think this stems from the fact that Canadians cannot and never have been able to make up their minds, just as the minister has not, whether transport is to be an ancillary or a main field of government enterprise. If you want to put it more directly, where should private enterprise fit into the transport picture? I have never been able to see that we have any definite public consensus as to this situation.
I have been following very closely the hearings of the royal commission on transportation. I think the report of their proceedings now covers pretty close to 20,000 pages. The commission has sat throughout the country in the various provinces and has received a tremendous number of briefs. In glancing at the proceedings it is apparent that one can enumerate a tremendous number of transportation problems throughout the country, and it seems to me that with such a vigorous minister, a minister with so much pep and energy and with so much enthusiasm, we might expect more leadership with regard to our transportation problems than we are getting from him or are likely to get from the royal commission.
79951-0-281
Supply-Transport
I think it is fair for me to comment about the royal commision that in the main it has spent most of its time, as a result of the crossexamination by railway counsel and counsel for the western provinces, on the problem of the Crowsnest rates, which is one of the fundamental transportation enigmas in Canada. But when you examine the briefs that have been presented by the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and the Atlantic provinces you get a picture of our transportation problems that is much broader than merely the Crowsnest rates and, Lord knows, the Crowsnest rates are problem enough.
If we start in the maritimes field we find a wide difference of opinion over the Chignecto canal. There are wide differences of opinion as between Halifax and Saint John and Quebec with respect to the topic mentioned by the previous speaker, winter shipping on the St. Lawrence river. It is apparent from the brief presented by the province of Quebec that that province feels very strongly and intends to insist-one might almost say demand-that the shipping season be extended on the St. Lawrence, and it is also apparent from the scope of the enterprises that are being established and have been established in Labrador that a much longer shipping season is expected out of Seven Islands. What is involved is not only a full ocean shipping season for the transport of ore to the east coast of the United States but also a longer shipping season into the port of Montreal. I have figures here indicating that the difference between the cost of goods landed at Halifax or Saint John and shipped westward into Upper Canada, as the maritimers say, and goods landed at Montreal is on the average somewhere between $12 and $16 a ton. This indicates to me a rather enormous potential saving for shippers and the economy.
But against this the minister has to balance, as we do, the effect on the maritime ports that would result from encouraging the transfer of shipments to Montreal. This is one of the very large issues in the eastern part of Canada into which the development of the Chignecto canal and even the causeway to Prince Edward Island perhaps fit. It is something that indicates the turmoil in our transportation situation at the present time and the need for clear leadership.
I agree with the hon. member for Laurier that there seems to be a contradiction in the policy or what masquerades as the policy of the government with respect to winter ship-talking to an engineer who is familiar with ping on the St. Lawrence. I gather from the Montreal harbour situation that if sufficient research were put into the matter it might be possible to do something about preventing at least for the month of December

Supply-Transport
and perhaps lor another month early in the spring the building up ol ice from the bottom that takes place in the channels of Montreal harbour and really chokes off the shipping season sooner than one might expect. If that particular problem could be prevented in the stretch of water up as far as Montreal harbour there would certainly seem to be no reason why we should not be considering not only winter shipping into Quebec city but winter shipping into Montreal. I think we have to realize that until some real revolution in technology occurs the locks up river from Montreal are not going to be open for any longer period.
With regard to the general transportation problems of the province of Quebec, the Hon. Mr. Johnson, who presented the Quebec brief to the royal commission on transportation, was very forthright in his demands and requests for a whole host of things in terms of transportation services. He ranged all the way from insisting that the signs at Dorval airport should be in both languages to the argument that it was unfair that the Ontario Northland railway happened to tap part of Quebec. He went further and argued that the railway building policy of the government of Canada had not been fair to Quebec and he had a number of statistical analyses showing that development by the railways of Canada had resulted in less mileage per capita in Quebec than anywhere else.
He followed up this argument, which I personally could not appreciate, with something that I could appreciate, the need of a more forthright developmental policy by the railways in opening up Quebec's resources. Before he finished he went so far as to say that if the federal government would not give aid the province would not hesitate at all to jump into the field with truck highways or railroads.
When we come to the submissions of the province of Ontario we find that in the main the brief is a very extreme criticism of the Canadian railways. The point is made repeatedly that the province of Ontario is not satisfied with the railway services it has got. The opinion is expressed very strongly that the reason highway development and truck transportation have advanced as much as they have is that the railways have not given the service that they should, that they have become decadent industries in a dynamic economy. Again this is something that I personally cannot quite swallow but it emphasizes what has become a fairly popular view about our railway problems in Canada.
Again, the tragedies in terms of employment that have occurred on the railways, the dislocation of the labour force, the shifting

of the labour force, the problems at Stratford and London about which the minister has been probed, indicate that all is not well within this field and that we need forthright leadership. I hope the minister noted that the report of the parliamentary committee on the government railways contained one very succinct paragraph indicating strong dissatisfaction with the role played by Canadian National Railways in its public relations with the communities that the railway services. I think the minister has to do a job of interpreting that paragraph to the Canadian National management because one of the most serious of all employment problems, one that fits into the transportation picture, is the great cut-back that has taken place and is going to take place in the railway labour force. There is a need for the very best of relations between the railways, the unions and the communities involved to see that this is done in as fair a way as possible.
We would suggest to the minister that he should be in a position to outline to us what the government accepts as its responsibility in so far as this dislocation is concerned. He probably knows that at the present time the responsibility is diffuse. The province accepts some responsibility and the Department of Labour accepts some but we are not sure where the railways stand. They have agreements with the unions that are not particularly clear, and it seems to me that the minister could play a much larger role than he has. I think he should be embarrassed by the part he has played in situations such as the London one where all he did was to get up and say that the president of the C.N.R. had refused to meet a delegation or that the
C.N.R. did not feel it could consider this matter at the present time.
I could interject here, Mr. Chairman, and say that the minister has a great predilection to concentrate his interests, his public speeches, his optimism, upon the air service side of transportation. We have a total picture of transportation in Canada into which the government has been feet first for a long time. We have pipe lines, air transportation, highway transportation, water transportation and canals, in addition to air services. If the railway situation, in economic terms, has become decadent, if we have an over-mature or declining industry, then it seems to me, and I think the minister knows this, that it raises very real problems in so far as the dislocation of the labour force is concerned.


George Harris Hees: Might I just point out something to the hon. member. I know there is a municipality in his own riding, I believe, the municipality of Sioux Lookout, which had a

problem that the hon. member for Port Arthur brought to my attention. I had the Canadian National officials go there for a special meeting with the town council of Sioux Lookout, and as a result of that a very satisfactory arrangement was worked out. I received a very nice letter from the mayor of Sioux Lookout which told me how pleased he was with the situation.
I made a special request of the president of the Canadian National, even after they had completed their examination of the London situation. A complete re-examination of the whole situation was made from top to bottom but unfortunately they could not come to any different conclusion. However, this was not through lack of effort on my part or interest on my part, and nothing could be done to change the decision.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I thank the minister, but Sioux Lookout is just outside my constituency. I am interested in it because it was my birthplace. I agree that the compromise arrangement is satisfactory in the short term, but what I have been trying to suggest to the minister has been that there is a much larger problem here. Who is responsible, for example, for the decline or the complete disruption of communities? I am not suggesting that the government should be, but the government has accepted a special responsibility in the Elliot Lake and the Bancroft situations. What is the responsibility in so far as railway problems are concerned?
If automation is having this grave effect, as we can see it is, in the transportation industry, surely this should be a matter of concern to more than the Minister of Labour. I would suggest that it should be a very real problem for the Minister of Transport, if he is indeed in charge or his department is in charge of the over-all transportation policy for the country. You not only have to look at the dynamic part of transportation, such as jets flying faster and runways getting longer, but also at the slipping, declining parts of the transportation picture.
When you look at the situation in northwestern Ontario or northern Ontario-I thinir the minister is aware that one could go on for a very long time in so far as transportation is concerned-you can give some examples of situations about which the people are not satisfied. We are not satisfied with the way the work is progressing at the lakehead terminals. This is only indirectly connected with the minister's department since the Minister of Public Works has to bear major responsibility. The discontent is more than local. This discontent spreads over the prairies because the farmers expected so
79951-0-281J
Supply-Transport
much more from the seaway than was actually experienced. Whether it is true or false, there is a belief that this government and the previous government had not prepared facilities for helping us to compete with Duluth and the other United States ports. My own feeling is that this mood is exaggerated, but here again we have not had a clear policy integrating this problem with the highway situation and the railways with any developments that they are going to make in the lakehead terminals.
The minister is aware of the fact that the western provinces and the cities of the lake-head were so disturbed about the situation they formed a special port association with the idea of promoting the whole affair and developing more policies. This again indicates that there has been a vacuum or something close to a vacuum in the minister's department in not having an over-all policy laid down in this connection that was readily understandable. Surely when you have communities such as these that are relatively isolated, that are in a dudgeon and worked up about a number of things in this transportation picture, it indicates a lack of clarity on the part of the senior administrative agency. I would suggest to the minister that his department is responsible.
I have recently drawn to his attention complaints about icebreaking. The prairie farmers think it is important, and the lakehead communities think it is important in terms of employment that the elevators have boats at them as early as possible in the spring, and that the boats are able to get service from these elevators as late as possible in the fall. I have had accusations made at the lake-head to the effect that both the prairie farmers and the lakehead people were let down by the icebreaker service this year when the Alexander Henry was pulled out of the harbour prematurely. The ironical part of the situation is that the president of the lakehead harbour commission appointed by the minister-we will assume he is a good Conservative, and in any event he is a fine man is the head of a particular elevator. His elevator had to wait 12 days after the opening of shipping, according to the information I have, before a ship was able to get to the dock and get any grain out of that very large elevator. The reason was that the government icebreaker had not bothered to go to that particular elevator to open it up for shipping. We see, therefore, that even the minister's own friends suffered from this action.
We have a shipyard at the lakehead, and this is another aspect of the over-all transportation picture that is most unsatisfactory.

Supply-Transport
There were all these dreams sponsored by the present minister for external affairs and the Minister of Transport himself when in opposition, that when the Conservative millennium came-that would be immediately after the election-we would have a salt water fleet in being, and have a great expansion in this particular field. All I know is that our particular shipyard has not built anything of substance for a long time. I know that the shipyards in British Columbia are in a bad way and that the shipyard at Collingwood is within sight of the end of its orders. We have a depressed industry, again in this vitally important part of the transportation picture. I know the minister has given encouragement where he could by awarding contracts here and there for relatively minor craft, but the fact remains that in this aspect of the transportation picture Canada has no fleet. Where is our salt water fleet?
Again we find we have not the kind of leadership we expected from this particular department. When you get to the prairies, in so far as the transportation picture is concerned we find there are still complaints about the meteorological service provided by the department. This is in the agricultural field, so I suppose there will be western members speaking about that.
However, I should like to return to the problem with which the royal commission has been preoccupied, that is the freight rate structure and the Crowsnest pass rates. What is going to be the solution for the dilemma of the subsidy picture? I think we are entitled to know how the minister plans to handle the situation that is developing between the railways and the unions which are now in negotiation. The conciliation stage has been reached. We not only have the situation that any award to the unions will put the railways in a more difficult position, but we may have a strike. We also have the situation where the $20 million subsidy is beginning to come to an end. This is the minister's responsibilty. He fathered the bill in the house, took it into committee, brought it back and we approved it. Then $20 million was pumped into the freight rate structure of Canada. This amount was allocated for one year and that year is almost up.
The royal commission on transportation which was to give us some kind of solution to this particular problem has set up hearings for next October. If that commission comes up with any kind of substantial report many more months will ensue. Where are we going to go with the $20 million subsidy? What is the interim measure we can count on from this government to ease the burden upon the 
shippers or are they going to allow the rates to go back up to the 17 per cent picture?
Before I leave the Crowsnest rates may I say that it seems to me that the government has given us a regrettable lack of leadership and direction in this particular field. The Prime Minister gave the assurance in the house before the commission was appointed that the Crowsnest rates, in so far as the agreement was concerned, would not be touched. I think that is the kind of commitment we can understand. But this leaves the only alternative, it seems to me, of some kind of Chinese face-saving device so that the agreement does not completely lapse for the C.P.R. and then something is going to come from the taxpayers' pocket; I refer to the general taxpayers. That seems to be the only solution. That is really the basic argument underlying the royal commission on transportation.
It seems to me that we shall never clear up one of the biggest problems of the transport picture until we get leadership from this government on two things. One is a final solution, even if it must be spread over a number of years, for the grain carrying dilemmas of the railways. The second is some formula by which the railway workers' wages can be arrived at. As long as the railways are going to be controlled and regulated there must be some formula that is accepted by the nation as a whole on which these wages can find a parity.
Again we get no indication that the government is working in a leadership way to develop such a formula. It is leaving it to the normal channels which I would agree are perfectly sound in most industries. I refer to the contest between labour and management. But this is not a proper kind of contest when you have the railways so regulated as they are by the board of transport commissioners and vulnerable to decisions of this particular parliament in so far as grain rates are concerned.
I do not know whether the white goods formula is the one that needs to be transferred to the railway industry to determine the wage structure but I certainly feel that we have every right to expect leadership from the minister in developing a wage formula set-up for the railways. Despite the relationship that I or my political party might have, I would even go so far as to suggest that this formula should come no matter what management may feel about it and no matter what labour may feel about it. We need to get a working formula in this field. I am not going to suggest to the minister what it should be but I certainly suggest to him and

his department that he should be developing this policy and making it part of the public view and the public discussion, in fairness to all parties in the partnership.
As to British Columbia, we have a British Columbian in our party who will touch on what appears to be one of the fundamental transportation problems in British Columbia, namely the famed Kettle Valley railway. I know this is a vital part of the minister's responsibility. But the other aspect of the British Columbia picture that fits into the railway transportation is the long problem that province has had since confederation to get its products into the eastern Canadian market at some kind of competitive position.
It is obvious from the submission that British Columbia again has made to the royal commission on transportation that they are not satisfied. I know that one of the dilemmas here is that if you give too many concessions to British Columbia to put their goods into the eastern Canadian market, it means that they can cut the throats of suppliers much closer at hand who also have the same type of products. I am thinking in terms of fruit and lumber and situations like that. I do not know what the way out of that particular dilemma is but I certainly know that it is a large enough and strong enough issue that we need some indication from the government of what it plans to do.
One of the things we expected from the minister this session was changes in the Canada Shipping Act. I still do not know whether we are going to get them. I thought he might let us know what the situation is in so far as United States progress is concerned under their particular act, and whether he is really ready at this time to give us these changes. I know that the basic problem here is that we have never had explained fully in Canada why the head of the United States coastguard takes a so much stronger view of safety than does the minister's own department. Why is it that the admiral in charge of the United States coastguard is so strongly against the opening up of licensing to foreign ships in comparison to the lengths to which the Canadian government will go? The minister's department is quite prepared to license foreign captains and mates for navigation in the lakes and to go much further than, as I understand it, the admiral is willing to go. Why is it that this department puts a so much smaller premium on safety than does the United States coastguard? I do not think we can assume that the admiral is a fool. I think we are aware of the fact that a number of accidents are taking place in the lakes. There was a serious one in the lakes just
Supply-Transport
a few days ago in which foreign ships were involved. It seems to me that we might expect something in this particular field from the minister.
The minister gave us a survey not too long ago of what his government and the department were doing with regard to harbours. I was interested that one of the hon. members on the government side rose in his place and touted some harbours on down the lake from Oshawa. I think Oshawa is extremely lucky to have a minister in the cabinet to get the benefit of the act and the development that it is probably going to get. But the unexplained part of the minister's sermon to me is an explanation over-all as to just how this developing harbour picture along the lakes is going to fit into the overall economic development. I think we are entitled to ask this question because one of the great expectations really up until last fall was that the lakes would become open to foreign shipping and there was a real doubt that our own domestic shipping was going to be able to survive.
The minister went to Windsor last November, I believe, and gave a speech which was really an indicator that his department felt that lake shipping was going to be more than able to hold its own against foreign shipping; in other words, that there was not going to be the revolutionary switch that so many people had counted upon. This indicates that a good deal of the dreaming and many of the grandiose plans-and I think some of the dreaming and the grandiose stuff was encouraged by the hon. member for Laurier- are not coming to fruition and are most unlikely to do so. This raises in my mind the question as to how accurate these surveys may be; what are the norms or the standards that these surveys crews are taking in judging the potential both of the harbour and the hinterland of the harbour; the way it can fit in with competing harbours along the way and the whole national growth. I can underline this matter for the minister by saying how relatively disappointed the people in our part of the country and the west have been over the failure of the opening of the seaway last year to generate more traffic than it did.
A lot of people are still dissatisfied with the Welland canal tolls. Here again is another transportation problem which is still a very live topic.


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


George Harris Hees: Carry on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I shall only be another minute or two.

Supply-Transport


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee give unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The Welland canal situation is still an issue so far as tolls are concerned. The minister may think it is a dead issue but he is still getting briefs and representations. There is dissatisfaction in the west with the tolls structure, and I think here again we could expect more in the way of a final solution to the dissatisfaction over the toll structure on the Welland canal.
I would also welcome it very much if the minister later in the estimates would give us a picture of the expenditures that the United States is making along the Detroit section of the seaway, and also at Sault Ste. Marie so far as the deepening of the canal there is concerned. It certainly seems to me that when the United States is finally faced with the total cost of what they are putting up so far as the seaway is concerned, we may have opened up another argumentative chapter in the Welland canal tolls. It certainly does not make sense to me that they should deepen the Sault Ste Marie canal to the depth of the Welland canal and not expect some return from Canada. I am wondering if that return might possibly be a dropping of the tolls of the Welland canal, which as I understand it go right to the Canadian government and to no other. We hope to have the opportunity later on in the estimates to go into almost every phase of the department's activities and we look forward to seeing the minister and his friendly presence with us for many more days.


Hugh Macarthur Horner: Would the hon. member permit a question. I was interested in his remarks with regard to the Crowsnest pass rates. I wondered if the C.C.F. policy was that they would advocate scrapping these rates; but I understand he would let us down years. Is this the C.C.F.'s policy at the moment?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to remind the hon. member that I am not that big a sucker. What I was suggesting was that both the railways and the western provinces are focussing attention on the Crowsnest pass rates before the royal commission on transportation. It seems to me that this is just one part of the railway problem.
Personally I and most of my associates are not frightened by the word "subsidy" or "subvention". We know that what is going to come out of the situation, whether the agreement lasts or not, is that somehow the railways are going to be given more money.

All I was suggesting was some kind of realistic leadership from our political leaders rather than leaving it to be thrashed out ad nauseam before the royal commission. It seems to me we have had a failure of political leadership by the government in not solving this situation.
If the hon. member would like to know my recommendations in this regard they are to find out what the cost differentiation is between hauling the grain and what is actually received then some kind of formula for over the years could be prepared to see that the money comes back to the railways as far as the difference is concerned.


An hon. Member:: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Having said that, I think the hon. member knows that this cost difference is very debatable. I notice someone is calling order. I believe I have the right-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have made your speech.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I understand, Mr. Chairman, that in committee once someone else has got to his feet and made an interjection one can carry on for another half an hour. However, I do not intend to do that; that is all I have to say.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, nowhere else is the Minister of Transport's department so important than in my part of the country. Consequently I want to deal in general with certain aspects of the minister's department. I am thinking specifically of the marine services, the Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines and the hotel services of the Canadian National Railways.
The principal reason, a very important one, why we consider the minister's department so important to our part of the country is that we are a province largely undeveloped from the point of view of transportation. We still do not have the services of a trans-Canada highway across our province. We still depend largely on the Canadian National Railways to transport our goods from east to west; and we are dependent on the marine services of the minister's department, including the steamship services of the Canadian National Railways, as a vital source of supply around our coast line.
We were very happy last year to see the arrival of two new icebreakers to be based at St. John's. I might say that these icebreakers are largely the result of the great personal interest the minister has taken in our part of the country and I wish to thank him for that at this moment. However, the arrival of these two icebreakers did succeed in focussing attention on a problem which I feel necessary to bring to his attention, and that is the rates of pay of seamen employed on the department's vessels.

It has been brought to my attention that seamen in the Newfoundland agency of the minister's department receive less pay than their counterparts in the Nova Scotia agency or the Prince Edward Island agency of the minister's department; and the maritime seamen receive less pay than their counterparts in the Quebec agencies. These men are doing similar work and of times are working side by side, yet their rates of pay vary and I am sorry to say very considerably. I think consideration should certainly be given to equalizing the rates of pay of these men doing similar work under similar conditions who are carrying out a very vital and necessary role in the life and trade of this nation.
The second point I would draw to the attention of the committee is under the heading of the Canadian National Railways. This is a subject I have brought to the minister's attention in previous sessions during the passage of his estimates. I refer specifically to the necessity for enlarging the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland hotel at St. John's. I believe, although I do not have the facts to back up this contention, that the Newfoundland hotel is one of the few C.N.R. hotels across Canada that actually makes a profit.
I have some very interesting figures I would like to place on record with regard to hotel accommodation. The latest available figures-[DOT] my source is the dominion bureau of statistics -indicate that Newfoundland is far behind other provinces in Canada in hotel accommodation. I realize that the minister will say this is not solely his responsibility and that he would expect free enterprise to move in and fill this gap; but when free enterprise fails to move in then I think it is his responsibility. I think specifically of Canadian National Railways.
For example, in the city of St. John's there is one major hotel-the C.N.R. Newfoundland hotel-and four small hotels with a total of 405 beds for a metropolitan city of well over
80,000	population. The city of Saint John, New Brunswick, a city of comparable size, has six hotels, with a total accommodation of 1,013. It is interesting to note that the city of Halifax which has recently had an addition made to its C.N.R. hotel, the Nova Scotian hotel, has more beds, more hotel accommodation, than the whole province of Newfoundland. I say this to underline the necessity of the Canadian National Railways making a substantial increase in the accommodation available in the Newfoundland hotel. I think sound business principles would dictate that this be done, because anyone who has had the experience of travelling through St. John's knows that this hotel is constantly
Supply-Transport
overcrowded and that one can rarely get in there. I believe the Newfoundland board of trade has brought this subject to the attention of the minister on several occasions and I hope when the minister again brings in his estimates he will be able to report that this important hotel is substantially larger than it is today.
The other matter I wish to direct to the attention of the minister at this time is the necessity of an alternative airstrip to the St. John's airport. The hon. gentleman officiated at the official opening of the magnificent new terminal at St. John's a little over a year ago. However, I am sure that he, like many other hon. members, has the experience of travelling by air in this part of the country. He knows that this is an area where flying is often hampered by dense fog and where weather conditions generally are uncertain. It happens on occasions that the airport is closed in for considerable length of time. Only a few weeks ago it was closed for eight or nine days. This necessitated the use of air facilities at Argentia, which is 90 miles out of St. John's. Passengers leaving by T.C.A. had to be transported 90 miles over secondary roads before they could get to the air carriers 90 miles away.
Were Trans-Canada Air Lines to agree to providing an alternative airstrip they would find an ideal location about 20 miles from St. John's, an area which is virtually fog free all the year round. At any rate it has longer periods of clear visibility than the particular area where the St. John's airport is located. I am thinking of the general area from 18 to 30 miles outside the city on the trans-Canada highway, a good paved road. This would be an ideal location for an alternative airstrip. I believe repeated representations have been made to the minister's department by various organizations in Newfoundland, including the board of trade, with regard to this matter, in addition to representations from members of the travelling public.
There is one last question I wish to raise, and it concerns a matter which is vital to all of us in that part of Canada. I am sure hon. gentlemen opposite will agree. I am referring to the need for the provision of an east coast ferry. As I have pointed out, the trans-Canada highway across our province will not be completed for perhaps another ten years at the rate we are going. The advantages of a ferry service between eastern Newfoundland and the mainland of Canada are too numerous to mention here. It would certainly lead to a great influx of tourists to the most populated part of the province, namely the Avalon peninsula where almost two thirds of

Supply-Transport
our population live. As things stand now, the ferry William Carson is fulfilling a vital role. Nevertheless, it is located on the extreme eastern end of the island, and until the trans-Canada highway is completed this ferry is virtually useless to the vast majority of the population. I might say to the minister that even when the trans-Canada highway is completed I think he will have to give consideration to establishing another ferry from the west coast. In any event, I would ask that the minister take this matter into consideration. I shall have further questions of a more specific nature to ask when the relevant items come up for consideration.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: The estimates of the department of the Minister of Transport are always awaited with great interest by myself and by many of the people of my constituency, because in my constituency of Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador there are two of the largest airports in the world, Goose and Gander.
The northern part of the island depends on the minister's department for its communications. I speak of the Labrador coast where radiotelephones and communications are part of the minister's responsibilities. I am thinking also of the services of the C.N.R. which are so important to northern Newfoundland and the coast of Labrador and which, again, come under the minister's jurisdiction.
Before talking about some of the things which particularly affect my riding I should like to refer to remarks which have just been made by the hon. member for St. John's East. I noted what the hon. member said regarding the need for another airstrip to supplement Torbay. As a matter of fact, I happen to be one of the passengers to whom he referred as having had to drive 90 miles from St. John's in order to board a T.C.A. flight at Argentia. I certainly endorse the hon. member's suggestion that an alternate airstrip be provided for use in the case of bad weather at Torbay.
The hon. member also mentioned the need for a new ferry. Certainly that is something with which we can all agree wholeheartedly. As to his comment about the trans-Canada highway not being finished for 10 years, it is true that if the present administration remains in power for that long it is going to take a long time to finish the trans-Canada highway, but with the change in government that has to come the trans-Canada highway is bound to go forward much quicker under the more liberal arrangements which will be made with the Atlantic provinces by the future Liberal government.

There was a small omission in the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East which I should like to bring to his attention. As a matter of fact I had intended to get in touch with him about this so that he might use his influence with the Minister of Transport. My point is this: in the wintertime, particularly after a heavy snowfall, the road to the Torbay airport is frequently not ploughed properly simply because there is a small section of the road which the city says the airport should plough, and which the Department of Transport says the city should plough. On one occasion last winter the road was ploughed, shovelled or opened by someone to the width of one car. The result was that when the planes did come in after the snowfall and traffic began to accumulate at the airport, a traffic jam developed and the cars were unable to pass in either direction and the passengers had to walk. I happen, Mr. Chairman, to be a constituent of the hon. member for St. John's East.


John William Kucherepa: You have an excellent member.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: As one of his constituents I am going to make an appeal to him. Some might say that my political philosophy and that of the hon. member for St. John's East are not the same and that is true-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, I don't know.


Charles Ronald McKay Granger: -but let me say that I have some constituents-very few fortunately- who do not agree with the party I represent and I would expect the same treatment from my member as I accord to those constituents of mine who through faulty judgment fail to support me.
Let me now return from a discussion of the problems of my member to a discussion of the problems of my own constituents. I should like to talk to the Minister of Transport about the needs of the town of Gander. I am fortunate in the respect that I believe the minister knows this town very well. As a matter of fact, the minister was so interested in the town that he paid it a visit during the winter of 1958 when Gander was not at its best and travelling could not have been particularly comfortable. Nevertheless the minister did visit Gander during that winter and explained in a conversation there, I believe, that should his government be returned to power Gander would go up and up and up. It is in connection with Gander's future that I want to talk particularly and I am very glad that the minister has seen Gander both in the winter and again since under more pleasant and less contentious circumstances. I am always glad to welcome the Minister of Transport to my constituency.

There has been, I think understandably, quite a bit of concern on the part of the people of Gander as to its future in the jet age. Gander is probably the best example of a town created by the modern age of air travel. Gander is truly a product of the air age. It has today a beautiful modern townsite with lovely homes, one of the very best air terminals in the world and all the paraphernalia that makes for good living in a modern town including up to date schools and fine churches. Everything there depends for its sustenance and its future on what happens to Gander as an airport.
Before proceeding I should like to suggest to the minister that perhaps during the discussion of his estimates or at least before the session ends he might find it convenient to make a statement as to what he thinks the future holds for Gander. I am personally satisfied that the future of Gander is assured. We are now just entering the air age. The large number of air passengers travelling now will surely have increased tremendously, let us say 10 years from now. I read with interest an article appearing in the May issue of Flying, a widely read aviation magazine which deals with the future of air travel and the coming passenger boom in the world's airlines which would have a definite effect on Gander. The article states in part:
American spending on foreign travel in 1950 was $1,200 million: it should double that and more in this year of 1960.
I do not have time to refer to the arguments the author uses to support his contention. The article continues:
But for the air alone-and only in terms of those countries outside the U.S.S.R. and China, who report regularly to the international civil aviation organization-the curve of world scheduled passenger traffic may well go from an estimated 104 million passengers this year to about 186 million in 1970. These totals cover both domestic and international travel. Assuming that the proportionate share of international travel may increase during the decade, the volume of foreign touring by scheduled airline in 1970 may well be more than 50 million passengers per year, as compared with about 19 million today.
Another article in the same issue points out that 175,000 passengers participated in mass passenger transportation by chartered aircraft on transatlantic flights alone. With the huge increase in passenger traffic I cannot see how the modern jet plane alone will be able to account for all of it. The piston and the smaller turboprop planes will participate in this traffic. We cannot overlook the fact, however, that jet travel is increasing and becoming cheaper for the average passenger. If Gander is to compete successfully in this changing air age it will need a longer runway than it has at present. I wish to make a special appeal to the minister in this regard.
79951-0-282
Supply-Transport
As I said before, the airport at Gander represents a large investment both by the people and the government. I am sure the minister is interested in the future of Gander from both the standpoint of humanity and the standpoint of the heavy investment which the government has made in it. If Gander is to become a real jet airport it must have the facilities to handle modern jet aircraft. Gander has the best terminal building in North America. The communications facilities there are second to none in the world. The Gander oceanic air traffic control facility with its accompanying approach control facility and tower control facility are of a very high order. Gander has the latest instrument approach control system and an instrument landing system. The snow clearing facilities for the winter operation are among the best certainly on this continent if not in the world. For example, during the month of March this year the total snowfall for Gander was in excess of 65 inches yet the airport was not closed for any period in spite of this record amount of snow. What Gander does lack is a jet runway.
The longest runway at Gander is 8,600 feet. We require a minimum of 9,600 feet or in round figures 10,000 feet. The runway length presents a problem to the pilot. For example, when a pilot is landing under instrument control it may be that his approach is a little higher than normal or his speed may be somewhat faster than normal.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it six o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Charles Ronald McKay Granger: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was recounting the splendid facilities at Gander airport. It has practically everything a modem airport needs in the way of facilities to look after aircraft landing in almost all kinds of weather. I was pointing out, however, that a longer runway is necessary if Gander is really to continue its important place in aviation during the jet age. I pointed out that the longest runway at Gander was 8,600 feet and that a runway approximately 10,000 feet long is necessary today.
For example, when a pilot is landing under instrument control he may come in a little high and fast. Normally that may not matter but if in bad weather and difficult conditions he has a long runway on which to land he is going to feel much more confident and will

Supply-Transport
make a landing when otherwise under marginal circumstances he might decide he had to go elsewhere. This is particularly important today when jets are in general use. If the investment at Gander is to be protected and if the people Who live at Gander are to have a reasonably secure future it is most necessary that a longer runway be provided.
Many of the aircraft operating through Gander are en route to or from Europe and for operational reasons the pilot has to make up his mind whether he will land at Gander or choose an alternative airport. The length of the runway definitely would be a factor in his mind. The fact that the jet age is not passing Gander by is very well illustrated by the fact that every week a number of jet aircraft land at Gander even with the handicap of what for these times is a comparatively short runway. I would ask the minister to ascertain how many of the larger jet aircraft use Gander at the present time.
Another good reason for the belief that Gander will continue to be used is the amount of freight that is handled there. Last Saturday, I believe, one of the large international airlines shipped 50,000 pounds of lobster and before the season is over they hope to ship a total of 800,000 pounds. That is one commodity alone which is being shipped from Gander. If my understanding is correct, air freight will play a very important part in commercial aviation in the future. As a matter of fact, it seems quite evident that the air transportation of passengers and freight is bound to grow enormously during the next few years. With this in mind it would seem to be a logical step to provide the great airport at Gander with one or, if possible, two runways adequate in length to handle the type of aircraft now coming into general use.
For a few minutes I should like to talk about communications on the Labrador coast. The coast of Labrador depends upon the Department of Transport for its radio communications system. The small settlements along the Labrador coast depend on radiotelephone sets for communication with the outside world. I have mentioned this matter on various occasions before. Communications on the Labrador coast are one of the matters which the Department of Transport inherited at the time of confederation. Truly the places are small and a comparatively small proportion of the population of Canada is involved, but nevertheless their problem is a real one. I would ask the minister to consider providing radiotelephones for Batteau, Williams Harbour,

Georges Cove, Fishing Ships Harbour, Spotted Island, Separation Point and Paradise.
These radiotelephone sets are small and comparatively inexpensive but their importance is very great. Their value is far out of proportion to their cost. As I have said, the communications system, through inheritance, is one of the services to be provided by the Department of Transport and I hope that in the near future these communities which are without radiotelephone sets will be provided with them. May I repeat that the cost is small but the value to the people concerned is exceedingly great. These sets may mean the difference between life and death, particularly during the long winter when the coast of Labrador is locked up tight.
With regard to airstrips, I should like to mention St. Anthony. The provincial government spent some money to develop a small airstrip at St. Anthony, one at North West River and one at Nain. Those at St. Anthony and North West River need money spent on them so that they can better handle planes particularly during the freeze-up and breakup periods. Again the amount of money required is not great but the need is most urgent. This is particularly so because these small airstrips will provide a means of communication with the hospitals on the Labrador coast and also will provide a means of transportation all year round for the people who live in these remote areas.
I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for St. John's East, in extending thanks to the minister for the icebreakers which have been serving a useful purpose in Newfoundland, especially in places in my riding like Botwood, Lewisporte and others. These places are deeply appreciative of the service of these icebreakers now located in Newfoundland.
Before I sit down, I should like to pay tribute to the officers and crews of the Canadian National coastal steamers which operate in Newfoundland waters. Naturally I am thinking of those that operate in my own district which extends from the central part of Newfoundland or which from a marine viewpoint, extend along the coast from Notre Dame bay to the northernmost part of Labrador. The crews of these ships are carrying on a very great service in the tradition of those seamen who for generations have served the coast of Newfoundland. In some parts of Newfoundland today other means of transportation are supplanting or supplementing the coastal steamer, but in northern areas the coastal steamer is extremely vital. These men are carrying on, as I said, in the great tradition of the crews of

such ships as the Glencoe, the Sagona, the Prospero and the Caribou, and they are doing so today in ships like the Nonia, the Springdale, the Burgeo and the Northern Ranger. These seamen are carrying out their work efficiently, with courtesy and kindliness and, above all, with a splendid sense of duty.
In conclusion I should like to go back to the question of Gander and ask if the minister could not find it possible to make a statement which will clarify what is likely to be the future of this important airport town.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I do not intend to take up very much time of the committee tonight, but I thought I should say a few words about air travel particularly because of its importance to Edmonton. Our new international airport at Edmonton is now at the stage where its runways, taxi strips and aprons are about finished and there appears to be a good possibility there will be air service out of that airport by the latter part of this year. I can assure the minister that we appreciate the thoughtfulness of his department in making sure that the original plans were changed in order that we might have runways built that would accommodate the largest and fastest long range planes that will be coming to Edmonton as a result of its position as the crossroads of the north. We have been playing a very important part in this field for years. I want to say that we appreciate the fact we will have a new airport which will assure we will be able to continue to play a very important part in long range air travel.
I am wondering a little bit tonight, however, about the local services. At the present time we have a very good T.C.A. service from Edmonton to Calgary. These two cities are less than 200 miles apart and, for years, Edmonton has had the good fortune of having a good city airport in the middle of the city. Its runways are not long enough to accommodate the modern fast transports, but they can accommodate the Viscount type of plane. The flight from Edmonton to Calgary takes about 45 minutes, and you are in the centre of the city within five minutes after getting off the plane. There are half a dozen such flights back and forth every day which accommodate a lot of people. We have a lot of businessmen out there with a lot of hustle who appreciate being able to do a day's work in another city and get back in the evening. Our new international airport is about 20 miles out of town and, depending on traffic conditions, this could mean a trip by taxi or limousine service of from half an hour to 45 minutes longer. A journey of this length by taxi is not much in relation to the long trips by air coast to coast or intercontinental 79951-0-282J
Supply-Transport
but in relation to a flight of 45 minutes duration the possibility of adding a 45-minute taxi trip is one that causes a little disquietude.
There has been no announcement by T.CA.. that they intend to discontinue the flights into the centre of Edmonton. On the other hand, they have not announced that they will continue to give service both to the new international airport and the one in the centre of the city. I think there are passengers for both, and I think both could be paying trips. I am hoping that T.C.A., when the time comes to move some of these facilities from the centre of Edmonton out to the international airport will not move them all. I hope we will still be able to have this quick trip to the very centre of the city of Edmonton.
There is a second aspect to this matter. I feel that the advantages in having an airport in the centre of the city are very great. I believe we are just starting that part of the air age in which vertical take-off flights and short run take-off flights will be coming to the fore. I feel it would be extremely hard to replace this airport. We hardly know or fully appreciate the value it may prove to be in the future. If there were to be a discontinuance of the operation of any major air line into our city centre airport this might weaken our arguments for the retention of that airport. There are other air lines such as C.P.A. and P.W.A. that are presently using this airport. I hope that T.C.A. does not set an example by moving its entire facilities out to the other airport.
I should like to say one more word about the new airport. The plans I have seen for the administration building at the new international airport indicate that it will be a credit, not only to the airport but to the country. Since Edmonton has been the northern centre for air transport for years, and since we have had many of the old bush pilots operating out of Edmonton who have done so much to open up the north and who have done so much for air travel in Canada throughout the years, it is hoped we could make a little gesture in memory of some of our air pioneers. There are plans for a plaque which they would like to have erected. I have brought to the attention of the minister a very suitable, large-sized wall space which I feel would be ideal for a mural. I hope that the small extra cost that might be entailed in making something really worth while and decorative out of that wall space will not deter the department from giving serious consideration to making this gesture to those who have done so much.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, in making a few, as usual, brief remarks on the minister's estimates, I must express my appreciation of

Supply-Transport
the minister's courtesy and the promptness with which he has dealt with any problems I have brought to his attention, regardless of the branch of his department which was concerned. One must give the minister credit for his industry. I also want to express my appreciation for the courtesy and promptness I have experienced in my dealings with the deputy minister. The deputy minister reminds me of the Baldwin apples I used to grow. He is a very firm sort of person. He is a long lasting type and he has an attractive colour. I have always been extremely pleased with my relationship with the deputy minister and with his staff and the head of the various branches.
We all realize that the minister's department is a large and rapidly growing one which is required to meet new problems almost daily because of the rapid development of our country and the changing circumstances from region to region or from area to area. The only suggestion I have to make with respect to the administration at this time is that possibly we are reaching the point where there should be one or two associate ministers in the Department of Transport, particularly in view of the great development of air travel.
However, I am not going to say much along those lines at the present time because the royal commission on transportation is conducting an investigation and organizations throughout Canada are making their representations. I have been extremely pleased to note that the Canadian Federation of Agriculture made a representation on April 25 of this year and also British Columbia Tree Fruits Limited, representing the tree fruit growers of southeastern British Columbia, some time in February. I am sure we all look forward to this report. I think it would be more appropriate to deal with policy in general and with suggestions after the royal commission on transportation has had an opportunity to hear the representations made by various organizations across Canada.
However, before leaving my constituency to attend this session I was urged by a large number of the people I have the honour to represent to take advantage of the first opportunity I had to bring to the attention of the house a problem that concerns the people of southeastern British Columbia, namely the poor passenger service on the Kettle Valley railway. I have mentioned it on previous occasions. 1 want to take this opportunity again and keep my promise to the people I have the honour to represent.
For those who are not well acquainted with the geography of British Columbia I might say that the Kettle Valley railway is a railway that commences at Hope, a point a little
[Mr. Herridge.i
over 100 miles east of Vancouver on the main line of the C.P.R., traverses the southern part of British Columbia and ends at Medicine Hat in Alberta. What I am going to say this evening has the support of all the people of southeastern British Columbia, all the chambers of commerce, the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, all the trade unions in the area, all the farmers' organizations, all the municipalities affected and all the employees of the railroad concerned.
I have dealt with the details of this question previously and I am not going to repeat myself this evening. However, I wish to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the area which this railway serves is one of the richest parts of Canada as far as the production of natural resources from our forests, our mines, our lands and our waters is concerned. The total production last year in the area served by this railway was somewhere between $300 million and $325 million. Incidentally, I might mention that a great deal of that production was as a result of the operation of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company of Canada Limited, which I note, according to the Nelson News of April 9, 1960 had profits in 1959 of $16,704,310. When you come to realize that the Canadian Pacific railway owns at least 50 per cent of the stock of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company and as a result would make between $8 million and $9 million out of the company itself last year, without the profits of the railway which are considerable because of the freight transportation, the C.P.R. should normally have a great interest in the people in the area who produce that great wealth partly to the benefit of the Canadian Pacific railway. That is part of my argument.
I remember as a boy when sections were built to Kootenay Landing, then from Nelson to Midway, later from Midway to Hope and finally between Nelson and Creston along the south shore of Kootenay lake. The operation commenced in about the year 1911. It was a very well patronized passenger and freight service throughout the year. Of course, with the coming of good roads and other forms of travel there was a reduction in the number of passengers carried by the railroad until we finally found ourselves in the last year or two served by a Budd car. We have been reduced from a full-scale passenger service with sleeping cars, baggage cars, dining cars and all the rest of it to a Budd car with no sleeping accommodation, very frequently no coffee to drink and usually dry sandwiches. That is the position to which we are reduced in the southeastern portion

of British Columbia as a result of the refusal of the C.P.R. to recognize its responsibilities to the people of this area.
Naturally this state of affairs caused protests. The people of British Columbia have a habit of not lying down when they have something about which to protest. Anyone would have noticed that had he attended the recent convention of the Canadian Legion at Windsor, B.C. The delegates soon let their voices be heard as to what they thought about certain matters, as do the people of British Columbia generally. From what I can observe we are a little bit more active in voicing our protests than are some of the people say in eastern Canada. I am amazed at how quiescent some of the maritime people are about the problems in some areas which require immediate attention, problems which would create a real storm of protest in the area I represent. However, I represent a highly intelligent vocal people who expect certain standards maintained in transportation and services of that sort.
Protests have been voiced all over the district. Representations were made to the C.P.R. by the various organizations I have mentioned. I am quite sure the minister knows about the representations-he received a good many-to the board of transport commissioners; and naturally all of them sent copies to the member for Kootenay West because they depend on him to voice their opinions in this chamber and to put forward their views. In any event, as a result of the rumpus generally throughout the district- and as a result I think of the good offices of the Minister of Transport; I always give credit where it is due-the board of transport commissioners decided to hold a hearing.
The hearing was held at Nelson, B.C. on June 22, 23 and 24 of last year, at Vancouver on July 2 and at Ottawa on July 30 and December 8, 1959. The hearing was before Mr. H. H. Griffin, assistant chief commissioner; Mr. L. J. Knowles, commissioner-I do not want any misunderstanding; that is not Mr. Stanley Knowles-and Mr. J. M. Woodard, commissioner. The appearances included Mr. K. D. M. Spence, Q.C. for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; Mr. L. M. McBride, Q.C., for Nelson chamber of commerce, associated chambers of commerce, southeastern British Columbia, and joint running trades, railroad brotherhoods; Mr. A. L. Pearson and M. A. Weller for the attorney general of the province of British Columbia; Mr. Ken Smith, Mr. H. L. Robinson and Mr. Remo Morandini representing local 480, international union of mine, mill and smelter workers, Trail, B.C.; and Mr. T. S. Short-house, mayor of the city of Nelson, B.C. I
Supply-Transport
might say that all the business people I have spoken to, representatives of the chambers of commerce and so on, inform me how much they appreciated the well prepared brief by local 480 of the international union of mine, mill and smelter workers. They had really spent a good deal of time on research and presented a well documented and logical brief.
The hearing was held by reason of dissatisfaction existing as to the train service being furnished by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on its line between Vancouver, British Columbia, and Medicine Hat via Nelson. The board gave notice that it would hold its hearing and receive submissions as to the service. The hearings were held on the dates I have mentioned. There was represented before the board in addition to the railway company the attorney general of British Columbia; the running trades, being the brotherhood of locomotive engineers, the brotherhood of locomotive firemen and the brotherhood of trainmen; the Nelson chamber of commerce; the associated chambers of commerce of southeastern British Columbia, which included the chambers of commerce of Kimberley, Cranbrook, Kaslo, Creston, Nakusp, Salmo, Trail, Rossland and also Lethbridge, Alberta; the Okanagan and boundary associated boards of trade, which includes as affiliated boards those of Summer-land, Naramata, Penticton, Osoyoos, Oliver, Keremeos, Rutland, Westbank, Okanagan Falls, Greenwood and Cawston; the international mine, mill and smelter workers, being Trail, local 480; Kimberley and Riondel, local 561; Beaverdell, local 900; Nelson and district, local 901; and Greenwood-Phoenix and district, local 1013. The members of these locals and their families make up a large part of the population of the Kootenays. Also represented was the Kootenay lake general hospital and the medical associated clinic of Nelson. A submission was also received from the association of Kootenay municipalities.
Mr, Chairman, I just want to deal briefly with the judgment. I want this on the record because I am sending a copy of Hansard to a number of people who wanted to get the details of the judgment and it saves a great deal of time in having all this copied.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I like to be frank about it, anyway. The summary is as follows:
Re: Service of Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Vancouver and Medicine Hat via Nelson, British Columbia.
The board of transport commissioners held a very complete hearing in this matter. The evidence was heard at Nelson, with subsequent adjourned

Supply-Transport
sessions at Vancouver and Ottawa. Members of the board travelled the line between Fort McLeod and Vancouver.
The board gave its judgment on January 4. 1960. It found that:
(1)	Since the service was begun in 1911, the railway company had made every reasonable endeavour to attract passenger traffic;
(2)	The present service (furnished by rail-diesel cars) is a curtailed one by reason of depredations and threats of depredations to the railway company's line;
(3)	A daily rail-diesel car service in each direction between Vancouver and Medicine Hat would meet the demands of the area, provided that reasonable amenities are furnished to passengers and provided that the travel time from Vancouver to Nelson would not be more than 15 hours;
(4)	The need of the residents of the area presently requires a daily service running (without any scheduled lay-overs) in each direction between Vancouver and Nelson.
The board would have ordered such service between Vancouver and Nelson if it had been satisfied that it would be safe for the railway company to comply with such an order.
Apparently it overlooked the fact that freight is going over the line daily and the employees are willing to operate the passenger trains. It continues:
It was not satisfied that it would be safe and made no order.
The province of British Columbia made a proposal toward the sharing of costs of further protection to be afforded to the railway. This did not result in any conclusion.
I do not quite know what that means. I continue:
The board concluded its judgment by saying that, at such time as
(a)	a sufficient time has elapsed without depredations occurring in the area as to remove, beyond reasonable doubt, the threat to the travelling public and to the railway, or
(b)	such protective measures have been taken as are, in the opinion of the police forces administering such measures, sufficient to protect the travelling public and the railway,
then, if the railway company has not, of its own accord, resumed a service which in the then existing circumstances meets the reasonable needs of the area, an application may be made to the board to require it to do so.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the city of Nelson is re-applying to the board for reconsideration of this judgment in view of the changed circumstances. I have been informed of that fact not only by the chamber of commerce of Nelson but by the secretaries of the various railroad organizations directly involved along the line of the Kettle Valley railroad and a number of other organizations and persons. Apparently the hitch in this thing at the present time is this protection to the railway from the depredations of some people.
I would also like to bring to the minister's attention this aspect of matter. In the Nelson News of March 3 I read the following;
Attorney general seeks Kootenay train service.
[Mr. Herridge.)
Attorney General Bonner intends to take up again with the chairman of the board of transport commissioners the question of renewal of fulltime train service through the Doukhobor areas of the Kootenays, he told the legislature Wednesday night.
The minister replied to Kootenay member questioners in the house that the province had offered to pay a third of the cost up to $50,000 of railway protection through the Doukhobor area, providing the federal government and the C.P.R. absorbed the other two thirds.
The board of transport commissioners had promised to make an order compelling the C.F.R. to restore full service "if we would guarantee the safety of the trains".
"But I want to say to the house that I can't really guarantee safety of your securities in your safes at night,... It is impossible to expect anyone to give an absolute guarantee under the circumstances.''
I think the Attorney General of British Columbia is correct in that statement. No one can give an absolute guarantee under any circumstances today with regard to almost any matter or question.
I rose tonight, after reviewing the case very briefly indeed, to suggest on behalf of my constituents and the organizations I have mentioned that we ought to have a satisfactory passenger service resumed on the Kettle Valley railway. The people in that area would consider it quite satisfactory if they had a Budd car, and a cafe-sleeping car, so that there would be provision for meals to be taken under civilized circumstances.
In this respect I might say that I had a letter only today from a member of the brotherhood of railroad trainmen, Kootenay lodge No. 558, Nelson, British Columbia, and I will quote part of this letter. He says:
According to today's paper the kettle is still boiling here by means of a resolution passed by the B.C. chamber of commerce at their 9th annual meeting in Vancouver supporting the much needed passenger service between Medicine Hat and Vancouver-
Then he adds a postscript:
Since writing this, it has been brought to my attention that a passenger leaving Calgary is unable to obtain as much as a cup of coffee until he reaches Cranbrook due to the transfer being changed from Lethbridge to Coalhurst. The service seems to be getting worse instead of better.
I have travelled on this train from Medicine Hat to Castlegar and from Castlegar to Vancouver. I have been on the train a couple of times when you could not even get a cup of coffee. On one occasion returning from Vancouver women with children could not get a drop of milk for their children, any sandwiches to eat or refreshments of any kind. That is not good enough on a passenger train travelling through the garden of Eden which produces some $300 million to $325 million worth of wealth in this country annually.

In conclusion I do urge the Minister of Transport to use his good offices and all his influence to secure a reconsideration of this matter, in view of the fact that the provincial government has offered to pay one third of the cost of police protection on this railway. This police protection is required because of certain incidents in the past on the part of a certain sect that reside in southeast British Columbia. I urge that the federal government matches the provincial government's offer and that the minister use his good offices with the C.P.R. In this particular instance that means Mr. Crump. I ask the minister to persuade Mr. Crump to take action, because I think we will get it. I knew of him as a small boy in Revelstoke many years ago but he has gone a distance above me now that he is president of the C.P.R. and I only a humble member of parliament. But I do hope the minister uses his good offices to get the cost of this police protection shared between the province, the federal government and the railway and obtain a resumption of a satisfactory train service on the Kettle Valley railway at the earliest possible date, in fairness to the people of southeastern British Columbia.


Frank Charles McGee: Would the hon. gentleman permit a question? How long has it been since one of his constituents bombed the railroad?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The hon. gentleman asked me a question which he knows is not true in the first instance. Even if he had asked me the question: how long is it since one of a certain sect bombed the railroad, I certainly would not be able to answer, correctly because it has not been proved to date exactly who caused this depredation, although there are certain suspicions. But I can assure the hon. member that the vast majority of the people of Kootenay West are very law-abiding and responsible citizens.
(Translation):


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with a problem peculiar to my riding, a matter which comes under the Department of Transport. For that reason, I shall not take too much of hon. members' time.
For more than a year, all operations on the Soulanges canal have stopped. Formerly, they brought a revenue of one third to one half million dollars a year to the citizens of my constituency, not counting the amounts spent by the crews of the ships using that waterway.
Supply-Transport
Since April 1, 1960, hardly $30,000 has been spent for the maintenance of that now disused canal. This is far from being adequate revenue for keeping the economy of the Soulanges area at the same level as in the neighbouring districts.
At this time, it would be difficult to justify the expenditure of a large sum of money for the maintenance of the Soulanges canal as when the waterway was in operation. On the other hand, it would be only fair to have some work done to renew the mobile equipment of the canal, like swing bridges and lock gates. It would be unfair if that waterway, which, when it was built divided the most fertile land of the Soulanges district and modified its economic character, were simply abandoned.
As the representative of that area, I have received numerous requests from municipalities along the canal. I think those requests are fair and reasonable.
Among the most significant requests in those submissions, I shall point out the following: That running water be maintained in the canal; that municipalities have the right to draw water free of charge therein to feed their water mains; that present bridges be replaced by jetties-I note that the estimates of the Department of Transport include an amount of $100,000 for the renewal of three of those bridges-that the lighting be maintained at the entrance of the jetties; that land adjacent to the canal never be used as a public or private dump; that passage for keeping up the flow of Delisle river, of Red river and Graisse river be maintained and regularly cleaned; that the fences of land adjacent to the canal be maintained and weeds be cut regularly; and, finally, that the land belonging to the canal be taxed on the same basis as property owned by individuals.
Moreover, three municipalities, whose boundaries run along the canal, approached me to ask that they be given priority when certain lots belonging to the canal system are put up for sale.
I want to point out to hon. members that since the Soulanges canal was closed to traffic no substantial revenue has come into the district. It is therefore justified that municipalities along the canal should ask some compensation from the federal government for the taxes they are not levying on canal property, which is estimated at some $230,000.
It is also reasonable to ask that swing bridges built for the type of traffic existing 50 years ago be replaced by solid roads built

Supply-Transport
for modern vehicles, and that the lock gates
in the two strategic spots, be replaced bypermanent structures. The cost can be justified by the fact that they would eliminate the maintenance required with the bridges and lock gates in their present condition, and the hazards involved.
Once those jobs are done, the towns of Dorion, Pincourt and ile Perrot could set up a corporation to instal the lines needed to supply water to their respective populations, which on the whole represent about 20,000 people. Such a project would cost about $1 million. Such a project could be worked out in two ways, either by setting up a company formed of the municipalities of Dorion, lie Perrot and Pincourt, or by a syndicate of private interests. At present, there are many of them who are prepared to form such a syndicate. .
From past experience, following the closing down of canals such as the former Welland and Beauharnois canals, I may state that it is in the interest of the government and the areas concerned to dispose as soon as possible of this disused waterway.
In addition to being used as a water system, the Soulanges canal properties could also help the development of housing projects and of suitable locations for the establishment of light and heavy industries. The eastern end of the canal, barely two miles from the St. Lawrence seaway, lends itself very well to the establishment of primary and secondary industries.
Upon completion of the bridges connecting Montreal island to the Vaudreuil peninsula, and incorporated in the future 401 superhighway system, there is bound to be extensive housing developments in that whole section of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges peninsula. The site will be a natural one for industries, provided municipal services are adequately planned. An adequate electric power supply added to the already existing manpower and perfect highways, only drinking water supplies need be added to make that section the most attractive in every respect in the entire Montreal suburban area.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) to give very serious consideration to the dredging of a 25-foot shipping channel between the St. Lawrence seaway and the east or west limits of the Soulanges canal, in case industries should be located in that area and require the type of transportation which is common along the St. Lawrence seaway.
(Text):


James Roy Tucker: I have a few remarks I should like to make at this time concerning matters

which in my opinion are very important and urgent. Under this heading, Newfoundland again suffers. For example, the hotel accommodation at present available in St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland with an estimated population of over 80,000, is entirely inadequate. St. John's is the eastern terminal point of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the trans-Canada highway, Canadian National Railways and Canadian National Steamships. It is also the terminal point of the C.N.R. Newfoundland service. In addition, it is the point of entry into Canada for shipping coming from the British Isles and from Europe. All this shows the urgent need of a hotel with the necessary facilities to take care of the travelling public.
The Newfoundland hotel which is owned and operated by the C.N.R. is inadequate in its accommodations and facilities for the needs of the people of Newfoundland, quite apart from the claims of the travelling public, including representatives of the government and organizations in and near St. John's which require facilities for conventions, banquets, meetings, and so on. The result is that many conferences and conventions are steered away from St. John's. This state of affairs is bad not only for the economy of the province but also from the point of view of increased transportation revenue for the Canadian National Railways and from the point of view of public relations. Immediate steps should be taken to improve this situation by providing adequate accommodation.
It cannot be said that the Newfoundland hotel does not operate at a profit because it was only a few days ago that I asked the Minister of Transport if the hotel operated with a surplus or a deficit for the years 1958-59. The minister informed me that in those years the hotel operated with a surplus of more than $300,000.
In addition, the tourist trade which has increased considerably since confederation is suffering from this inconvenience. Coupled with this we still have our narrow gauge railway. We are the only province in Canada with a railway system different from that in the other provinces across the dominion. Newfoundland is, nevertheless one of the ten provinces of Canada. The present Prime Minister said that we should have a standard gauge railway and so I ask when is the government of Canada going to give Newfoundland her rightful place in confederation and put her railway and hotel facilities on a par with those of the other provinces. If this were done it would be a step in the right direction. I ask the minister if any serious consideration has been given to the statement made by the Prime Minister in St.

John's in April of 1959, a report of which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail in these words:
Newfoundland's narrow gauge railway should be converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.
The people of Newfoundland have waited patiently for some action to be taken by the Canadian National Railways. In the light of this statement, surely after three years of study and consideration it is time to do something of a tangible nature to meet this great handicap. I would suggest that the minister have his officials make an investigation and estimate the cost of constructing a standard gauge railway from St. John's to Port aux Basques and then give the province of Newfoundland a grant for this amount which would have to be spent on the trans-Canada highway.
I am given to understand that there are two systems employed when planes make landings at airfields. One is known as I.L.S., that is instrument landing system, and the other is the G.C.A., or ground control approach system. The airport at St. John's should have all possible modern facilities. As far as I can ascertain the Department of Transport has one instrument landing system which I believe is used on runways Nos. 17 and 35. At the present time Trans-Canada Air Lines craft are more or less at the mercy of the United States officials at Pep-perrell air force base because they own and operate the ground control approach system by which planes can be talked to their landing places. Without this system the pilot must land his plane with the instrument landing system which does not allow him to land with less than a 300 foot ceiling and a forward visibility of one mile.
I appreciate the operational cost of the ground control approach but since the United States air force operates such a system and since they are vacating St. John's would it not be possible for us to buy this system which I believe is mobile. If this is not possible 1 would strongly urge the minister to install another instrument landing system at the airport at St. John's. I am told that the landing facilities there are the same today as they were 20 years ago and that no improvements have been made. With the ground control approach system planes could land with a 700 foot ceiling and one mile visibility. We have more hills and fog near the airport at St. John's than there are at many other terminals elsewhere in Canada. T.C.A. flights in Newfoundland are very popular and well patronized no doubt
Supply-Transport
because of the efficiency of the airline officials who are second to none throughout the dominion.
In my speech this year on the address in reply to the speech from the throne I made brief reference to the great need of a freight-passenger boat which would operate from St. John's to Halifax or Sydney. I cannot find words strong enough to point out the urgency and importance of the C.N.R. operating such a route. Many thousands living in Newfoundland at present hope and believe in the not too distant future we shall have most if not all of the trans-Canada highway paved. As soon as this highway meets trans-Canada specifications thousands of tourists will drive from the United States and mainland Canada to the east coast of Newfoundland. Would it not be reasonable to expect that they might wish to join a ship at St. John's and have a relaxing boat trip from St. John's to Halifax or Sydney rather than motor back approximately 600 miles from St. John's to Port aux Basques?
At this juncture I feel I must refer to the operation of the William Carson. When this boat began operating in Newfoundland a couple of years ago we thought she was too big and a waste of money. There was no doubt in the minds of many that she was more than able to look after all the passengers who cared to travel on her and was able to handle all auto traffic and commercial trucks and freight. Last year this ship carried approximately 8,050 passenger automobiles. There were 3,492 automobiles handled under the freight plan and 1,264 freight trucks. The ship made 288 round trips and carried many tons of freight. There were 37,841 passengers carried to and from Port aux Basques in 1958 and 58,435 passengers carried in 1959, an increase of 20,594. Last summer there were many times when the ship could not take care of all the passengers desiring accommodation for themselves and their cars.
Early last August my family had an experience which is a very common one to passengers and which 1 hope, should the occasion arise again, will be taken care of in a better way than it was last summer. My wife, two of my sons and myself arrived at Sydney on Sunday, August 2 at 10.30 p.m., half an hour before the scheduled sailing time. I immediately went to the ticket agent and asked if the reservations I had made in Halifax had been confirmed and I was told that they had no record of any reservations for me and that they would not be able to let me know until midnight whether we could get passage on the Carson. There was scarcely any standing room in the waiting room at North Sydney, much less seating

Supply-Transport
space. The room was crowded with passengers, many of them with babies and young children and many of them very much annoyed.
After making several trips to the ticket agent we were finally told that we could not get on the Carson but that the Burgeo was making a special trip from North Sydney to Port aux Basques to take the passengers desiring passage to Port aux Basques and that she would not be ready to sail until a couple of hours. Again the ticket agent said he could not give any assurance that we would be able to get on her. However, about 2.30 a.m. we were sold a ticket and we boarded the ship about 3.00 a.m. We found to our great dismay that no meals or lunches were being served on the boat and that there were but two stewards to take care of the passengers. We were fortunate in getting a room. Many did not.
About 8.30 a.m. we went to get breakfast but found that the salon was closed and learned that only approximately 50 per cent of the passengers, who totalled over 100, had breakfast. We arrived at Port aux Basques about 11.30 a.m. where a train was awaiting our arrival, and in a short time the train was in motion. We had to wait in line to get into the dining car and finally made it at 1.30 p.m. We then had our first meal since having lunch before leaving Halifax at noon on Sunday, the previous day. No meals were served on the train from Halifax to Truro or from Truro to North Sydney.
I tried to make a telephone call from the waiting room at Sydney to ascertain if I could get space on a T.C.A. flight but the telephones were out of order. I heard many of the passengers say that they would not make such a trip again or go through such an ordeal, and of course that goes for me as well.
Even at this time of the year if you want to go to Newfoundland or leave Newfoundland and travel by the Carson you cannot get accommodation when you require it. You must make your reservation well in advance. I would therefore ask the minister to see that proper facilities are available to take care of the travelling public going to and from the newest province of Canada so as to avoid disappointment to the travelling public and thereby avoid undue or unnecessary hardship.
I have learned recently that there are about 30 level crossing accidents involving trains and motor vehicles in Ontario alone each month, and I doubt very much that any thought is given to the strain and stress placed on a locomotive operator. This was very forcibly brought home to me last Sunday evening when, in travelling by train

from Toronto to Peterborough, I sat in a seat close to the operator and heard the whistle continually blowing. In my opinion motorists should exercise more care at railway crossings and should realize that a locomotive operator cannot swerve his train to avoid oncoming vehicles. He may apply his brakes, but as can be expected, he cannot bring his train to a sudden stop. I would therefore suggest that warning signals or stop signs be placed at all railway crossings and that the Department of Transport use every possible means to impress upon the public the importance of exercising care when approaching railway crossings.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank sincerely the minister, his parliamentary secretary and his officials for their co-operation in sending icebreakers to the assistance of the sealing steamers whenever I made such a request. I can truthfully say that at all times I have received every courtesy from the minister and his staff whenever I have referred any problem to his department since becoming a member of parliament. I feel that he will appreciate some of these matters which I have brought to his attention this evening. I have one hope, that his department will improve conditions wherever and whenever he and his officials can as far as Newfoundland is concerned.
I also want to thank the minister and his officials for assisting the sealers travelling to and from their homes to join their respective sealing ships in order to take part in the seal fishery by giving them a reduced fare last spring, which was the usual practice prior to confederation and was known locally as the sealer's ticket.
(Translation):


Roland Léo English: Mr. Chairman, I have followed with much interest the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) on his department's activities. I heartily congratulate him for the magnificent job he has been doing so far. I thank him also for the interest he has always shown in my constituency. I also thank the officials of his department for their remarkable co-operation.
My reason for speaking today is that 1 wish to deal once again with a project that is close to my heart and that I should like to see carried out, not for any personal or political advantage, but in the interest of my constituency and constituents.
Ever since 1957, when I was first elected to represent the constituency of Gaspe, I have been asking that a railroad be built between Matane and Ste. Anne des Monts. I raised the matter in 1958 and 1959, and I raise it again in 1960.

I am confident that the Minister of Transport and the present government will grant to the constituency of Gaspe something it has never been able to get in the past and which is vital to its economic development.
That part of my constituency, which stretches over 320 miles, includes two provincial constituencies and part of a third. In the North Gaspe area, where the distance between Matane and Gaspe is 165 miles, there is not a single railroad.
Yet, my constituency is one of the richest in ore. It has a prosperous mine, the Gaspe Copper Mines, in Murdochville, and a number of others that would, no doubt, be put in operation tomorrow if we obtained the railway we want.
Mr. Chairman, I may add that, besides the Gaspe Copper Mines, various corporations that hold mining claims are only waiting for the railway to be built to put them in operation.
May I give a few instances: In Holland township, the Gaspe Copper owns 1,518 acres; the Miller Copper has 1,600 acres; the Gaspe Metals, 400 acres; the Horn Gaspe, 200 acres and the Holland Gaspe Mines, 920 acres.
In the Lemieux township, the Federal Metal Corporation holds 9,000 acres, the Peninsula Metals Corporation Limited, 2,000 acres; the Lemieux Mining Corporation, 800 acres.
In the Boisbuisson township, the Dubuisson Mines & Lake Opemiska Mines Limited owns 80 acres; the Standard Gold Mines Limited, 40 acres; the East McDonald Mines Limited,
4,000	acres; the Gaspe Exploration & Mining Company Limited, 800 acres.
Mr. Chairman, those are some companies that own large mining concessions in my constituency, which is clear evidence of our wealth.
One of the first mines to develop in Gaspe, the Gaspe Copper Mines, provides work at present for more than 1,200 employees.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that the development of other mines will materially help reduce unemployment, because it is in developing our country, and most particularly that area, as far as I am concerned, that we shall really achieve prosperity.
Mr. Chairman, the chambers of commerce of the Gaspe riding and a number of associations adding up to more than 10,000 persons have asked me to obtain the necessary fa-
Supply-Transport
cilities for the economic development of our region. Here is what those associations and namely the March 23, 1959 issue of the magazine Commerce have to say about this:
In relation to its population, Quebec is the economic area with the least railroad facilities or the most people per mile of railway. The number of people per mile of railway is 812 in Quebec, as compared with 519 Ontario, 418 in the mari-times, 359 in British Columbia, 148 in the prairie provinces and 369 for the whole of Canada.
And the article adds:
On the other hand, there are other opinions on the subject, such as those expressed by the province of Quebec chamber of commerce and those found in a bulletin issued by the Banque Canadienne Nationale.
They might be summarized as follows- there is no doubt that the province of Quebec is far from getting as favourable a treatment as other areas; with 30 per cent of the population, it has only 11 per cent of the railroads. Many of the lines running through it are just branch lines needed to link up with the Atlantic and the prairies. Why has the Abitibi not been linked up with Montreal by way of an extension of the Montreal-Mont-Laurier railroad? Why the delay in building the Matane-Gaspe line? Unlike Quebec, southern Ontario is covered with a network of lines serving industrial centres. Railway development has been particularly active in the western provinces. Ontario has twice as many tracks as Quebec, and Saskatchewan is close behind. It is obvious that eastern Canada, and particularly Quebec, has been neglected.
Mr. Chairman, I think that this article in Commerce is true. Therefore I still wonder, even now, why we waited so long to develop so wealthy a region which can help bring prosperity while we are now complaining about unemployment. I do say that it is by giving these mineral rich regions a chance to develop that we will help reduce and even eliminate the present unemployment, not only in our province but in the whole country.
Mr. Chairman, before I conclude my remarks, I would like to read an excerpt of a brief prepared by the Gaspe North chamber of commerce, of Ste. Anne des Monts, Gaspe North, about proposed construction of a railroad to serve Gaspesia. Here are the conclusions of this brief:
When we ask for the building of our railway, we do not have the Impression of asking a favour or a gratuity from the federal authorities; rather are we claiming our share of public services which the people of this area of the province of Quebec are entitled to expect from their governing bodies to ensure their economic expansion and the development of their natural resources at the same rate as in the rest of the country.
Let us recall the statement made in Toronto on March 17, 1949, by Mr. S. W. Fairweather, vice president of the Canadian National: "A railway must be considered in relation to the economy of a country, because a railway is essential to the prosperity of a State and promotes wealth. Those of us who live in large cities might be mistaken, but the miner, the woodsman, the fisherman and

Supply-Transport
the farmer are fully aware of the usefulness of a railway. New resources and new fields of activity are discovered every day that can be developed by railway facilities which are the life blood of a nation.
And the brief adds:
Mr. Geo. H. Hees, the Minister of Transport, himself recognized the need for the requested railway line between Matane and Ste Anne des Monts when he said recently in western Canada: "Railways are a prerequisite to and not a consequence of progress, as railways are indeed a factor of progress."
The Gaspe North chamber of commerce concurs in the views expressed by Messrs. Hees, Gordon and others on the occasion of the official opening of the Chibougamau railway, namely that: "Two factors are essential to our national economy:
1. The development of a number of our natural resources is still being held back by the lack of transportation facilities. 2. Our railroads can still be considered as pioneer installations, and are used to open up new areas of economic development".
Here is another statement by Mr. Donald Gordon, president of the C.N.R.: "In a country such as this, where distance is a vital factor in the cost of goods, you cannot think of developing natural resources without thinking of railroads."
Mr. Chairman, I am most surprised. I wonder if really Mr. Gordon was serious when he made that statement. If he really was, why did he refuse that to the Liberal party for so many years, even at the time when my hon. friend the member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) was Minister of Transport? Why did he refuse it, and why does he still refuse it?
Mr. Chairman, I can only hope that for once, Mr. Gordon will translate his words into deeds and will grant to the constituency of Gaspe what it has been demanding for so many years, namely a railroad.
(Text):


Chesley William Carter: I doubt, Mr. Chairman, whether there is any other department of government which impinges more often or more intimately upon the lives of the people of my province than does the Department of Transport. When it is realized that 99 per cent of my constituents live by the sea and that 90 per cent of them earn their livelihood either on the sea or from the sea it can be readily understood that they have a special interest in this department. I should therefore like to express to the minister on their behalf appreciation of the improvements which have been carried out in my riding during the last year.
I should like to express to the minister my personal thanks for the sympathetic way in which he has dealt with the problems which I have brought to him personally. I should

also like to express my appreciation of the co-operation which has always been forthcoming from the staff of his department both here in Ottawa and in the province.
When I went through my district in 1949 I remember compiling a long list of navigational aids which were required in my riding. Many of them had existed in years gone by but had been swept away by storms and other causes and had never been replaced. However, during the last 10 years a great deal has been done in this respect. The government -very wisely, in my opinion-insisted on rehabilitating the aids that were already in existence before supplying new ones. It was said that the provision of other aids could not be carried out properly until the department had been supplied with a boat which would be able to transport these aids and to service them. That boat has now been supplied and therefore that reason no longer exists. However, along the coastline in my riding there is still a gap where particular navigational aids in the form of light and whistle buoys are required. I hope that every effort will be made to supply as many as possible of these buoys in the coming year.
Many of the new houses which have been constructed as residential quarters for the keepers of lighthouses and fog alarms have been supplied with running water and electric lights but there still remain a great many lighthouses and residential quarters which do not have these facilities. I do not think these people should be compelled to wait until the building is reconstructed before these facilities are provided. These facilities are a normal part of our standard of living in Canada. A supply of electricity makes possible the use of many appliances which can lighten the work of the housewife and make life a little bit more bearable in these isolated areas. I wish the department would initiate immediately a policy of supplying every one of these residences with running water and with a Delco or similar lighting plants.
The hon. member for St. John's East brought to the attention of the minister the situation which exists on certain ships, particularly the icebreakers, with respect to the wages paid to the crews. These wages are based on the prevailing rates in the area where the men are recruited.
I brought this matter to the attention of the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys last year, I think it was, when his estimates were before the house, and also before the Minister of Labour. This is a

situation which should be corrected but about which nothing has been done since this matter was last raised. It does not seem right to me that two people employed by the government on the same kind of ships doing exactly the same kind of work should receive a different rate of pay just because they happen to be recruited in different places.
This argument falls down completely with respect to captains and the masters of these vessels. I understand that there is a wide discrepancy in the pay of the officers on similar ships of comparable size just because they happen to be recruited in different places. This is something which ordinary justice demands should be rectified.
Another matter along this line which I should like to bring to the minister's attention is the situation with respect to assistant keepers. An assistant light keeper is not an employee of the department. He is employed, I understand, by the keeper and because he is employed by the keeper he has no status. He has no benefits of holidays or holidays with pay; I do not think he even qualifies for unemployment insurance. It is time that this situation too is corrected. I am informed that the minister's department is dealing with this matter on a sort of piecemeal basis by which about 50 of these people a year are transferred to the permanent list. That seems to me to be a very slow rate of progress. If we are going to go at the rate of 50 per year for all of Canada, then certainly it is going to be a very long time before this situation is corrected.
I should also like to express my support for the pleas put forward by the hon. member for St. John's East and by my colleague for Trinity-Conception for an extension of the Newfoundland hotel and for an alternative airstrip at Torbay. The hon. member for Trinity-Conception brought to the attention of the committee certain conditions which he experienced on the motor vessel William Carson which plies between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. I have always held the opinion that what should have been done in the first place was to supply two smaller ferries rather than one big one, but from my experience I know that the William Carson herself is not big enough to handle all the traffic available, all of the passengers who wish to travel at the peak period of the season. But what concerns me most is that the terminal facilities at Port aux Basques do not have sufficient accommodation for the travelling public.
In this connection I encountered last year a situation where a number of passengers were left in the terminal without any place to sit or lie down. Some of them were old
Supply-Transport
persons; three of them were patients who had just been discharged from the Corner Brook hospital. I personally spent hours trying to find a boarding house for them at Port aux Basques and Channel but without success because every place was filled up. So these people, old and young and some of them young children, had to spend the night lying on the floor in this new terminal, and that is a situation which should not exist in this day and age. Moreover it is a condition which can be very easily remedied because all that is necessary is for the Canadian National Railways to set up a couple of sleeping cars near the terminal and supply sleeping accommodation in that way. They can get meals at the terminal which also has sufficient washroom facilities, but as I say there is no place to lie down. I do hope the minister will bring this to the attention of the proper authorities and have something done about it.
The hon. member for Trinity-Conception mentioned the necessity of a standard gauge railway for Newfoundland. I brought this matter to the attention of Mr. Gordon when he was before the committee on government-owned railways and shipping and it was quite clear from his replies to my questions that he does not consider it his duty to take any initiative in this matter. According to him, the railway belongs to the government of Canada. He is merely acting as an agent of the government in managing that railway. He is prepared to carry out whatever rehabilitation of existing facilities is required to make the present railway adequate for its needs, but when it comes to a change of policy such as changing from a narrow gauge to a standard gauge, then it is very clear that he considers this decision ought to be made by the government and if the government makes it he is quite ready to carry it out.
As far as the point to point traffic inside the province is concerned, the narrow gauge railway perhaps serves very well. But when it comes to traffic entering the province and communications with the mainland, then the lack of a standard gauge railway imposes a very serious handicap on our economy. It adds materially to our cost of living and it handicaps our industries in shipping their products to the mainland market.
When it is considered that Newfoundland buys about $250 million worth of goods from mainland Canada it can be realized how essential it is to have those goods transported with the least possible handling and at the least possible cost. That can only be done by means of a wide gauge railway. Furthermore, Newfoundland is an underdeveloped

Supply-Transport
province and whatever possibilities it has for development will always be greatly handicapped unless modern means of transportation is supplied.
There is one thing about the Department of Transport which has puzzled me from time to time. That is this, there is a curious reluctance to make changes in the Canada Shipping Act or in other legislation or regulations which apply to this department. This, I think, is an attitude which is more characteristic of the Department of Transport than of any other government department. It seems to me that these laws are regarded as a sort of Procrustes' bed, or like the laws of the Medes and Persians which cannot be changed and ought not to be changed. Everything must fit into it. If you are a little too tall, you have to lop a bit off, and if you are a little short you have to be stretched out. Anyway, nothing can be done to change these laws.
One example of this is supplied by the laws which govern harbour administration. We have, of course, national harbours and we have certain laws under which they are administered. Then we have a class of small harbours that we call public harbours, and these are administered by harbour masters. Most of the harbours in Newfoundland are not big enough to be administered as national harbours and yet they cannot be administered satisfactorily by means of harbour masters under the public harbours act. For one thing, a harbour master is one man in an isolated spot far away from St. John's from which he would have to get advice in case something cropped up with which he could not deal. Sometimes, on a week end, St. John's has to get advice from Ottawa and when we close down early on Friday and wake up late on Monday a lot of things can happen which could not be dealt with at all. I have always felt the harbour master should be responsible to a local body on the spot in the community. We have such bodies. One such body is the pilotage commission. We have several pilotage commissions which are doing excellent work, and there is nothing wrong at all with giving them responsibility for harbour administration. It would mean a very simple change in the act to give them that power and it would not in any way interfere with their pilotage duties.
Prior to confederation we had small harbour boards of our own. These bodies do not know, at the moment, where they stand at all. They were set up under provincial legislation. At the time of confederation their sources of revenue were cut off, but they still have obligations which they have retained and which they have tried to discharge in the best manner possible. However, in carrying out these obligations they

have been at a very serious disadvantage. These small bodies could be recognized under our Canada Shipping Act and used to better advantage than is possible in the case of harbour masters under the public harbours act. I hope the minister will give some thought to this matter and assume a more flexible attitude toward these suggestions.
Another strange thing which I have never been able to understand is the regulation which prohibits a man from getting a master's certificate if he has to wear eye glasses. A person can get a driver's licence to drive a motor car at 60 or 80 miles an hour even though he may wear glasses. I think he can get a licence to pilot an aircraft at hundreds of miles an hour. But if he is going to get a licence or certificate to pilot a boat, to steer a boat or captain a boat he cannot get it if he wears glasses. But the strange thing is this: if he can once get a certificate he can go blind the next day and still retain it. The wearing of glasses simply prevents him getting a certificate. This seems to me to be a nonsensical state of affairs, and something should be done about it. Today good men are being prevented from getting a master's certificate simply because of this regulation, while other men, often less able, are qualified to get certificates.
Another suggestion which I made to the minister last year or the year before, I think, and about which nothing has been done, concerned the need for a change in the water carriers act in so far as it applies to C.N.R. coastal vessels. In Newfoundland we have a railway running in the interior, but most of my people live on the coast and the natural communications for them is by means of a coastal boat operated by the C.N.R. In other words these coastal boats perform the same service on the sea as do the railways on land. The same railway, the C.N.R., operates a boat from North Sydney to Port aux Basques. That boat is a part of the railway. The coastal boats which connect with this ferry, the William Carson, are not part of the railway. The William Carson, the ferry which runs across the strait, because it is part of the railway is not subject to the provisions of the water carriers act. The William Carson is not the only one concerned. There are, I think, as many as 10 or 12 ships on this run. Should any mishap occur to any of these boats, such as happened to the Cabot Strait some years ago when a lot of goods were lost because the ship ran ashore, since the ship was not subject to the water carriers act the people who lost their goods were given compensation. But should one of the coastal boats run ashore and freight be damaged or lost, the person who loses it has no redress at all,

because these ships are covered by the water carriers act. It does seem to be strange that the same company should be operating boats under two different arrangements when it affects the lives of the people in two different ways-that a person can have freight on one boat and if it gets lost he can get compensation, though if he has freight on another boat, owned by the same company, he can recover nothing should the freight be lost or damaged.
Before I sit down I want to remind the minister once again about the problem of oil pollution which has caused us a great deal of trouble in Newfoundland and which has become particularly acute during the past season. We all know that this is an international problem and that only an international solution will be satisfactory. There is, however, something which could be done. I do not know whether the minister has done it yet or not. However, I do hope he will be able to tell us when he replies that he has appointed a full time inspector whose job it would be to go around and inspect those vessels which transport oil and land oil on different points of our coast. There are some other points I should like to bring up but I have covered the main ones and shall reserve the others for another time.


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if it would be in order for me to follow the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. I have just been advised that he is leaving for the west coast this evening and wishes to speak. Would it be in order if he were to speak now and I were to follow him?


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Comox-Alberni.


Henry Carwithen McQuillan: Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank my colleague the hon. member for Coast-Capilano for giving me the opportunity of saying a few words at this time. I have brought the problem of coastal transportation on the coast of British Columbia to the attention of the minister on numerous occasions and I wish once again to bring it to his attention. I do not know what the answer is but I do know there is a problem. To date I have not been able to convince the department that a problem exists. Once again I should like to request that a thorough investigation be made of this matter because it is serious and annoying and works a hardship on the residents of coastal communities.
We have a coastal transportation system now composed of antiquated and inadequate ships operated by a number of companies inadequately financed. Perhaps there is not sufficient traffic to support a private company operating on its own in those areas. In any event to a large extent the burden is passed
Supply-Transport
on to the people in the area in the form of high freight rates. For example, the cost of shipping a ton of potatoes to Port Hardy is often equal to the price paid to the wholesaler in Vancouver. The cost of freight on a loaf of bread is eight cents. The service is infrequently and completely inadequate. I suggest with all respect that at the first opportunity the minister appoint a team of investigators to come out west and travel the length of the coast, to interview the people served by these coastal services and listen to their story and to interview those providing the services and hear their story and then endeavour to come up with some solution to this problem.
When I look at the blue book-unfortunately most of our constituents cannot or do not look at it-one of the first things that impresses me is the millions of dollars that are spent in the maritimes, despite the fact that we hear hon. members complaining that more should be spent there; and the millions that are spent along the St. Lawrence as compared with the few paltry dollars that are being provided by the department for coastal transportation along the Pacific coast. I believe a subsidy is now paid amounting to approximately $300,000. I do not know whether subsidies are the answer but I am aware that the companies apparently are not making sufficient money to allow them to provide new and modern equipment and to furnish the necessary services at reasonable rates.
One of the unfortunate things about these poor, infrequent and high cost freight services on the coast is that they discourage people from living in that area. This would perhaps be all right if it were a non-productive area but it is a very productive area in the sense of producing raw material. I think I am safe in saying that the people who live on the upper coast of British Columbia are perhaps responsible for more dollar production of basic materials than any other group of people in any other section of Canada. I would ask once again that the minister give more than serious consideration to my request and that he appoint an investigating team to come out to the coast and make a thorough survey of the whole problem. I would even suggest that the minister come out and make a trip up the coast on one of our steamship services. I know that the hon. gentleman could pass over very quickly from Vancouver to Prince Rupert in a Viscount but he will not have any real understanding of the problems of the coastal area unless he travels from point to point on one of the obsolete steamships operating in the system we now have.

Business of the House


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, may I call it ten o'clock.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business is for tomorrow and as much of next week as the house leader may be disposed to give us.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will continue with the estimates of this department. Should they be finished in good time we have the estimates of the Post Office Department and the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys available.
The legislative items for next week will be as follows. We will start Monday with the second reading of Bill No. C-58, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code, order No. 5 on today's order paper. This will be followed by order No. 7 on today's order paper, the second reading of Bill No. C-63, to amend the Old
Age Security Act. The other items would then be No. 1 on today's order paper, No. 2 and No. 3 in that order dealing with harbour commissioners. The next item would be No. 17 on today's order paper, a motion standing in the name of the Minister of Agriculture referring certain business to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization.
If that business is completed on Monday and Tuesday we would take up the budget resolutions on Wednesday and then on Thursday and Friday take up estimates starting with those of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the other departments available. For instance, if transport were not finished we would take transport, post office, mines and technical surveys and fisheries. Any changes that have to be made in that tentative program will be announced in plenty of time for hon. members to adjust themselves to the change.


[Stage Direction]
At ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 3, 1960