1960-06-03

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It relates to the Monday, May 30, 1960 edition of the Hamilton Spectator and an editorial that appears on page 6 of that edition. The heading of that editorial is "A One-Man Defiance of Parliament". If I may, I should like to read one sentence from it. This has reference to Senate private bills relating to divorce. It states:
They are being blocked now to satisfy the declared ulterior motive of one C.C.F. member of parliament, Frank Howard of Skeena.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Frank Howard: Regardless of the applause, apparently for the editor, may I point out that this is absolutely untrue and that there are no ulterior motives. The motives have been stated time and again; they are open and declared, and are not hidden, unethical and secret as this editorial indicates. Another sentence, referring again to myself, says:
Now he has openly threatened that he will hold up all the bills until the government changes the system or, in other words, forces divorce courts on the two provinces.
This also, Mr. Speaker, is untrue and nothing short of editorial falsehood. The entire editorial, and I do not want to read it all, is full of inaccuracies and I think represents how far out of touch with the times the editor of this paper is. If it wanted to be full and factual the editorial should have made reference not only to myself but also to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who is also participating in this sort of debate. It should also refer to the silent approbation and commendation which I have received from other hon. members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has risen to express a question of privilege, not to indicate what might have been said otherwise. I take it the point is that objection is taken to the reference in the editorial to ulterior motives.


Frank Howard: And many other inaccuracies.



UNITED NATIONS


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a brief announcement concerning the implementation of the extension I announced in the house last March of the government project for the admission to Canada of additional tuberculosis refugees and their families.
Hon. members will recall that under the original scheme last winter 100 t.b. cases and their families, comprising a total of 344 persons, were brought to Canada. The selection and processing of the refugees to be admitted under the extension is at present being carried out by our immigration officers stationed in Germany, Austria and Italy. The provincial governments have given us every co-operation in this project, and as a result of the undertakings they have given in connection with the extension it will be possible to place at least 100 additional t.b. cases, and possibly more, in the provincially operated sanatoria.
The stage has now been reached where it has been possible to make definite arrangements to bring the first group of t.b. cases and their families to Canada in chartered aircraft which will leave Europe on July 18 and July 25. If the processing of the third group of refugee families can be completed in time they will be flown to Canada in a charter aircraft leaving Europe on August 1.
Although the selection process has not been completed, reports which have been received so far indicate that somewhat broader categories of refugees will be available for inclusion in the extension than were included in the original 100 family scheme. It appears probable, for example, that some unmarried refugees suffering from t.b. may be admitted, as well as a number of refugees who have relatives already residing in Canada. It is also possible that families with more than one t.b. case will be included in the movement.

Inquiries of the Ministry
I am sure all hon. members will welcome the news that the first of these unfortunate refugees to benefit from the extension will be arriving in Canada in a very few weeks to begin building a new life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the applause indicates the feeling not merely of the house but of the country that what the government is doing in extending this scheme is a very good thing. So far as we are concerned we are in complete support of what is being done. Our only conceivable criticism is that perhaps it is a little on the small side.
I would like at this time to make an appeal to the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Green) to hasten the decision on the submission of the Canadian welfare council with respect to health and welfare care of privately sponsored refugees so we can get good results from private sponsorship, which is very difficult as long as this eternal liability is going to be placed on them.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: This group gives wholehearted support to the government's action in this direction, which we take to be a tangible expression of Canadian support for humanitarian principles and sympathies.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-66, to provide for the suspension of private bills from one session of parliament to the next.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


William Arnold Peters: The purpose of this bill is to provide for procedural means whereby private bills may be carried over from one session of parliament to the next. The sponsor of a private bill would be able, at his discretion, to suspend his bill and it would be proceeded with at the same stage at the next session. This would not involve the expenditure of additional money.
We recommend that the government take steps to transfer this bill to government orders.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of fhe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence a question arising out of a report in this morning's newspaper. The question is whether Canadian units of the North American air defence command are participating in the latest United States readiness alert exercise.


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: NORAD air defence forces maintain a normal alert status at all times, of course but no NORAD forces stationed in Canada are on an increased state of readiness at the present time. These remarks of mine do not indicate that any NORAD forces are on an advanced state of alertness.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Is the minister aware that a spokesman of the defence department in Washington indicated that NORAD was participating in this exercise, including the Canadian forces in NORAD?


George Randolph Pearkes: I saw a report in a Toronto
paper to that effect. It is quite untrue as far as Canadian forces are concerned, and United States forces stationed in Canada.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: May I ask
a supplementary question on that. If NORAD is a unified command, how can only one part of it participate effectively in this kind of alert exercise?


George Randolph Pearkes: I am not admitting there is any alert exercise on at the present time. It would be for the United States authorities to say whether any of their United States forces are on the alert. The NORAD commander may exercise all or any part of its forces at any time. He would not place Canadian forces on an alert or exercise Canadian forces under his command without notifying Canada, though he might possibly exercise part of his forces, in the United States, without notifying Canada. I say most emphatically that no Canadian or United States forces of the NORAD command stationed in Canada are on a higher degree of alertness than normal.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In

view of the fact that the government of West Germany agreed to compensate the victims of nazi savagery for loss of health and property, and in view of the fact the government of West Germany has failed to consider the claims submitted by some 20 persons of the Polish Canadian community residing in the province of Alberta, would the minister inform the house whether inquiries have been made of the appropriate German representatives with respect to this complaint of these Canadians of Polish origin?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I did not receive this question until just as I was entering the chamber, so I am not in a position to give a definite answer, but there have been inquiries made, I think, having to do with these same people by various members from the province of Alberta. Answers have been given to them by mail. I shall look into the matter and let the hon. member have an answer at the first of the week.



DISARMAMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the Canadian government has been yet officially informed of Mr. Khrushchev's latest disarmament proposal. If so, has he any comment he would care to make about it?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, we have had word from our ambassador in Moscow that he was called in yesterday by Mr. Gromyko and handed a personal letter for the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) from Mr. Khrushchev, enclosing a rather lengthy document on disarmament. The full text of the document is not yet available to me. However, from the brief summary I have seen it appears that the document contains the details of the new proposals which Mr. Khrushchev announced a few hours later at his press conference.
The house will realize that it is not possible for me to comment on the proposals at this moment, but this communication from the Soviet government will have to be carefully considered by the government before a reply could be made.
I will say this, Mr. Speaker; that it is obvious from the nature of the statement that it is quite heavily weighted for propaganda purposes. Mind you, in saying that I would not wish to leave the impression that the proposals will not be given the most careful consideration. However, the 10-nation committee on disarmament is resuming
Inquiries of the Ministry its sittings on Tuesday next, and this will be a very good opportunity for the Soviets and their associates to put forward this proposal for consideration. There have also been proposals put forward to that committee by the five western nations.
It seems to me that there are two main courses open to this committee. One is to analyse all these different proposals in an earnest and sincere attempts to reach some agreement. This, of course, is the course which the Canadian delegation will endeavour to see is followed in the committee by all parties concerned, the representatives from both east and west. The other course could be to use the sittings of the committee for propaganda purposes and for building up a case to be argued out at the meeting of the general assembly of the United Nations which commences, I think, on September 20. I am very hopeful that this second course will not be followed, although there are suggestions that this attempt might be made. It does seem to the Canadian government that a course of that type would be very unfortunate and certainly would not be very helpful to the cause of disarmament or of world peace.
There is one feature that I should like to place before the house today. That is that in spite of the failure of the summit conference, the cold war in all its fury has not been resumed as yet as many feared would be the case. There seems to be a desire on the part of those involved to keep tension relaxed as much as possible. I am hoping some worth-while results will flow from the meetings of the disarmament committee which will commence so soon.
Canada has suggested to her fellow members from the west that meetings should not all be of a public nature, but that from time to time there should be private meetings with only the heads of delegation present and which would not be subject to full reports to the press. The practice so far has been to keep full records of the meetings, and while the reports are not given out at once they are published after a matter of a few weeks' time.
As hon. members will realize from their own personal experience in the House of Commons, this constitutes quite a temptation to talk for the record. The Canadian delegation believes there should be at last some private meetings when real negotiations can take place, and when those speaking do not have to worry about what their words are going to look like when published a few weeks later.

Inquiries of the Ministry PUBLIC BUILDINGS



VANCOUVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a press report in the Vancouver Province of June 1, which states that the Vancouver city council has been advised by civic officials that neither the national harbours board nor their contractors are obtaining permits for the erection of buildings on the new national harbours board centennial pier, and further that building materials are being used which are contrary to the national building code and the building regulations of the city of Vancouver?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for notifying me of his intention to ask this question. I am informed by the national harbours board that at their request the contractor did apply to the city for a building permit, but that the permit was refused on the ground that the fibreglass which was specified in lieu of glass did not conform to the city's fire prevention requirements. Fibreglass was being substituted to eliminate considerable breakage expense.
The board also informs me that the fire prevention standards of the national building code do not prevent the use of fibreglass. Furthermore, both the dominion fire commissioner and national research council advised the board that fibreglass was quite satisfactory as a substitution for glass. The contractor was therefore instructed to proceed with the use of this material.



UNITED KINGDOM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce concerning an announcement made in Paris by a British government representative to the effect that Great Britain was preparing to join the European coal and steel community and EURATOM, and I based my question on that announcement. The minister said he had not seen the report of the announcement. I wonder whether the minister has now seen the report and is able to answer the question I put to him.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have some information today, Mr. Speaker. I noted an article which


appeared in this morning's Globe and Mail somewhat similar to what the hon. member for Ottawa West has said, to this effect:
John Profumo, British minister of state for foreign affairs, declared here that his government was ready to consider joining the European atomic energy agency and the European coal and steel community.
The hon. member's question was somewhat similar, to this effect:
In view of the announcement this morning by the United Kingdom in Paris that she is prepared to join the European coal and steel community and EURATOM, can the minister advise the house whether or not Canada was advised of this action prior to the announcement being made and whether or not it involves any change in our preferential position in the United Kingdom market?
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. No declaration to that effect was made by Mr. Profumo, I am informed. He was in attendance at the assembly of the western European union in Paris on June 2. The assembly had before it a draft recommendation concerning the possibility that the United Kingdom might join EURATOM. I have not seen the actual text of Mr. Profumo's statement, but I am informed that he said the United Kingdom would be prepared to look again at the possibility of joining EURATOM and the European coal and steel community. It has not gone further than a statement that he would have another look at a proposal that had been before the assembly on a previous occasion.
On the point of consultation with Canada, I have no doubt at all but that consultation will take place, that is prior to any step by the United Kingdom. We have been closely in touch with the proposals affecting the Six and the Seven, and it is inconceivable that they would take any action without letting us know what they were contemplating before that action was taken.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the minister. Has there been consultation between the two governments on this particular proposal?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, because this proposal was not made by Mr. Profumo at all; it originated, I am given to understand, in that assembly from other sources.


George James McIlraith: My point, Mr. Speaker, arises out of the minister's statement that Mr. Profumo said he was prepared to again consider it. There was a reference in the minister's statement to "again consider".



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: May I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question is based upon the question which I directed to him or to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration yesterday, relating to whether representations had been received by either minister from the Chinese community in Vancouver respecting the methods used in the investigation into the alleged entry into Canada of people from China. The minister indicated that he had received no representations at that time. I wonder whether he has received such representations since?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: My
office has not advised me of the receipt of any such representations. I will have a check made over the week end, and if they should have come in I will let the hon. member know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. In view of the conflicting statements attributed to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, in one case that there were 11,000 people involved and in a more recent statement that they had narrowed the cases down to 400 or 500, does the minister not think an authoritative statement should be made by him to this house in order to reassure the Chinese community, which has a feeling of irritation which I think is quite justified in the circumstances because of the reflections upon many thousands of Canadian residents and citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I am not aware of any conflicting statements. The hon. member has been handed a piece of paper which I take it contains some reference which has not come to my attention. Without studying it I would not know whether there has been any conflict or not. I would be glad to look into the matter. Perhaps the hon. member would let me have a copy of it, and we can consider the suggestions made.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In the light of the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Laurier on Monday, did the minister not get a copy of the script that was referred to in that question? This is the document which I have in my hand. I would be glad to send it to the minister.


Edmund Davie Fulton: No. There was some confusion in the question asked. The impression I was
Inquiries of the Ministry given was that the hon. member for Laurier had in mind statements in a television interview supposed to have been given by the commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. 1 found there was no such television interview at all. There was, I gather, a television interview with an official or a member of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Vancouver. I did ask for a copy of that transcript, but it would, of course, have quite a different implication from that which was suggested by the question of the hon. member for Laurier.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works is now in a position to answer the question I put to him yesterday.


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: In reply to the inquiry by the hon. member for Nipissing I am now able to say that not only have I received no communication, but neither have the officials of Central Mortgage and1 Housing Corporation received any communication or had any discussions with the representatives of either the province of Ontario or the city of Ottawa in connection with the proposed subsidized housing development in Ottawa.



REPORTED CRITICISM OF HOUSING BY ARCHITECTS' COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Although I have not sent him notice, with his grasp of the housing situation I imagine he will be able to answer it. Will the minister comment on the widely publicized critique of Canadian housing issued this week by a committee of architects who studied under the partial sponsorship of funds from the minister's department, and seem to have concluded that Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the National Housing Act are responsible for much of the bad housing in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: 1 suggest to the hon. member that this is hardly an appropriate subject matter for a question to be answered briefly at this period of the day. It seems to me that it would be more appropriately brought up when the estimates are before the committee, or some time when there could be a debate, because it is an argumentative question.
4488	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY



RETURN OP PERSONNEL TO VOTE IN NOVA SCOTIA ELECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: May I
direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister undertook to look into a request that certain ships be returned to Halifax in time for the personnel to vote in the Nova Scotia election. Can the minister say whether he has now investigated the matter, and if so can he assure the house that this request will be granted?


George Randolph Pearkes: I looked into the matter, as I said I would. I am advised that only a small percentage of the eligible voters will be absent. The remainder of the naval personnel will be given the facility and encouraged to exercise their franchise.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Richard Garland: I have been waiting rather expectantly for the return of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, but perhaps I should direct this question to the acting minister. In view of the government's refusal to establish a tourist information centre in San Francisco this year on a regular basis, will the government now consider the opening of such a centre on a trial basis, with appropriate promotion, for this summer season?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: am not, of course, in a position to answer that question without getting information from the department. I will provide an answer on Monday morning unless the minister is back by that time.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has received from the government of Nova Scotia any


representations or any requests for special tax incentives to encourage industrial development in that province.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any special proposals in this respect. Of course subjects of this kind, in relation to the application of fiscal policies on a regional basis, have been discussed from time to time at various dominion-provincial conferences whether at the Prime Ministers' level or the level of the ministers of finance.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say
whether at the present time the government is giving any active consideration to this matter?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government is always giving consideration to fiscal questions and the application of sound fiscal policy for the benefit of all parts of Canada.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question is based upon an article in the Ottawa Citizen of two days ago and an article running today in the Vancouver Province, to the effect that the R.C.M.P. are having difficulty in recruiting members for the force and are losing present members because of low wages; and also one in the Province to the effect that street sweepers in the city of Vancouver are paid more than are R.C.M.P. constables. Can the minister indicate what steps are being taken to overcome this problem?


Edmund Davie Fulton: course I have no knowledge of the accuracy of the report, because I do not know what would be the wages of street sweepers in Vancouver, Mr. Speaker; hence I could hardly be expected to comment on that matter. However, I can say that the question of the pay and salary scales of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a matter of real concern to myself as minister and to my colleagues in the government. As a result of studies regarding pay matters that are being carried on at the present time by my colleague the Minister of Finance, his officials and others concerned, it is my hope and objective to be able to record progress on the matter, although of course I am not able to forecast just when that will be.

(Translation):



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer). Further to the Solicitor General's recent advice to me that I read the newspapers to keep abreast of developments with regard to the building of a bridge at Three Rivers, could he tell us when work can be expected to start so as to relieve unemployment in that region?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to find that the member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) followed my advice, but rather disappointed that he was unable to spot the most interesting articles published in the local press on the subject of this inquiry. There were indeed many. Consequently, may I urge him to keep right at it and I am sure he will find plenty of highly interesting information.


Samuel Boulanger: Would the minister tell us when work will start? Might he not give me that information?
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: I did not know that it was the responsibility of the Solicitor General (Mr. Balcer) to announce the construction of bridges. His administrative duties may have been increased, but I would think the question is misdirected.


Samuel Boulanger: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Public Works. I do not know whether he understood the question. I can put it in English if he wishes me to do so. I want to ask the Minister of Public Works when construction will be started on the bridge between Ste. Angele and Three Rivers?


David James Walker: I want to thank the hon. member for the question. Although I have not received notice up to this time, might I tell him that this matter is being given our constant consideration and we will notify him first, or perhaps the house first, when the decision is made. I can assure him that it is being very seriously considered at the present time.
3.	1960	4489
Supply-External Affairs NATIONAL PARKS



NOVA SCOTIA-INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SECOND SITE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the Acting Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources in a position to answer the question I asked him yesterday about a second national park in Nova Scotia?


Douglas Scott Harkness: No,
Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that I have not received that information from the department as yet.



WELCOME TO MEMBER FOR LISGAR ON RETURN FOLLOWING ILLNESS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Howard Charles Green: I am sure Your Honour will have noticed that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) is back in his seat today after a serious illness of some six weeks. We are all extremely happy to have him here. I am sure I speak for all members of the house when I wish him a complete recovery and express the hope that he will be able to be with us for the remainder of the session.


Lionel Chevrier: We on this side of the house should like to join with the Acting Prime Minister in extending a welcome to the hon. member for Lisgar on his return to the house. We are delighted that he has been restored to health and we hope that it will be possible for him to assist us in terminating the business of the session.

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



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

The Chairman:: I understand that by consent we are going to take first supplementary estimates No. 1, the Minister of Finance.


Donald Methuen Fleming: I believe the course I am now about to propose to the committee will meet with general approval. I introduced this morning a new supplementary estimate. It comes under the Department of External Affairs and reads as follows:
499. Purchase and transportation to Chile of flour and pork for the relief of Chilean disaster victims and to authorize reimbursement of the agricultural commodities stabilization account in respect of the purchase of such pork, $1,600,000.
I realize that the notice to the members of the committee is extremely short, but in

Supply-External Affairs view of the great urgency of the matter may I ask whether the committee might be prepared to take this item first, to pass it, report the item, then permit the house to resolve itself into committee of ways and means in order to deal with the corresponding resolution in committee of ways and means, have it reported and allow the bill to be given at least first reading today.
This is a new item, as hon. members will appreciate. We have no interim supply at all in order to deal with this. In order that the aid to Chile may be made effective it is highly desirable that it be dispatched at once. While something could be done in that respect with regard to shipments of pork, nothing can be done with respect to shipments of wheat flour. We simply have nothing in the estimates covering this matter. It is an unexpected calamity. In view of the urgency I would ask the committee to give its consent. I have had the opportunity to speak to hon. members opposite and I believe this course will be supported by them.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as notice is concerned, we on this side of the chamber do not consider it necessary under these circumstances, and we are prepared to give full support to this measure. I think the committee will be happy with the decision of the government to come to the assistance of these people in Chile who have suffered so much because of the tragedy that has befallen them.
The decision the government has taken to give assistance to Chileans in this form is one, of course, which the government is in a far better position to determine than are the members of the opposition. Whether this form or some other form is better it seems to me is a matter for the government to decide, and with that we can find no fault. We do think that if there is going to be assistance, if it is the intention of parliament to grant assistance to those who have suffered, it should be given to them immediately and without any delay.
With that in mind we support this item for immediate approval.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, this group gives complete endorsement of this further action on the part of the government to assist disaster-stricken Chile. We recognize the need for haste. We are all in favour of getting this assistance into the hands of the people who need it as soon as possible, and on that account we are willing to co-operate in any way we can to pass the various stages of necessary legislation as expeditiously as possible.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West for their support of this item. Fortunately it was possible for me to learn from the minister of the interior of Chile direct what type of assistance he would prefer from Canada, and the provision of the flour and the canned meat are two of the items he requested.
I had a wire just a few minutes ago from our ambassador to Chile, Paul Tremblay, who is doing an outstanding job, by the way, reporting on a visit he had paid to the stricken area. This wire will give hon. members some idea of just what is going on in that country which has suffered such a blow. He says:
I have just returned from a few hours visit to Puerto Montt where our two North Stars flew in their supplies and brought back evacuees (including two stretcher cases) yesterday. General impression is that of a city accurately and selectively bombed but where no major fire developed. Three successive earthquakes and abnormal ten foot tide on May 21 and 22 left 147 dead destroyed 50 per cent of the houses mostly in poor districts. There are some 25,000 homeless and downtown streets are flooded. Due to destruction of water mains and sewage system main hotel had to be evacuated. The hospital police headquarters a flour mill and cheese factory a food packing plant are now so many heaps of rubble. Puerto Montt has 45,000 population is end of railway line to south and is the supply centre for the whole southern region of Chile. Its excellent harbour facilities have now been wrecked. Water front has apparently sunk two metres at places concrete wharves are broken or tumbled and frogmen are endeavouring to recover cranes and other equipment. Railway station nearby badly damaged and re-establishment of railway communication will take at least two months. Local needs are for tents clothing blankets for homeless. Medical supplies in Puerto Montt are now adequate. I was told food supplies are available for immediate needs in Puerto Montt city hall and other distribution centres. Hundreds of people queueing for emergency relief. A local requirement is for tarpaulin or waterproof plastic material to protect flour vegetables fruits etc from rain. The Canadian Red Cross representatives here will report on general requirements directly to their headquarter after tour of the disaster area.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to pay tribute to the Canadian Red Cross for the help they have given. In addition they have sent representatives to Chile. The telegram continues:
I was received by governor of province and military authorities who were almost embarrassingly profuse in expressing their appreciation and gratefulness for assistance provided by Canadian Red Cross and Canadian government. Governor is also responsible for island of Chiloe where Ancud and Castro are located. He said that our hospital unit in Castro will fill urgent need. Local hospital was wrecked and flooded and although number of wounded is not large there are large number of cold exposure cases particularly children infection pneumonia etc. Our unit will also take care of people from Ancud thus providing independent medical facilities for the island.

We left our equipment safely stored in Puerto Montt and as soon as tent arrives tomorrow hospital unit will be flown from Puerto Montt by small aircraft and helicopter to Castro. My general impression shared by Canadian Red Cross representatives is that relief organization in Puerto Montt is working smoothly with assistance of police and military reinforcement sent from Santiago.
That will give the committee a pretty clear picture of just what is going on in that country.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Resolution reported and concurred in.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of
Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
['Order; shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?\nProgress reported.']
Donald Methuen Fleming: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to Her Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1961, the sum of $1,600,000 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, as set forth in the resolution concurred in this day in the committee of supply.


Jacques Flynn: Shall the resolution carry?
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-67, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1961.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, might I by leave just make a comment here. If it were the wish of the house to carry the bill through the later stages, I can assure hon. members that the bill simply follows the usual form of a final supply bill. If the house prefers, however, that the matter be held over till Monday so hon. members can see the bill, that will be done, of course; but I can say to the house that if it were disposed to carry the bill through the later stages it is simply in the usual form of a final appropriation bill.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, we are perfectly satisfied to allow the second reading of the bill.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: We agree wholeheartedly with that suggestion, Mr. Speaker.
79951-0-283
Supply-Transport


Mr. Speaker:: By leave, the bill will be read a second time now.


Donald Methuen Fleming: the second reading of the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, and reported.
['the second reading of the bill.']
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third' time? Now?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By leave.


Donald Methuen Fleming: third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I express my thanks to the house and to both committees for the way in which they have dispatched' this urgent measure today.

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. Payne:: It would be surprising if when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport some comment did not come from this quarter with respect to the gem of the national harbours board, the port of Vancouver. Many of my remarks will be complimentary to the minister and his officials, for after many long years of neglect and disregard this great port facility is receiving, certainly in the initial phase, some of the attention it so rightly deserves.
I am sure the minister was as pleased as I was to find that according to the 1959 report, during the past year 60 per cent of the arrivals and departures of vessels at all the national harbours board ports in Canada, and 40 per cent of the gross tonnages and almost 30 per cent of all the cargo, used this great facility; a facility which, I again point out, has so far cost the people of Canada nothing. It operated again at a profit of well over $1 million, and this after a year when at long last the national harbours board decided to spend an amount more in keeping with the requirements for the maintenance of the port. Spending in connection with these needs was raised at last to something considerably greater than was spent on the port of Churchill, with 132 vessels moving in and out each year, compared with almost 30,000 vessels moving in and 30,000 vessels moving out of the port of Vancouver in the calendar year.

Supply-Transport
I mention these points just in order that the committee may have some idea of the importance and the urgency of the problem concerning this great facility which has grown up through years of disregard and neglect. The minister announced in the house on June 12 last the establishment of an interdepartmental study to consider the development program required by the port of Vancouver. Shortly thereafter this interdepartmental body was brought into being and began its work. At the same time certain measures were taken to study the terminal rail facilities Which today still remain in a state of utter confusion, with a complex pattern of arbitrary and unjust switching charges which operate against the economy of the whole of western Canada and the future usefulness of the port itself.
I should like to tell the minister how pleased and enthusiastic the people of the west coast were to learn that these studies would be undertaken. But I hasten to warn the minister that after 12 months these urgent matters should be the subject of a report, as the interdepartmental study should consist basically only of the groundwork in preparation for a fuller and broader study in which industry, commerce, the carriers and the municipalities affected by the development of these facilities may have an opportunity to submit their just case and worth-while suggestions. I say to the minister that if his estimates are to be greeted again-if the national harbours board vote is to be greeted again-with pleasure by those of us who come from the west coast, it will only be so if these studies are kept on the urgent, active basis so urgently required.
During the past year there has been a notable development which has further emphasized the shortcomings of the facilities available at the port. The Pacific and Orient Lines have announced the introduction of a very extensive trans-Pacific passenger vessel service. This is a matter of great concern to us. Now we find that the Pacific and Orient Lines will be wishing in less than a year to berth passenger vessels of 40,000 tons or more, vessels much larger than those which normally have made use of our port. There are no terminal facilities whatever capable of handling or properly berthing vessels of this size. This again is a reflection on the past, when this gem of the national harbours board ports of Canada was disregarded with complete indifference to the needs of the Pacific coast region. The development to which I have referred emphasizes the need for providing terminal passenger facilities in line with those which have been available

in every other national harbours board port for many years but which are denied the port of Vancouver.
All this brings me to the point of taking a look at a skelton in the closet. I wish to bring it forth and talk about it. This is a matter which has concerned me greatly. Governments in the past have chosen to leave this thing in hiding. I have endeavoured to discuss the matter with officials of the national harbours board but they have looked askance, perhaps not unreasonably, because I am sure it involves a matter of policy the solution to which rests in the minister's hands. I refer to the clouded title to the right of way running along the water lanes and the water frontage now occupied by the Canadian Pacific railway, along the south of Burrard inlet. I am not saying that I join with any of those who say that title to this property does not belong to the C.P.R., nor am I one who says it does not belong to the crown. I am here to say on these estimates that it is time the national harbours board took a stand on the matter.
The matter should be brought to the courts to find out where the title truly rests, because the eventual proper utilization of the port, its proper planning and its value to the people of this nation, depend upon who controls the title.
We were just discussing the need for terminal passenger facilities, and I mentioned the need for an entirely new approach to the problem of terminal rail facilities. The title to this property holds the key to the way this problem can be approached, ft is my view that the national harbours board should seek through the courts at the earliest possible time a decision that will dispel the existing cloud with reference to this title and clear the way to solve this urgent need for passenger facilities.
If the title to these properties rests properly in the hands of the C.P.R. the future action is clear. We, the government of Canada, must see that the C.P.R. creates the necessary facilities on those lands. If they refuse to do so, and they do hold title to these properties, then the next thing is to demand that the government expropriate the property and enter into the construction of the facilities that are so desperately needed. If, on the other hand, the title rests with the federal government, the issue is clear. It is up to the national harbours board to act and provide the necessary passenger terminal facilities.
While discussing matters relating to the national harbours board I should like to say a brief word about bridges. We have heard a great deal of discussion in this chamber and elsewhere regarding the current spending, the

past spending and the proposed future spending on bridges across navigable waters in the Montreal area. We on the west coast have bridge problems. We have many major multimillion dollar bridges crossing navigable waters in that area, including the first narrows bridge at the entrance to Burrard inlet, the two bridges at the second narrows, the Oak street bridge, the Granville street bridge and the Patullo bridge and others on the Fraser river.
Supply-Transport
for leadership in the department, and if the proper leadership does not correct this problem of immobility, inefficiency and waste then it needs a thorough housecleaning. In this instance we have witnessed immobility on the part of a bureaucratic organization chasing itself around in wild circles until I think it will vanish off the face of the earth. It has cost us thousands of dollars and has produced nothing of value for the people of Canada.
The cost of these has been borne by the people of British Columbia. We can go to Halifax or Quebec city or elsewhere in Canada and find that the approach or policy with reference to bridges differs from that applying in Montreal. I submit that there is no policy with respect to bridges on the west coast, and I submit that Canada must have a policy applicable to bridges crossing navigable waters generally. Either we must estab-lsh a bridge policy that will meet the problem and ensure that bridges are provided and properly maintained, or we should get out of the bridge business entirely. It is urgent that the bridge policy be unified across this nation.
Last year a tragic marine disaster occurred just off the shores of my constituency. It is widely known as the Ferngulf disaster. As a result of that tragedy the minister undertook a study and made an announcement regarding the establishment of a new coastal marine service. The people of the west coast, and I am sure the people of coastal areas elsewhere in Canada, were pleased about that announcement, but today they want clarification. They would like some details of the operation and a report on what is being done. This service must be brought into existence. Like the whole question of the port of Vancouver it is a matter of great urgency.
I wish now to deal briefly with the subject of airports. In this connection I regret that I cannot extend congratulations to the minister and his department when I reflect on the absolutely amazing sequence of events that has occurred concerning the Myrtle Point airport at Powell River. It would be the only such facility on the upper coastal mainland provided in a fog-free area to protect against emergencies should the lower mainland of greater Vancouver be fogbound.
In my efforts to get to the bottom of this matter-and I have consistently worked at it on a weekly basis for many months-I have developed that strange, frustrated feeling of a swimmer trying to go up the Fraser river against the incredible currents that abound there. Today we have reached the appalling stage where officialdom is calling on the town of Powell River to help finance a program announced two years ago by the federal government without any discussion at that time with the municipal authority. I have been unable to obtain adequate information on this matter, and I bring it once again to the attention of the minister, not as a means of criticizing him but as a means of stressing the urgent need that a serious look be taken at this branch of an otherwise efficient department.
I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity of reviewing these matters. I wish the minister continued success this year
fhi ' t?J* tw6 caution>
1 again underline the fact that the problems discussed are extremely urgent.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, it is not my custom to refer to situations in other communities-


Mr. Taylor:: When did you adopt that
policy?


Frank Howard: -but I have lived on the west coast all my life, and have travelled extensively through the constituency of Coast-Capilano represented by the hon gentleman who has just taken his seat. I know many of the communities to which he referred, and I commend him on his splendid address. I trust that as a result of his representations the problems he has raised will be met.
Two years ago, without my having made recent representations on the matter, although I had brought it to the minister's attention on previous occasions, an announcement was made out of the clear blue sky by the officials of the Department of Transport that this facility would be constructed. Ever since we have witnessed the most fantastic program of vacillation. I can best describe it by saying that there is in this field a great need 79951-0-283J
I wish now to deal with some local problems of interest to everyone along the coast of British Columbia. The Simon Fraser is a buoy and supply vessel costing in the neighbourhood of $3 million which replaced the old Alberni and was to be based at Prince Rupert in fulfilment of a promise made by the federal government. The problem is Prince Rupert versus Victoria, as it were. It is true that this promise was made during the time the Liberal government was in office,

Supply-Transport
but it is still a commitment that should have been kept with the people of Prince Rupert and with the communities and areas and lighthouses which would have been serviced by the Simon Fraser out of Prince Rupert.
Until about a month or so ago the only vessel that was stationed there was the old, inadequate, antiquated Alexander Mackenzie. Beyond that there was nothing in the line of ships of this type to service the area. This has meant at the economic end that perhaps 20 or so families who had been living in Prince Rupert have had to tear up their roots, as it were, and leave. Now that the Alberni is gone and the Simon Fraser is to be stationed some 500 or 600 miles away in Victoria, this is the situation.
In the past Prince Rupert has not looked too kindly upon federal governments. Probably the worst betrayal they experienced in recent years was the sale and removal of the drydock at Prince Rupert. This was done under a Liberal administration. It was something which upset the residents of Prince Rupert and the economy there to no end. If the attitude of the present government or of the minister with respect to the Simon Fraser is to continue the people in Prince Rupert will develop, if they have not already developed, the same attitude toward the Conservative government that they had toward the Liberal government when the drydock there was cut up into little pieces, uprooted and sold to somebody who not only took it away from Prince Rupert but out of the country entirely.
I understand the Simon Fraser is being based in Victoria. This is in line with what the minister or his officials term a need for greater flexibility in the use of those particular vessels.
We have a great need on the west coast, as they do on the east coast, for some sort of coastguard arrangement which would be far better than what we have had in the past. This is particularly true in the case of a ship disaster. The north coastal waters, the area of Hecate strait and the entrances around the Queen Charlotte islands and Prince Rupert get extremely violent at times, because they border on waters which are open to the Pacific. If there are disasters there we shall again have to rely upon United States coastguard facilities to effect any rescue. Apart from that, the Alexander Mackenzie is considered, as I mentioned earlier, to be an antiquated or inadequate type of vessel for servicing lighthouses, replacing buoys and other navigational aids. In servicing lighthouses with supplies, especially when they are perishable goods, there is some doubt as to whether those supplies can get there

in the condition in which they should be when they arrive; that is, if they are frozen, whether they will remain in that condition and not deteriorate.
The minister was in Prince Rupert in the summer of 1957; I forget the exact date, but it would be around July or August. It was after the federal election of 1957, in any event. He spent a day or so there. He had occasion to tour the city and spend a period of time on the Alberni itself with officials of the Department of Transport and the city of Prince Rupert. He toured the construction work that was then taking place on the new airport at Prince Rupert. Although I had occasion to meet the minister for only a few moments while he was there I would assume that during the time he and his staff were there he had occasion to get a fairly complete picture of the economic and geographic circumstances surrounding Prince Rupert. I am sure in his own mind he knows and appreciates those problems to the fullest extent by reason of his visit there, and certainly by reason of subsequent reports that he has undoubtedly received since that time.
If the minister needs any refreshing of his memory as to the great need-I refer now to the Simon Fraser-for the establishment of this vessel at Prince Rupert, then I am quite sure he would find that the entire city would again welcome him with open arms as they did then. He could then reinforce his memory about the need for this particular vessel to be stationed there rather than in the capital city of Victoria, which is some 500 or 600 miles south.
I am in no position to extend any official invitation on behalf of the city of Prince Rupert, but I know members of the city council, members of the chamber of commerce and other organizations in Prince Rupert, and I know the minister would be most welcome at any time, and especially now. Our people would be happy to remind him of the great need that exists in Prince Rupert for the establishment of this particular vessel there rather than in Victoria down at the southern end of Vancouver island. Perhaps this is what the minister needs, a sort of west coast, two or three week vacation from his arduous task of running probably the largest department in the government. It would not only assist him but would be beneficial and give him a psychological rest from his chores and duties. I am sure it would assist his memory and understanding of the requirements of that particular part of the country, and it might even be beneficial in getting the minister to change his mind and place the Simon Fraser in Prince Rupert, where it was promised she would be and where she should be rather than in Victoria, where she would be of


I960
[Stage Direction]
relatively little value to the upcoast except on the occasional visit she makes there in her tours.
I should also like to make a comment or two about the airport at Prince Rupert. This is a pretty sore point. It was a sore point with the city of Prince Rupert and the people there during the past winter as it was during the winter of 1958-59. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Transport's colleague, the Minister of Labour, has been engaged in the last two years on what he classifies as an extensive winter works program to encourage municipalities to undertake certain types of work in the winter period to ease unemployment. At the same time the Minister of Labour has been pushing this particular program of winter works with the municipalities to ease unemployment, the Minister of Transport has been working in the opposite direction by curtailing work which could have been carried on in winter time on the airport itself.
This is not a question that was raised just this past winter. As I mentioned, there was concern felt all during the winter of 1958-59, and there was hope that some extensive examination could take place. The people of the city of Prince Rupert could see far enough into the future, if the minister could not, to see what would occur during the past winter of 1959-60. There were statements many months ago concerning the need for work on that airport during the winter months which would not only speed up completion of the airport but would also ease the unemployment situation in Prince Rupert. It seems that on the one hand we have the Minister of Labour proposing and pushing a particular scheme to ease unemployment, and on the other hand his colleague the Minister of Transport holding back, delaying and procrastinating on the very same thing.
I do not need to refer again to the fact that the minister was out there in 1957 and toured the airport work. He has knowledge of it from a personal inspection as well as from reports. I say again, if he would like to return at any time to refresh his memory concerning the need that exists, although the winter has passed, he would still be welcome. There has been some extensive correspondence in this connection, and the minister was kind enough to send me a copy of a letter which he sent to His Worship Mayor Lester of the city of Prince Rupert. The letter is dated February 15, 1960 and sets out in some detail the work which is still to be done on the airport and the dates upon which this work would be expected to be commenced.
Supply-Transport
Perhaps I might be permitted to make a brief reference to the letter itself, Mr. Chairman, without reading it in its entirety, although if anyone so desires certainly it is easy enough to place the letter on record so the full intent of the minister will be seen. He makes reference to the air terminal building, and indicates that plans and specifications for that building are in an advanced stage of preparation, and so on. However, he says it may well be that the construction period will be in excess of 12 months from the time of the award of the contract. This really does not meet the great need that exists for the completion of that airstrip. The people of Prince Rupert are not concerned about activities 12 months hence.
At the time the letter was written by the mayor-incidentally, it was written on December 7 of last year-he was concerned about an immediate start on the construction in order to complete the airport and also provide employment to ease the unemployment situation. All he got in reply was that something might occur 12 months from then, or that after the contract was awarded the building might be completed within 12 months. The minister also makes reference to the I.L.S., the radio buildings and emergency power and says it is expected that tenders will be called within two or three weeks of the date of this letter. The target date for commissioning is September 30, 1960. This is not the period of time within which the work would have been most beneficial, and in keeping with the expressed aims of this government.
In so far as power service to the airport is concerned, the runway and approach lighting, it is expected that tenders will be called for this work in March, 1960, with the target for completion August 31, 1960. Then there is the clearing for the hazard beacon. The indication was that tenders had been called for that project as of the date of the letter, and it was expected the work would be completed entirely within the winter months, which was the initial request of the city of Prince Rupert.
In so far as the equipment garage is concerned, the indication here is that this purchase would be completed within the next few weeks. This is a small part of the total work involved, but it would also have been completed within the period. As I say, it is too late now because winter is over, and this project cannot be made part of the government's winter works program to try to ease unemployment, which I think should have been done. Nevertheless, I raise the matter as a sort of complaint of past failures.
I should like now to make brief reference on this transport question to the proposed
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
railway to be constructed in the interests of the Wenner-Gren foundation. It is proposed
to build the line from somewhere near Prince George north to the British Columbia-Yukon border and, perhaps later on, through the Yukon Territory to Alaska. This, Mr. Chairman, is part of the sell-out by our provincial government in British Columbia to the Wenner-Gren interests, a part of the steal of one tenth of the province of British Columbia. At the moment we have in that particular area two railways; one is the Canadian National northern line that runs through Jasper and Prince Rupert, and the other is the Pacific Great Eastern Railway which runs from North Vancouver up through Prince George and thence farther north. I am only concerned with the Prince George section at the moment. The proposal of the Wenner-Gren people is that an additional railroad should be constructed starting somewhere near Prince George-I am not thoroughly familiar with the exact take-off point-and going in a sort of northwesterly direction along the Rocky mountain trench up to the Yukon border.
I really believe this proposal for the construction of this railroad has more connection with an expected provincial election in British Columbia than it has with anything else. If they think they are just going to build a railroad that is going to stop at the Yukon border in the north, then this company and the provincial government are a bit nuts. Logically this should be a railroad that runs up to Alaska, and to that extent the federal government is involved, the Department of Transport is involved and perhaps the Canadian National Railways, even though apparently they do not want to be involved, because the railway would then be outside the province of British Columbia and would come under federal jurisdiction.
The proposed route of the railroad, as the minister will know, is in the wrong place. It is not economically feasible and it is not sensible to build it from its present take-off point. I submit that if the Canadian National is not going to participate, and apparently they are not, the railway should start from Hazelton, thence northward along a fairly decent route to whatever the terminus would be in the north. This was called route A. It was seriously considered by the United States defence department as an alternate route to Alaska during the second world war, that is an alternate route to the present Alcan highway. So far as I know, the route has been completely topographically surveyed by the provincial department of lands and forests as far back as six or eight years ago.
I understand that the president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Gordon, has

written to Premier Bennett on two occasions making some suggestions with respect to this proposed railway the provincial government is sponsoring. He has suggested that the Wenner-Gren people use that part of the Canadian National Railway right of way from Prince George west to Hazelton and then go northward from there. It is pointed out that this would save approximately $30 million which otherwise would be spent for that some 200 or more miles of heavy construction that would have to be done for the Wenner-Gren railway. It is quite a logical suggestion and one that should be accepted, in my opinion, because the two railways-that is the Canadian National Railway line and the proposed Wenner-Gren railway-will fairly well parallel each other for a distance of some 200 miles.
Certainly a saving of $30 million should be acceptable to the provincial government and to the Wenner-Gren people. I understand that the route would be somewhat longer by using the Canadian National rails and right of way but that the grades are much easier, and that constructing a railway such as Wenner-Gren proposes, in fairly difficult territory, would be more costly than if they were to follow the present route of the C.N.R.
But as I said, I am of the opinion that there is more concern in Premier Bennett's mind in using this matter as an election gimmick in northern British Columbia than there is in actually building a railway and that actually, regardless of his proposed gift or sellout to the Wenner-Gren interests, this railway some time will have to come under the jurisdiction of the federal government or the federal government will have to participate in it in some way. Quite frankly, I may say I think the Canadian National Railways have missed the boat completely in not proposing or starting building that northward extension from Hazelton many years ago.
However, that is its business. Apparently the C.N.R. runs so inefficiently under Mr. Gordon that it is losing money hand over fist, and perhaps he would not think in terms of losing any more, because apparently his views are connected with the amount of mileage he has under his jurisdiction. So much for the railway which I think is a necessity, which I think should be built under a public corporation such as the Canadian National Railways, and which should have been built many years ago from Hazelton north, not by the present route from Prince George and paralleling 200 miles of C.N.R. line.
I should like to make a comment or two about coastal shipping, and perhaps I can

go into some detail on this question when the Canadian maritime commission estimates are before us. I should like to put these thoughts before the minister now, however, so that he and the officials of the maritime commission will have a full appreciation of them if they have not already such an appreciation.
We have complained of this question for a number of years. Last night I was interested to hear the hon. member for Comox-Alberni make reference to the question of coastal shipping also. While he did not go quite so far as to suggest any alternative method to that which exists now, at least he recognized the problem.
Coastal shipping in British Columbia has deteriorated tremendously in the last few years, and I would say this deterioration has increased under the Conservative government rather than lessened. I do not know whether this is the fault of the minister or whether he even knows in much detail the situation which exists with regard to coastal shipping in British Columbia. We pay an annual subsidy to Northland Navigation Company of some $294,500 a year, I think it is. That is a subvention or subsidy to provide service to isolated spots on the coast of British Columbia.
Unfortunately this Northland Navigation Company, which is in a monopoly position in many respects, is taking a rather cavalier and discriminatory attitude toward the communities it is supposed to service. I understand that Captain Terry, the owner of Northland Navigation Company, is rather friendly with the Conservative party. Perhaps this is one reason he got the contract or the subvention in the first place.
Some of the things his company does might bear relating. For instance, a year ago at Christmas time, without any warning other than some advertisements in the newspaper; without any reference to the Canadian maritime commission, something which should have been done; without any formal request being made to alter the schedule of service to these up-coast communities, Northland Navigation Company suddenly decided that they were not going to service these communities during Christmas week. This decision left many people completely isolated. It upset the Christmas mail; it upset delivery of Christmas parcels; it upset the plans of people who wanted to travel in or out of those communities at Christmas time in order to be with their families. That was done all because Northland Navigation Company is in a monopoly position and is able to do what it feels like doing, and all because it or Captain Terry is a very close friend of the party that is now in office.
Supply-Transport
I have had telegrams and letters galore from people in communities like Bella Coola, Bella Bella, Ocean Falls, and Stuart and Ellis islands over in the Queen Charlotte islands; time after time complaining about the poor, inadequate and disgraceful service that is provided to these communities by this particular company to which we pay almost $300,000 a year as a subsidy in order for them to provide that particular service. I know there was a great deal of politics involved in the decline of Union Steamships which preceded Northland Navigation Company. I do not intend to go into that matter.
Ernest James Broome: Will you go into the matter of their subsidies?


Frank Howard: The amount is $294,000.


Ernest James Broome: One million dollars is what Union Steamships asked for.


Jacques Flynn: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Skeena, but his time has expired.
(Translation):


Mr. Asselin:: Mr. Chairman, the introduction of the estimates of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) gives me the opportunity to draw to his attention three important problems, on which, I think, the economic survival of my riding is based.
First of all, I want to say a word about winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I had the privilege, on January 29, 1960, of expressing in this house my personal opinion on winter navigation, but since certain newspapers misrepresented the statements I had made at the time, today I would like to clear up matters. With regard to this particular matter, I think I have shown more courage in the past than did the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) and all Liberal members, who never dared to state their position clearly and accurately but were satisfied with double talk, as was the hon. member for Laurier yesterday. Yesterday, when I asked the hon. member for Laurier whether he was in favour of winter navigation up to Quebec, he answered as follows, as recorded on page 1 of the appendix to Hansard for June 2:
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.
But, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Laurier took great care not to say what kind of services his party intends to provide in answer to the problem of winter navigation up to Quebec. Are they to be icebreaker


Jacques Flynn: It is now one o'clock. If the hon. member is just about through-


Martial Asselin: Yes.
(Text):


Jacques Flynn: Will the committee permit the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed. (Translation):


Martial Asselin: Before concluding my remarks, I wish to thank the Minister of Transport for authorizing the completion of the Charlevoix airport. I was informed recently that the Minister of Transport was supposed to call for tenders, in a few days, for the completion of that airport. This building will promote the tourist industry in my riding, and the development of all kinds of other projects. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents, I warmly thank the Minister of Transport for carrying out, in my riding, a project that will prove extremely useful in meeting the economic needs of my area.
79951-0-284
(Text):
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m. (Translation):
Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, when the government considers building another bridge east of the Jacques Cartier bridge which, as everyone knows, has aroused a scandal, it should consider the possibility of building that bridge in the vicinity of St. Sulpice, in the constituency of L'Assomption.
My proposal is based on the following considerations: first, the towns of Repentigny and St. Sulpice constitute a most important housing development in the greater Montreal area; second, a bridge there would serve the highway that will soon link some of the most important centres of the province of Quebec; third, on account of Bouchard island, the cost of the bridge would be less, and would not interfere with the St. Lawrence seaway. Fourth, such a bridge would also have the advantage of linking up Montreal with the whole south shore area, which is developing into a Canadian Ruhr, over the whole section between Longueuil and Sorel. Fifth, such an outlet to the chief communities on the south shore would be a great boost to the economic development of such areas as Joliette, L'Assomption and- Montcalm, as well as the Berthier-Maskinonge area. Sixth, a bridge thus located would be a necessary counterpart to the Gardeur de Repentigny bridge, and would be a new road to progress, apart from the fact that a bridge in that area would, from a civil defence point of view, serve as a vital outlet for population centres, servicing at one and the same time four important areas, namely those of Montreal, Joliette, Sorel and Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere.
So I ask the government that if and when it considers plans for the erection of a bridge in that area, the bridge be named "Marquis de Montcalm", in memory of this national hero, or else "Frangois Labelle", one of the illustrious founders of the L'Assomption College where Sir Wilfrid Laurier was educated.
(Text):


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport

[Stage Direction]
406. Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $1,716,969.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, could the minister give some indication as to what canals have been taken over by the St. Lawrence seaway authority and what canals now remain under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport proper?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to give the hon. member that information in just a minute. The detailed information is in the hands of my officials who are on their way to the chamber.


Lionel Chevrier: While the minister is waiting may I ask if the Cornwall canal as it now exists is under the jurisdiction of the department or of the St. Lawrence seaway authority? Dependent upon which authority it is under, I should like to draw the minister's attention to a matter that was pointed out to me when I was there the day before yesterday. Due to a lack of velocity of the waters in the canal the waters are becoming polluted. This is certainly contrary to what has taken place in the past. In fact, swimming has been impossible at the Mack's bridge area where it had taken place for many years. I have seen pictures in the local press which indicate that the water is so slow running and stagnant that it has become a danger to health.
There should be some reason for this because if the required amount of water from the St. Lawrence seaway which is at a higher level is dropped into that canal the velocity will be increased and there should not be the slightest reason for stagnation and pollution which might be a danger to health.
I wonder if the minister would bring this matter to the attention of the director of canal services or of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, whichever official's job it is, so that this matter could be rectified?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I shall be very glad to bring that to the attention of the responsible officials.
In answer to the hon. member's previous question, the following canals were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and are now under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority: the Sault Ste. Marie canal, the Welland canal, the Cornwall canal and the Lachine canal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
407. Marine services administration including agencies, $904,250.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if this is the item under which I could ask the minister for details about marine services planned for the upper great lakes in the future so we may have some idea as to the projection of the role of the department in so far as tug service is concerned and the relationship of tug service to icebreaking service.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we operate the icebreaker at the head of the lakes as the hon. member knows, but we do not normally charter tugs.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I want to know is if there is an important port handling millions of tons of tonnage and there are no tugs provided by private enterprise in the area-and that is the situation that actually exists today -what leadership is the department going to take in attempting to see that there are services established there? The minister will agree that there are a number of users of tug services there, but if there is not enough consistent work there for a private enterprise institution, where does the government come into it?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, at none of the harbours under the jurisdiction of my department do we provide tug service. As I have said, we provide icebreaker services in the area, but it is up to the shipping companies to provide tug service.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not think the minister will deny that in the national harbours there is tug service of a kind provided by the port authorities. Is that not true?


George Harris Hees: The commercial work in the national harbours is all done by commercial tugs, which operate for the shipping interests concerned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Let me put it this way. Will the minister have his transport officials survey the situation at the lakehead and determine whether he could lure some commercial services into supplying tug service, especially in the spring and fall. The minister knows the conundrum and the argument that the Alexander Henry, the new icebreaker, could not go into the slips. Because of her size she could cause damage to wharves and cribbing, and that kind of thing. What is the alternative? In the past it seems to have been a commercial company. If no commercial tugs are available, what are we to do about getting those slips open sooner?


George Harris Hees: In the other harbours this is all done by commercial tugs, as I have said.

With regard to the hon. member's suggestion that a conference be held with the people of the lakehead and ourselves to discuss this matter my officials tell me that they have indicated to the hon. member that we are willing to talk to him or them at any time and will welcome such talks.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One other question: Are any of the harbour commissions which have been set up developing another kind of harbour authority separate from the national harbours board? Are any of them getting into this business of providing tug services?


George Harris Hees: I will check on that, Mr. Chairman, but not to my knowledge or the knowledge of my deputy minister.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to ask a question as to the scope of the Alexander Henry. It has been provided, as the minister says, for icebreaker services in the upper lakes. This does not give a great deal of flexibility in spite of the magnificent capacity of this tug to provide service all the way down to Parry Sound, Collingwood, and the area up to the lake-head, a very crucial part of the area. I wonder whether any plans are under way to give it more flexibility?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We are studying this matter very closely. It may easily appear after those studies are over that we do need another ship, but this matter has not been decided up to the present time. It is being closely studied at the moment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, is this the item on which I can properly ask the minister questions on how his pilotage plans on the great lakes are developing?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, any time at all.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I would be interested in hearing from the minister a statement as to how this scheme is working out and whether there is any possibility of the government getting out of this in the future and allowing those pilots to go back on a private enterprise basis? I am not asking for it; I am wondering what the government's plans are? As I understand the probable future development in relation to the United States, this whole question of pilotage in the great lakes in so far as the United States government is concerned is that they intend to keep their pilotage on a private enterprise basis.
I should like an explanation on how the two are going to dovetail when on the one hand you have a government service and on the other hand a private enterprise service?


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister wish to answer the question?
79951-0-284-J
Supply-Transport


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to say something on this but I understood this was not the item. There is an item dealing with pilotage. However, if the minister wishes to discuss it on this item I am quite prepared to carry on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I took it as the general item.


Lionel Chevrier: If there is no objection, I should like to say a word about the question of pilotage. I certainly was not under the impression that one was operated under government authority and the other under private enterprise authority. I was under the impression that the pilots in the various districts in Canada, while they were under the jurisdiction of the minister as the pilotage authority of Canada, none the less received their salaries under the terms of a collective agreement which was made through the shipping federation and, of course, always approved by the pilotage authority. I do not know what the position is in the United States but I am sure the minister has given consideration to the present position of the various districts in Canada. What leads me to say a word about it is that when the pilotage bill was introduced in the house last year or two years ago there was some indication in the bill that one of the districts, if not two, namely the Montreal and Quebec pilotage districts, were to be abolished. I was glad when the minister did not pursue that bill further and I hope that if a bill is introduced dealing with pilotage during this or the next session there will be no question of the Quebec and Montreal pilotage pilots disappearing, but that they will remain under the present jurisdiction.
This prompts me to ask the minister a question which I think is important. What progress has been made in the negotiations with the United States concerning pilotage on the upper St. Lawrence and great lakes? The last we heard of it was a statement made by the minister in the house in answer to questions that were asked on the orders of the day from time to time. I know that a bill was introduced in the Senate of the United States but I am not aware of its present position. However, I do not think it has gone through both houses of the United States congress. Has an agreement been negotiated with the United States? If not, is it near completion? Has it reached the point where a bill might be introduced at this session of parliament? These are matters on which the committee would wish the minister to enlighten it at this time.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There is no written agreement with the United States on this matter, simply an understanding between

Supply-Transport
the two countries. They have just passed through both houses ol congress a bill which is very similar to ours, and similar in intent. I have a bill which I mentioned earlier this session, which I have been waiting to present to the house when I was sure that the United States legislation would go through. As a matter of fact, the bill was delivered in my hands this morning. I will be presenting it to cabinet for ratification in the next day or so. Then it will be introduced in the house. The legislation in Canada and in the United States will be very similar, indeed.
Regarding the status of pilots throughout our system, the status of pilots, other than those of the great lakes, is as described by the hon. member for Laurier. They are in various pilotage districts which he mentioned. In the great lakes they are employees of the Department of Transport by their own choice. We understand that they are very satisfied with this arrangement, and we are satisfied with it. At any time any other pilotage district wishes to enter into the same kind of arrangement we have let them know we will be very happy to have them. At the same time, we are also very pleased to have them carry on in the way they are now.
I might also add, Mr. Chairman, that this whole matter has been discussed very thoroughly with the United States. They see no problem at all arising because they have a slightly different system of pilotage than we have. They feel, and we feel, that the pilotage arrangements between the two countries will work out satisfactorily. This thing has been very thoroughly discussed between us.


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose until we see the bill it is not possible for us on this side, at least, to come to a conclusion in this respect. This prompts me to ask another question. In the bill which the minister intends to submit to his colleagues is there any reference to the abolishment of the pilotage districts of Montreal and Quebec?


George Harris Hees: No, emphatically no. This bill will deal only with the pilotage on the great lakes, and nothing else from last year's bill will appear in this bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask one question here? Does the minister mean there will be nothing in the bill giving Canada authority to license foreign ships when they reach Montreal, that is license foreign ship masters to pilot on the great lakes after a certain amount of service?


George Harris Hees: The applicability of the bill is only to great lakes waters.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That still does not clear it up; foreign ships are coming into the great lakes
[Mr. Hees.)
waters and is Canada going to have the right to give the masters 'B' licences or certain licences that will enable them to operate without pilotage?


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member will realize that he is getting a little ahead of himself because this bill still has to be passed by cabinet, and it still has to be introduced into this house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My reason for asking the question is very clear. As the minister knows, there have been complaints from the United States pilots, who are highly organized into a union-type system. I have no particular brief for the United States pilots or the union-type system, but it seems to me they have a potential as troublemakers, let us put it, by causing dissention in all the arrangements. I gather from their complaints that they are very strongly against this particular provision. I should like to know whether there is anything in the United States legislation that is considered as protecting United States interests, as the United States unions consider it in this particular regard.


George Harris Hees: As I said a little earlier, the United States legislation provides for basically the same kind of system that we will have and which will be provided under this bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to turn to another part of the marine service. I do not believe we have had a really fair outline from the minister-that is not necessarily his fault- as to just what his department is planning to do in connection with small boat matters in Canada. I know we have had the suggestion that there is some kind of conference, and that eventually the informal licensing arrangements that are now in existence will become formalized. Until we observe a pattern for the future in connection with this very important matter, and because of the tremendous growth in the use of small boats on Canadian waters, I should like to know also what estimate the department has of the cost in the future of administering this aspect of the work.
It seems to me that the development of small boats has become more than a hobby; it has become a summer way of life. There is going to be, I would imagine, a demand upon the treasury of this government and the provincial governments in terms of licences, facilities, policing and so on. I should like to know where we are going on this particular item. It seems to me we deserve a statement at this time.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we believe that we are giving leadership to small boat owners all across the country in connection with

small boat safety. As the hon. member knows very well, because of the very nature of the ownership of small boats and the tremendous number of waters on which they operate, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to impose rigid regulations and police them. We have to rely, therefore, on the good sense of the small boat operators themselves to operate their boats in compliance with safety regulations which are decided to be in the best interests of the general public and the small boat operators.
Once a year there is a large conference held at which there are representatives of the provincial governments, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and all interested parties, to discuss safety measures and possible ways of bringing more and more people to realize the need for the safe handling of small boats. We believe that this is having a good effect. More and more people are becoming interested. We feel that the safety suggestions we are making are being adhered to more and more year by year.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Is it not possible for the department to make some kind of analysis of the waters where the intensity of use at the present time is such that some stiffer regulations could be applied, and some policing could be applied. I think any one of us who goes to an area such as Muskoka or anywhere on the great lakes system sees flagrant examples of dangerous conduct and very bad equipment. We have tragedies happening all the time on the water. I am just wondering if there could not be some kind of limit set where stricter licensing and policing could be put into effect. I am wondering if that is a necessary step that the department might take.


George Harris Hees: The enforcement of the regulations in connection with small boats has to be carried out, of necessity, by the provincial police and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. We have a small permanent committee of departmental officials who do nothing but work on small boat safety measures year in and year out. They are in constant communication and co-operation with the provincial police of the various provinces and with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to assist them and to set standards of small boat safety as well as to enforce those standards where that is possible. I really do not know what more we can do than we are doing. At the present time, as I say, we are working very closely with the people and with the police officers who are enforcing these regulations. We try to give them all the help we can. We try to educate small boat owners in the very best way we can.
Supply-Transport
We have a very good pamphlet called "Safety Afloat" which is sent out by the thousands and to which a great deal of attention is paid. I want to assure the hon. member and every member of the committee that this is a matter that has our constant attention. It is a most important one, and we welcome suggestions that can be made by interested groups or individuals as to what can be done to improve small boat safety.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I was trying to suggest was that the time had arrived when more concrete steps should be taken. I think we all remember the recent tragedy of the mounted police boat on Lake Simcoe. Almost every day during the summer we have these tragedies. One notices the editorial comment and the general view is that some adequate protective measures need to be taken to protect people from themselves. I do not refer only to the standard life jackets, the standardization of boats and various safety provisions along the water thoroughfares, but to some effective way, a common way right across Canada, of getting a code for prosecution.
What I am trying to put before the minister is: has the government considered the real problem of the tremendous cost of doing a good job in this connection and the increasing demand that the job be done? I wanted to know where the department stood in connection with spending, to this particular marine service, perhaps an increasing amount of up to $10 million or $15 million in order to police the boats on the waterways and to enforce regulations and licensing requirements. I am afraid, however, that the demand for that kind of service is growing.


George Harris Hees: As I have tried to indicate, in very heavily populated areas where there is a great concentration of boating the policing is far more intense because there are more R.C.M.P. and provincial police in those areas. However, as the hon. member knows, a great deal of boating is done in lakes and rivers which are in relatively uninhabited or sparsely inhabited parts of the country where the fishing, hunting and pastimes of that sort are of the very best. To think that you could have a police force that is going to be policing every lake and river, particularly in these far out districts, is almost fantastic. However, I want to assure the hon. member that we receive the utmost of co-operation from all of the small boat manufacturers.
A step that has been accomplished in the last few months is that they now put on every boat a metal plate which specifies the maximum power that should be applied to that particular hull and the maximum load

Supply-Transport
that boat should carry. As I think the hon. member will realize, it that practice had been adhered to in the sad case to which he has just referred I think that accident would not have happened. We are learning as we go along. As a result of these conferences we are being able to move forward, I think steadily, in this regard.
Another thing we do is to encourage the inspection at all times of the life-saving equipment which boats carry. As a matter of fact, a friend of mine protested most vigorously to me last year because the R.C.M.P. had caused him some trouble by telling him that the life-saving equipment he had was not satisfactory and by confiscating it because they felt it was dangerous for him to have it in his boat. However, things of that kind are going on all the time.
I hope I have answered the hon. member's question. We are doing more and more in this regard. It is a very big field. Because of the fact that the people who use small boats are running on literally many thousands of bodies of waters all across the country, the actual policing is a difficult thing; but the provincial police and the R.C.M.P. co-operate to the very utmost of of their ability.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask the minister whether he could just indicate where in the estimates we can get some kind of estimate of the people who are working in this particular field across the country so that we can get some idea of the scope of the present service and the amount of money that is spent on it?


George Harris Hees: Our service is supervisory and it is here in Ottawa. As I say, there is a small committee that is working all the time to provide information for those who need and can best use that information. The people who do the policing are the provincial police and the R.C.M.P. Our department does not have a police force to enforce these regulations. We are available at all times to give advice. We send out this pamphlet "Safety Afloat". We conduct meetings once a year of all interested parties. We are prepared to give advice, assistance and help at any time; but we cannot operate a force across this country in order to try to give instruction in and enforce the regulations. As I say, we work with the R.C.M.P. and with the provincial police. They are extremely co-operative. We give them all the advice and help that we can give them. We do the same thing for the boat manufacturers who are extremely co-operative. We work closely with boat users and anybody who is interested. However, we have not employees all across the country engaged in enforcing the small boat regulations.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister give an estimate of the number of people involved in this work and what the fixed cost would be for a year?


George Harris Hees: Outside of the publication of the pamphlet I am advised that the fixed costs would be somewhere between $30,000 and $40,000; but a lot of work that is carried on in this regard is done by a great many people on a voluntary basis, as in so many other volunteer organizations across the country who are interested in safety work and so on.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask a few more questions on this matter. As to this attempt at voluntary licensing that has been established, may I ask where the records are kept? I am referring to voluntary licensing. I understand there has been voluntary licensing of small craft. I should like to know where the records are kept and who is going to be responsible for these records as they increase and to keep them up to date.


George Harris Hees: The registration is compulsory for boats only. The registration is kept by the Department of National Revenue because the customs officers do the registering of these boats.


Mr. Robinson:: I was wondering whether the minister could tell us if there has been any consultation with the United States in connection with life-saving on the great lakes. I recollect that two or three years ago a resolution concerning a coastguard service on the great lakes was debated. I also understand that it is a live subject in the minds of many people who have been close to catastrophe over the last two or three years. I am wondering whether there is any coordinated arrangement between the provinces and the federal government with regard to, for example, air search. Are local fishermen alerted to be on hand if something like this happens? What I have in mind is this. Last summer a boat was out on Georgian bay for between 30 hours and 40 hours and it was not found. By good luck the wind turned and blew it in to shore. I am just wondering whether any work is being done in the department or whether any move is being made in the department to co-ordinate something along the life-saving line.


George Harris Hees: We studied this matter very intensely and we came to the conclusion that what are needed mainly are co-ordinators who will first of all direct the boats in any particular area that could be used for going to the rescue of a ship or boat in distress. We have appointed a co-ordinator for the east coast and for the west coast. I am advised that the board is sitting today to choose a

co-ordinator for the great lakes. His job will be to assist and to work with the shipping or boating interests in the great lakes so that a method can be worked out whereby, when a disaster occurs, the available craft in that area would go to the assistance of the ship or boat in distress.


William Arnold Peters: I know that everybody connected with the small boat industry has been greatly interested in the matter of life jackets and safety equipment that has been worn for a number of years or has been obtained in the last year or so but is of no value and/ or sometimes even dangerous. I understood that the department was doing some work on examining all types of life-saving equipment or life-preserving equipment and that it was expected that before too long there would be range of equipment put out as to which the department themselves would assume responsibility as having approved it. I am wondering whether that work has been finalized.


George Harris Hees: Yes; that has been done. The department approves certain types of lifesaving equipment. The Department of Transport's stamp is put on such equipment so that it can readily be seen by police who might inspect life-saving equipment in a craft. The law requires that life-saving equipment in a craft have the stamp of the Department of Transport on it or it is not considered satisfactory and cannot be passed as satisfactory equipment for life-saving.


William Arnold Peters: Might I ask if the manufacturer puts this on after approval has been given or do inspectors go round authorizing its use? If so, is it done with numbers so that one manufacturer uses one number so you can check back and see when equipment coming on the market does not meet the specifications and see who is responsible for its manufacture?


George Harris Hees: Our steamship inspection staff do the actual stamping and approving of the equipment after it has been actually tested.


William Arnold Peters: I am not sure whether this matter comes under the marine section but I am sure the minister will have no objections if I raise it. We have a number of problems connected with the upkeep of navigation on lake Timiskaming for boating purposes. One of the major problems in relation to the small boats is the number of logs and other material floating around. Provincially, in some lakes like lake Timagami, they have reached an agreement of some description where the sweeping has to be done before June 13. After that the party leaving logs in the water in that area is responsible for any
Supply-Transport
damage done. Previous to June 15 the companies are assumed to have jurisdiction over the waterway and if you drive a boat in the lake that is your responsibility. But after June 15 I think the companies are responsible, and if you sink your boat or get a hole in it, as I say they are responsible.
In lake Timiskaming we have a different problem which has been with us for 75 years I suppose, because the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company which was set up under federal charter many years ago assumed the responsibility for all the driving and handling of logs on the tributaries of the Ottawa and on lake Timiskaming. They have had many problems which are really not of their own making. The effect of the floods was bad this year and has created a problem not quite in keeping with a normal year. They are a small company now but there are still a great number of logs coming into lake Timiskaming continually throughout the year. I understand from talking to people in the Ottawa section that over the whole length of the Ottawa river there is the same problem.
When we have objected to the Department of Transport and asked that these lakes be cleaned up, they say they are not responsible for this. When you talk to the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company they say that they are doing it as fast as they can but that they have limited resources. As far as I know they have accepted no responsibility to a third party.
In lake Timiskaming, particularly in the Haileybury and New Liskeard areas, although they are on a bay of the lake, there are hundreds of small craft. At the present time the lake is literally dotted with deadheads and stuff as high as a quarter of a mile up the shore because of the flood this year. This has all drifted out into the lake and is a terrific hazard to navigation. In fact it makes it almost impassable.
I think something can be done about this. The department itself could take some action with regard to this stuff coming in. As far as Wabi bay is concerned, which is the main boating section at New Liskeard and Haileybury, I think that while it is an expensive proposition control booms across the bay would be a lot less expensive than the damage caused at the moment. This is something that I think could be enforced and I think the department should exercise more control over this problem than they do at present. It is a real hazard and the problem will become so bad that as far as I can see thousands of pulp logs and pieces of saw timber will be cruising around on the lake all summer. The company now sweeping it

Supply-Transport
has only several small steamers and a limited number of people to work on them.
I think regulations should be enforced prohibiting a company from allowing these logs to go out. In normal circumstances a company will double move and put in a control boom half a mile down the river. It may have three or four controls on it. But none of these companies exercise that type of control and have no objection at all if the logs go down to the lake.
I sympathize with the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company this year because flood conditions have been unusual and have created a problem which is not normal; but in normal years it is very seldom that these logs are cleaned up until late September when the boating season is over.
I would like to know if the minister has any suggestion to make to help solve the problem. It may be that as far as the department is concerned their interest is in giving lakes like lake Timiskaming and those on the Ottawa river back to the provincial government, although if they are interprovincial difficulty arises as to the border line between two provinces. In Ontario where the provincial government looks after the lakes they are much better looked after than where the federal government is in authority, because in my experience it continually keeps passing the buck to other people involved.


George Harris Hees: The situation which the hon. member has just described is a very real and worrying one. Unfortunately logging comes under provincial jurisdiction. As there is quite naturally a conflict of jurisdiction in this matter it complicates the enforcement of regulations prohibiting the kind of behaviour which the hon. member has suggested. What we try to do is to work with the logging companies and to point out to them the dangers which their logs are causing and I think we have been reasonably successful in most cases. We have found, however, that really the most effective deterrent to allowing their logs to get out of control and become troublesome to small boats is the pressure which can be brought to bear by the local residents on the logging company itself.
However, it is a real problem and one about which we try to do everything we can to bring about satisfactory results. As I say the main difficulty is that the jurisdiction is a divided one and it complicates the question to a great extent.


William Arnold Peters: In this case it is not a divided jurisdiction because the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company is a federal company which was set up with full jurisdiction over the upper Ottawa river, lake Timiskaming,

the Ottawa river and so on. No company, as I understand from reading the act which set up the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company, has any right to drive logs on lake Timiskaming, up on the Ottawa river or in any area around there. They have to pay the Upper Ottawa Improvement Company so much money for using their lakes.
As far as the provincial question is concerned, the logs which bother us in lake Timiskaming on the Ontario side do not come from Ontario at all; they are Quebec logs which come down the riviere des Quinze and other rivers in that area. But no logs are driven on the Ottawa river; for years no logs have been driven down there.
This is the situation which I think the government could do something about, because they are under charter through the federal government here. It is a very simple act. The act, which was written back in Queen Victoria's time, said that if they do not operate in the interests of the community and the people, the act will be forfeited. Certainly over the years they have not acted too much in the interests of the people. The minister says what is needed is some reaction from the communities concerned. I can assure him that this reaction comes to me, unfortunately, first of all. Then if I do not get anything done about it they go to the minister and others. But I usually hear about it as early as anybody.
The people sympathize with them in the problem they have in a year like this, but it was just as bad last year and the year before. It was even as bad when there was very little water in the lake. I should like to know what can be done to solve it on a permanent basis. It has been suggested that the communities in my area should get together, that a dozen men in motorboats should sweep the logs on their own and charge the companies for booming. If something does not happen, somebody is going to burn these logs which are piled up all along the shore. I happen to have a property there and one of my neighbours has 30 cords of wood piled up ready to burn. I do not think that is the right way of handling the problem.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to look into the situation to which the hon. member has drawn my attention.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to turn to something which has to do with pilotage and I now have the papers involved. The minister will remember that earlier this session I asked a question in relation to the shipping federation of Canada. The question was No. 73 and it read:
Has the department ever given the shipping federation any authority or aproval for it to present

the views of the government of Canada on pilotage to any United States congressional committee?
I should like to read from a committee report. It is the report of a hearing before the subcommittee on coastguard, coast and geodetic survey and navigation of the committee on merchant marine and fisheries of the house of representatives, eighty sixth congress, first session, on Bill H.R. 57 to require pilots on certain vessels navigating United States waters of the great lakes, and for other purposes. During the cross-examination of Mr. Brisset, who was a spokesman for the shipping federation of Canada, Mr. Dorn, a member of the committee said:
Does the speaker speak for the Canadian government?
To which the reply was:
I think I will say "Yes".
The report continues:


Mr.   Dorn@: In other words, the Canadian government is threatening the United States to close off those waters unless the United States refuses to pass this bill? I cannot believe that, sir.


Mr. Brisset:: Perhaps I have gone too far.


Mr.   Dorn@: I think perhaps you have, sir.


Maurice Brasset: I will not say that I am speaking for the Canadian government here. I am trying to explain-


Mr.   Dorn@: But you are implying that you do speak for the Canadian government, however.


George Harris Hees: I think I can explain that without there being any need for the hon. member to read further. This case is, of course, very well known to me. The shipping federation had no authority whatever to speak for the Canadian government. They did so on their own, and as soon as we found out what the federation had said and done we reprimanded them severely for so doing. We also informed the United States government that they were not speaking for the Canadian government.


Lionel Chevrier: How did you reprimand them, by slapping their backs?


George Harris Hees: As I remember it, we spoke to them rather sharply.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister, in his reply to my question, said the matter was taken up on May 29, 1959 at a meeting of officials with the pilotage committee of the shipping federation.
This raises a matter which is bothering me as one who is, in a sense, an involuntary spokesman for some of the pilots. Since many of the pilots have now become civil servants it has been suggested that the shipping federation has become a spokesman for some of the policies followed by the government. There have been complaints that the shipping federation has had the ear of the Department of Transport right down the line. Whatever the Department of Transport does usually
Supply-Transport
follows the policies of the shipping federation of Canada. This being the argument, I want to ask the minister if he has received from the St. Lawrence river pilots a review of the situation by the shipping federation of Canada and, if he has, I should like to know if he is in agreement with the following suggestion made by the federation on page 8 of the pamphlet. These read as follows:
It is the opinion and recommendation of the Shipping Federation of Canada, Inc., that a system of dealing with the pilotage situation should be evolved which would:
1)	Pay the pilots fairly and adequately in relation to their competence and the service performed.
2)	Remove, permanently, as a subject of discussion with pilots, the tariffs which are to be applied to the shipping industry. It is the opinion of the federation that this can and should be done by establishing a non-political commission to administer pilotage and to determine-after discussion with pilots and shipping interests-fair levels of remuneration for them. Matters of tariffs, service charges and other assessments against the industry would be worked out between the commission and representatives of the shipping industry.
The present monopolistic position of the pilots is capable of creating serious discrepancies between services performed and the cost of the service. Instability of pilotage service can affect not only the shipping industry but the entire Canadian economy adversely. The present system is conducive to instability, and is deteriorating rapidly. The Shipping Federation of Canada Inc. regards it as most urgent to establish immediately a system of pilotage which will ensure-
Eight points are then listed, and I do not wish to take up time by reading them all. What I should like to ask is this: are these, now, the objectives of his department and, if not, what are his department's views?


George Harris Hees: To go back to the first question which was asked. The hon. member says that the shipping federation has the ear of the department. I can assure him that the shipping federation quite often says to us that the pilots have the ear of the government. We get it from both sides. We have meetings with both parties quite often and we listen with great interest to what each side has to say. Then we try to work out the best possible policy from the point of view of the pilots and the shippers.
With regard to the pamphlet which the hon. member has mentioned, I am aware of the pamphlet but I do not want to comment on the question which was raised. I may say that no federation makes government policy.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could the minister tell me whether the dominion marine association or the lake carriers association have recently presented their views on the pilotage situation to the minister and, if so, what are those views?


George Harris Hees: It depends on what the hon. member means by "recently". They meet with us two or three times a year. We would have

Supply-Transport
to know the subject to which the hon. member is referring, or the time. Whenever we get together, pilotage is always one of the subjects that come up for discussion.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What I meant by "recently" is that there have been indications from the annual meetings-they usually have a joint meeting with the lake carriers-.that their objections were much more in line with those of the United States pilots' union than with the views of the shipping federation of Canada. Anyway, there is a conflict of views here, and I should like to know something about how this is to be resolved, and what is the attitude of the department.


George Harris Hees: I should like to assure the hon. member that the government is not dictated to in these matters by the shipping federation or the dominion marine association or by the pilots group. We meet with them all. We listen to them all and we try to adopt the best policy we can. Nobody is telling us what to do in their own particular interest.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to read an extract which appeared at page 43 of the October 1, 1959 issue of Fairplay magazine:
In a recent article which appeared in an American magazine, Mr. Carl E. McDowell, executive vice president of the American institute of marine underwriters, referred to some of the problems which were confronting underwriters with regard to the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. He said that the records of the American institute of marine underwriters had reported 62 casualties or accidents to vessels in the St. Lawrence river, the seaway, and the lakes since the seaway opened (to June 19) compared with 39 in the same period in 1958. (This is exclusive of fishing vessels and barges, and ice damage.) Many of these accidents, however, were of a kind which marine underwriters have come to associate with this new approach which makes an "eighth sea" of the great lakes. Many of the vessels now entering the lakes have never done so before. Their masters and crews, no matter how able and experienced in ocean navigation have little or no experience with the especially difficult narrow and restricted passages which constitute much of the seaway. "Rules of the road" for navigation in the seaway and great lakes differ in many respects from those used on the high seas. Mr. McDowell said marine underwriters were hopeful that legislation would be passed by both Canada and the United States which would require experienced great lakes pilots to be aboard all vessels using the seaway and the lakes. They supported a bill sponsored by the United States coast guard which would have accomplished a good part of this aim. Unfortunately, however, this legislation was not passed during the last session of congress and is still pending.
The viewpoint expressed therein is that there has been an increasing number of accidents on the lakes as a result of foreign shipping coming in and that they stem from the unfamiliarity of the foreign masters with the rules of the road and all the difficulties of narrow and restricted passages. Would the
[Mr. Hees.l
minister inform us what the record indicates in the first year of the seaway operations and this year as far as the accident pattern is concerned and if there has been the marked shift that this article alleges has occurred?


George Harris Hees: I do not have that specific information available at the moment but I shall be glad to secure it for the hon. member and give it to him.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The minister will admit that this type of allegation lends some support to the stand of the admiral of the United States coastguard and of those people who argue that foreign shipping should have Canadian or United States pilots on board. I would appreciate the minister giving us a summary of the experience in this regard. Is there an increased danger of accidents as a result of foreign ships being within the great lakes waterways? If so, what is the incidence of accidents and what steps could be taken to solve the problem if it exists?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed to follow up what the hon. member for Port Arthur has said. I think there is no doubt but that because of the additional number of ships and particularly foreign vessels that have come into the waterway there has been an increased number of accidents but that was to be expected. I am sure that when you have mariners who are not familiar with the canals and who have never operated an ocean-going ship in inland waters, particularly having regard to the winds and other elements, on the canals and the great lakes, there would be an increased number of accidents. I feel sure, however, that with the experience of 1959 behind us there will be in 1960 fewer accidents than in the previous year because the masters and mates will be more familar with the route and also because of the precautions that I am sure will be taken by both entities, the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the St. Lawrence seaway development corporation.
I had the opportunity of speaking with one of the members of the St. Lawrence seaway corporation at Massena not long ago. He gave it as his opinion that while it was true there had been a number of accidents caused by inexperience and curiosity seekers from overseas on the great lakes he was sure that in 1960 these accidents would be substantially reduced.


George Harris Hees: I think the hon. member for Laurier has put the case very well. As I say, I shall be glad to get these figures for the hon. member for Port Arthur. I will certainly have them by the time the bill dealing with pilotage comes before us and perhaps even

before that. As soon as I have them I will let the hon. member for Port Arthur have them.


William Arnold Peters: What is the liability of foreign ships that use and damage the canal system without pilotage, particularly if damage is caused to property owned by the authority as a result of the inability of the ship's officers to understand the rules?


George Harris Hees: It depends on the nature of the accident. If it is a slight accident and one which it is considered has come about through no fault of the master there probably would be no recourse taken but if it is a serious accident of any kind with a considerable amount of damage these cases may all be taken up in the courts between the government and the shipping company concerned.


William Arnold Peters: Let me give an example. At Cornwall last year a boat took out one gate. I was there shortly afterwards and was told it happened regularly. The masters on the ships did not understand the signals used and were not used to judging distances in cramped quarters.


George Harris Hees: It would all depend on our assessment of the case as to whether or not we considered the master of the ship had been negligent. If we considered the accident had occurred through no fault of the master because of conditions beyond his control or some mistake on our part or on the part of the canal authority in not signalling him properly we would not proceed against the company. If we considered that the damage was caused by negligence on the part of the ship, however, then we would certainly prosecute.


William Arnold Peters: What would happen if one of our licensed pilots had been hired to pilot the ship? Where does the difference lie?


George Harris Hees: It would not make any difference at all, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: If one of our pilots was hired to bring the ship in and an accident occurred due to negligence would the company be prosecuted for the negligence of our pilot?


George Harris Hees: The master is always in charge of the ship. The pilot is only an adviser.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Hon. members will remember the Baffin incident and the crash at Black Rock when there was some question as to whether the master was in charge of the vessel.
Has the Canadian merchant seamen's service guild made protests to the department as a consequence of the aide memoire tabled in this house and appearing in Hansard of
Supply-Transport
February 23, 1960? I ask that question because I received a number of letters from members of the guild advising me that they were taking up this matter with the government very strongly. Their argument is that the Canadian government should not issue pilot licenses class B to masters and officers of foreign ships giving them the right to pilot their own ships through the great lakes open waters with certain conditions of examination. This is one of the pressure groups the minister referred to and I want to know the scope of the pressure and what reply was sent.


George Harris Hees: I have not that information. I will certainly look it up and see if we did, and if we did I will advise the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have a few more questions. I should like the minister to explain what is the future of the pilotage situation at Kingston? At the present time there are four employees at Kingston, and they are employed as dispatchers under the Civil Service Act. I want to know whether this is going to continue and whether they are still going to have pilots dispatched out of Kingston, or is the whole service there likely to die as the port of Kingston does less and less business?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman. We provide dispatchers who are civil servants in all the pilotage districts and there is nothing peculiar about Kingston; it is no different from any other district. We do not have any plans to make any change.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I know from discussions that there are people in Kingston who are worried about the future of Kingston as a port and whether there will be any pilotage offered there in the future because of the nature of the traffic which is by-passing Kingston. I wanted some kind of assurance that this service was going to be kept on.


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The service will continue to be available at Kingston.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to get more of an explanation from the minister than the one he gave in answer to some questions on the order paper. Part 5 of question 72 was as follows:
What fees did the government collect from its pilotage service in the great lakes?
This was in 1959: and the answer was:
$348,428, plus an indeterminable amount for travelling expenses of headquarters officers and administration costs absorbed in the headquarters vote.
Part 6 of the question was:
What was the difference between the income and expense of this service?

Supp ly-Transport
The answer was:

In other words, ostensibly we have a profit of about $120,000 on the arrangement, but we have this indeterminable amount. Can the minister give us some kind of an estimate of this indeterminable amount? I know the minister is not sympathetic to extension of government service-heaven forbid. That is against his line but here he has extended the government service. I know he would want to make absolutely sure that the government is not going into the hole if it can redeem its charges for the service and show a profit. I should like to have a clearer picture of this indeterminable amount. I should like to be absolutely sure that the department plans to continue to make a profit in this particular service.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that it will be very difficult to segregate that particular item. The profit would be considerably greater than the administration expenses, but I am afraid I cannot break it down exactly.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Does the minister think there is still a substantial margin of profit?


George Harris Hees: Yes, there is still a substantial profit but it has been partly taken up by salary increases for the pilots.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the next question I wanted to ask. I have received complaints from several of the pilots that they were not fully paid last year on their contracts. Their contracts died when they got their new schedule. I wanted to know what substance there was in that, that they were hired for a certain period and were not paid for the full period last year?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that all of the pilots were fully paid from the day they came on but not necessarily from the beginning of the pilotage season; but they were all fully paid from the time they came on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
409. Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $6,500,000.
Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, I should like to call the minister's attention to the need for faster and improved service on the C.N.R. line between St. John's and Argentia. Argen-tia is the western terminal for the C.N.R. coastal boats which run from that port to Port aux Basques. The distance is only 80 miles but the trip takes about six or seven hours. There are no eating facilities on the train; there are no means of getting a meal along the route, and when one gets to Argentia around two or three or four in the afternoon there are no facilities at Argentia except

on board the boat. This situation could be improved first by putting on a rail liner for passengers only because the present passenger car is hitched on to a freight train. If this is not feasible, then I think it would be better if the C.N.R. were asked to employ a bus for passengers on this service. I would be grateful if the minister would bring this to the attention of the C.N.R. authorities.


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


Douglas Mason Fisher: Can the minister indicate what the general position or policy is on the matter of allocating or letting contracts to the various shipyards in Canada? I know this will be a reiteration but I should like to have it on the record so that I can use it in my local situation.
There has been some rather sharp disappointment that no contracts have gone to our particular shipyards lately. I should like some indication as to why this has happened. I am sure there are reasons and I should like the minister's explanation.


George Harris Hees: We allocate only emergency repairs where we have no choice and have no time to call tenders. Regarding certain areas, if a ship is in a certain area and has to be repaired and there is time to call tenders, then we would call tenders within the particular area. All new ship construction is by tender, not allocation.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Did the minister see a complaint from the head, I believe the retiring president, of the shipbuilders association, about the parlous condition in which shipyards are at the present time? I know we can talk about this matter when we are dealing with the estimates of the Canadian maritime commission. I gather from the remarks of this gentleman, as quoted in the newspapers, that there is some discouragement over the fact that there has been such a marked decrease this year in the estimate compared with last year. I should like the minister to explain this more fully than he did in his introductory statement, as to why there was this very sharp cut. Is it a fact that the department is pretty well up to its maximum in the kind of equipment it wants? Does it need very little more equipment?


George Harris Hees: The reason there is a decrease is that we have passed the peak of our ship construction program at the present time. I am told that other departments are building more than in past years, but so far as our department is concerned we built a number of ships in the last two or three years and you cannot keep on building at a peak of that kind forever.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question in connection with the district of Montreal and Quebec. Is it the intention to add to the icebreaker fleet that is now in operation in Montreal? If I understand properly there are three icebreakers, the McLean, the Lapointe and I think the d'Iberville, which break the ice consistently from Three Rivers upriver to Montreal. Is it the intention to change the operation of those three ships?
The next question is, is it the intention to add to the icebreaker fleet in the district of Quebec so that there will be no doubt about winter navigation in so far as the port of Quebec is concerned?


George Harris Hees: First of all, we intend to maintain a fleet of three icebreakers in the district to which the hon. member has referred between Montreal and Quebec to do the icebreaking chore which has been done for many years.
With regard to his second question, I may say we have no new icebreakers in our program for this year.


Lionel Chevrier: Is it the intention of the department or of the government to encourage winter navigation up to the port of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: Perhaps this would answer the hon. member's question. The department has supported with icebreakers the important developments on the north shore of Quebec. This traffic, which has been in resources of the hinterland, would for the most part proceed directly overseas, and into the maritimes and benefit, and I believe has benefited substantially during the past winter the suppliers in this area. The department has also supported the coastal traffic from Quebec city to the same area and for the same reason. It is not the policy of the government to take action to assist one part of the country to the detriment of another. The policy of the department in this case avoids this, while at the same time supporting new developments on the north shore which are a straight addition to the strength of the economy.


Lionel Chevrier: I gather from this that it is the intention to support winter navigation to the north shore settlements, but a similar policy will not necessarily be followed in so far as the city of Quebec is concerned.


George Harris Hees: We believe that the requirements of the north shore are completely different from the requirements of the south shore. I have explained the particular situation on the north shore that requires winter navigation. It is the fact that there are no railways on the north shore to supply these particular ports such as Baie Comeau, Seven Islands and so on, during the winter. It is considered, therefore, most essential for the
Supply-Transport
development of that particular part of the country that navigation be kept open during the winter. The same situation does not obtain on the south shore.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister is making a distinction between the north and south shores. I am talking about Quebec which is on the north bank of the St. Lawrence river. I wonder if the policy which the minister has advocated for the north shore of the province of Quebec and along the gulf of St. Lawrence also applies to the north shore of the St. Lawrence river up to the city of Quebec?


George Harris Hees: I do not think I can make it any more clear than I have. I have outlined our policy in regard to keeping navigation open during the winter to serve the ports on the north shore to which there is no railway service. I think the hon. member will realize, if he looks at the figures, that the port of Quebec did very well this winter. It showed quite a marked increase in shipments into and out of that port during the wintertime. I feel that the policy which the government adopted during this past year in this regard worked out satisfactorily for all concerned.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that statement. I think the record will speak for itself. Can I pursue the matter upriver? Has the department been giving any consideration to a means, other than icebreaking equipment, to keep the channel open from Three Rivers to Montreal? At one time-I think I asked this question last year-some consideration was being given or at least some study was being given to the bubbler process. Have the departmental officials studied the bubbler process, and is it being given any consideration for the St. Lawrence river or any other part of Canada coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport?


George Harris Hees: The national research council has looked into this method and it has been found to be satisfactory for harbour use and wharf use, but not for channel use. It is impractical for channel use.


Mr. Small:: I should like to ask the minister a question. The chairman of the committee is not in a position to speak for himself, but I should like to know if the minister has a spare icebreaker he could send to the port of Toronto. They need an icebreaker up there along with the rest of the ports.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Simpson:: I should like to ask the minister if consideration is being given to providing the services of an icebreaker for the port of Churchill during the latter part of the shipping season this fall.


George Harris Hees: I am advised that during this past winter we operated an icebreaker in that area as long as there was any need for it, and we will do the same thing next year.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the minister's attention, in connection with the acquisition of engines for Department of Transport vessels, the fact that there are really no diesel manufacturers in Canada. There are two firms that manufacture under United States licence. They import a great number of parts. When the department is analysing bids it should be remembered that the main turboelectric drive includes electrical equipment which is made in Canada as well as the diesel engines. The component which is of imported manufacture is the main diesel engine, and although there is a preference given to Canadian suppliers, there is a limited amount of Canadian labour content in these engines and the auxiliaries as well.
We in the west are very conscious of the fact that we want to promote increased trade with the United Kingdom which happens to be the principal manufacturer in the world of diesel engines. There are European countries whose engines are offered for sale in this country. I want to bring to the minister's attention the fact that in those cases such bids should be looked at very carefully to ensure that there is a proper assessment of the real Canadian content in the equipment being offered, and not just a make-believe, fake amount of Canadian content, and that in making these decisions proper recognition should be given to the effect such decisions would have on our export trade.


Mr. Murphy:: I am in a bit of a dilemma, Mr. Chairman.


Lionel Chevrier: That is surprising.


Joseph Warner Murphy: It might surprise the hon. member but it would not surprise many others. As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am in a bit of a dilemma as to when I can raise this particular subject. It has to do with the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It arises because of the offshore drilling that has been going on in some of the great lakes. I was told that it was actually a matter for the Department of Public Works. The act is actually in three or four parts and the only part that affects public works is that dealing with the issue of these temporary permits or
[The Deputy Chairman.]
permanent permits to construct a platform upon which to erect a drilling rig. Everything else affects the Department of Transport. If I am out of order, Mr. Chairman, you will appreciate the fact that I will be brief but we will probably know where I can raise this matter.
My contention is that the minor part of the act is simply the permit to construct a platform upon which to erect a drilling rig. The reason I am raising this matter here on the estimates of the Department of Transport is this. As every hon. member knows, down in Michigan, which is not too far from where I happen to live, there was a gusher last fall. I referred to it a few weeks ago, but because of the seriousness of what might happen, I think it needs repetition.
In that particular case some 50,000 barrels of oil were spilled out and for some three or four days, according to our authority, it would have covered all of lake Huron, lake St. Clair and lake Erie. The point I am trying to make is this. I should like to have the minister and his departmental officials discuss the matter on a very high level because an ignited cigarette or a match thrown overboard could have meant terrific loss of life together with an enormous amount of damage. As everyone knows, as you look across from lake Huron on the bridge you can always see 20 ships, 30 ships or 40 ships. This is a serious matter. If I am out of order, that is all right but I am glad that I brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to say a few words on a related type of matter. The minister will recall that last year I raised the question of the tragedy in which four people were killed when one of these drilling rigs collapsed. I just wondered whether, as a result of that tragedy, the minister's department or officials were keeping any closer check upon radio licensing. The whole situation comes under a host of different authorities. I think the Ontario fuel board has something to do with it. I think the Department of Transport has something to do with it. I should like to know whether any steps are taken to tighten up the checks on these drilling rigs in order to make sure that those that are some distance off shore have adequate radio facilities. As I understand the situation, this particular tragedy would probably not have happened if there had been adequate radio communication or radio communication that was up to date. I should like to have a report on that particular matter.


George Harris Hees: We do not have the authority to require a drilling rig to use a radio. However, if they use one, we inspect it, license it and make sure that it meets specifications.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to ask something in connection with the construction of icebreakers. Any of us who looked at the recent report on ice conditions in the gulf of St. Lawrence that recently became available to us I think will have come to some conclusions. I realize that this is just the beginning of a pattern of study but we have had previous studies in connection with the water route into the Churchill area. All of these indicate that with modern technology, especially in terms of the size of icebreakers- and we can take all kinds of lessons from Russia here-we can extend our shipping season in a number of places in this country to a remarkable degree. The minister has made a statement that apparently satisfied the hon. member for Laurier with regard to the position of this government vis-a-vis more winter shipping up to Quebec and up to Montreal.
I cannot be quite that satisfied and I am not speaking from a political point of view. I should like to know what is in the minister's mind when he says that this government is not going to encourage the development of services in one part of this country to the detriment of another. I think this matter has been well expressed by the Toronto Globe and Mail. I cannot give the minister the reference to this particular paper but I recall that they took up this issue. Their argument was that if it was cheaper, despite the expenditures on icebreakers, to bring ocean shipping up to Quebec and even to Montreal for a full 12-month season rather than bringing it from Halifax and Saint John, this should be gone ahead with. I am not subscribing to the Globe and Mail point of view but I think it raises the issue of the minister providing us with more than just a statement that he is not going to do something here to the detriment of something else.
There may be such great advantages to Montreal and Quebec having winter shipping that we should seriously consider it. When we get a situation such as the one the minister mentioned yesterday at Sioux Lookout, the people in Sioux Lookout are told when their railway facilities are mdved out and their employees are moved: you have just caught up with automation; you cannot stand in the way of the railway providing cheaper and more efficient service. I am not suggesting that we have reached that stage at Halifax and Saint John. However, I should like to know whether the minister is examining the situation from an economic point of view. What lies behind his statement that he is not going to encourage the development of a service that is going to be a detriment to another part of the country? What I should like to know is this. Can he guarantee us that it will be cheaper in the long run for
Supply-Transport
shippers to continue to have their winter supplies come through Halifax and Saint John than to have them come up to Quebec and Montreal?


George Harris Hees: As I said on an earlier occasion, one of the principles on which this government was elected and one of the principles that we follow is that we were elected to serve all ten provinces or the people in all ten provinces, not one or two or three or any other number. We also feel that the people in all those ten provinces have a right to a livelihood, the right to work, the right to earn a living, the right to bring up their families. It is a well-known fact that the two ports of Saint John and Halifax rely to a large extent on the shipping which goes into those ports during the five winter months when shipping on the St. Lawrence does not operate. If we do what the hon. member has urged us to do-that is if all shipping came up the St. Lawrence, if it would be cheaper to do so and all shipping went to St. Lawrence ports-then the shipping that would normally go into Halifax and Saint John simply would not go there and the people who relied on working in the harbour-the stevedores, port employees and so on-simply would be out of a job. The hon. member and his party have always appeared to be sympathetic to those who are put out of work and it surprises me when the suggestion is made that in order to provide cheaper shipping to the rest of Canada we should simply close down the ports of Halifax and Saint John and do all our shipping up through the St. Lawrence river.
I am afraid I cannot agree with that point of view. I have a great respect and liking for the people of the maritimes, the people of Halifax and Saint John. They are fine people and have a right to live and a right to a job. I do not intend to be part of spending federal funds to deprive those people of the right to work. I hope I have made myself clear to the hon. member.


Douglas Mason Fisher: That is the very point I wanted the minister to come to. I was not advocating one thing or the other, but we have the argument that the minister represents the party who was going to bring business-like efficiency into government. I was going to suggest to him, as our party has in the past, that there are other standards than dollars and cents. But what is the difference, except in scale and political power, between what is happening in a small railway community and what is potentially the situation-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the Chair has been very lenient on this matter but I do not think under this item we should be discussing the economic status of one port

Supply-Transport
compared with another. I suggest the hon. member comes back to the item.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree the Chair has been lenient.
Coming back to the construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, perhaps the minister can be sharply definitive. He is not going to provide any further extensions of service in terms of icebreakers for the St. Lawrence river up to the port of Montreal other than exist at the present time? Is that correct?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have told the committee my general philosophy on this subject which is the philosophy of this government. I do not think I can make it any clearer.


Douglas Mason Fisher: One last question on this item concerning the construction and acquisition of vessels and equipment. We have all been taken with the magnificent accomplishment of the Russians in producing an atomic powered icebreaker. I gather it has been the decision of this government not to go into that particular field. As a result of the operating experience which the Russians have had, which I understand has been most favourable, I wonder whether any reconsideration is being given to this matter? Whatever the case I would like to know what is the cost factor so far as an atomic powered icebreaker is concerned.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we are very much interested in the possibilities of atomic icebreakers. We are carrying on a very intensive study of this whole matter in a British shipyard at the present time where such matters are being studied very thoroughly.
At the present time, to build an atomic icebreaker the same size and power as, for instance, our biggest icebreaker would cost twice as much and three times as much to operate. We just feel that the economics do not justify our going into the atomic icebreaker field at the present time. However, this matter is being very thoroughly examined all the time and we are keeping abreast of the situation. I am advised that the particular research product in which we are sharing will be completed by next spring and that we will have a report on it at that time.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Has the minister or his officials any indication how well the Russian icebreaker is working out? I have seen phenomenal stories about what it can do and despite the cost differential, if it can do what the Russians claim for it it promises to be a sensational vessel for our Arctic region.
[The Deputy Chairman.]


George Harris Hees: Our information is that the Russian atomic icebreaker is working very well but an atomic icebreaker does not work any better than a conventional icebreaker, such as the ones we use. The advantage of an atomic icebreaker is that it can stay away from its home base much longer than a conventional type of icebreaker. This is of course more important to the Russians because the particular type of job they do requires ships which can stay away a long period of time. We are not faced with the same problem as they to anywhere near the same extent. It is largely a matter of balancing economics against what an icebreaker is required to do.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, while the minister is in this mood of magnanimity which he has just expressed toward the people of the maritimes I wonder if he could tell the committee what the government is doing or would be prepared to do with regard to the establishment of a transshipment port at Mortier bay?


George Harris Hees: We certainly do not have any plans for such a port at the present time. It is an interesting idea and this government, being progressive, is always interested in interesting ideas.


Chesley William Carter: Is there anything concrete the minister can report to the house at the moment?


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, could the minister tell the committee whether any negotiations have taken place with the government of Newfoundland with a view to having St. John's declared a national harbour? I understand provision was made in the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada to provide the province with one national harbour.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I do not see anything to do with harbours under item 409. Perhaps there is another item later on.


James Aloysius McGrath: The general topic seemed to be harbours so I asked the question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, we in Ontario have been much excited by the promises of Premier Frost to make Moosonee an ocean port. It seems to me that if he goes ahead with his plan in conjunction with the-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I am coming to it.


Charles Edward Rea: I thought the hon. member for Port Arthur was leading to something else.


Douglas Mason Fisher: My point is that Moosonee is in an area where, as we all know, there is a great deal of ice. I am wondering what provisions are being taken to provide an icebreaking service there in the future. I know that the kind of icebreaker which will be required will be a large one and will take some time to construct; but if these grandiose plans go ahead, I would not like to see Premier Frost wind up with this great new harbour and no icebreaker to look after it. I wonder what consideration the government is giving to that?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that that area does not require ice breaking because by the time you get a ship in to break the ice the ice has melted. It seems to be a nice solution to the problem.


Chesley William Carter: Just one short question. Can the minister tell the house what is happening with respect to this bubbler system of preventing freeze-ups?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I answered that a little while ago. The national research council has examined that method of icebreaking and have reported it satisfactory for harbours and wharves but not satisfactory for channels because of the current.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
410. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $6,015,938.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to take the minister for a relaxing cruise for two or three minutes around some of the Kootenay lakes and rivers. I want to say, first of all, that the people of my district appreciate very much the improvements which have been made in recent years-I am going back now some five or six years- to the aids to navigation on the lakes and rivers in the district.
Prior to that time, in many cases the aids to navigation were somewhat limited. In some cases you just had a five gallon oil can tacked on to a stump and the pilot would steer for that, and then a little further up the river he would steer for somebody's outdoor convenience, and that sort of thing. However, there has been a big improvement. There have been a number of rocks and bars marked which have been hazards to navigation throughout the years.
However, I rise to draw the attention of the minister to the rapid increase in the amount of water traffic on the Columbia river, the Arrow lakes and the Kootenay lakes for two reasons in particular. The
Supply-Transport
first is the very rapid expansion in the lumber industry which has caused the use of a much larger number of tugs which draw more water, generally speaking, than the stern-wheelers did and which are liable to run aground on some of the sand bars which the sternwheelers slid over. Then there has been a greater use of barges handling materials, etc., used in connection with lumber camps, and in addition the growing use of booms of a new type. We are changing from the bag boom as I have known it since I was a boy to some other sort of boom that draws six or eight feet of water. They are tied with steel bands. On account of this change in the type of boats using the lakes and rivers, additional marking is required.
Furthermore, there is an urgent need for additional markings because of the great increase which has taken place in the number of pleasure craft. One of the hazards connected with these craft is the speed at which they travel. A boat moving at nine or ten knots could go aground on a bar without too much damage being caused, but when you are travelling at 30 or 40 miles an hour it does not take much of a bar to throw you into the lake. There has been a tremendous increase in the number of pleasure craft being used locally, and there has also been a surprising increase in the number which come from the United States, either by way of the Columbia river or through the Kootenay river into the Kootenay lakes. In many cases their owners spend a few days on the Kootenay lakes, then go over to the Columbia river or the Arrow lakes, or vice versa. This traffic now comes from as far south as Portland. My own son-in-law counted 22 such craft during the last Labour day week end which had come from Portland, Oregon. They now have low-boys so that they can get these craft up past the dams so as to proceed up the river. I have heard officers of yacht clubs south of the boundary say that our Kootenay lakes and river system offered such delightful conditions for holidays that these people are coming in ever increasing numbers. So we need to do more marking on the river.
I suggest that the minister should give consideration to marking the river between Arrowhead and Revelstoke. Five cruisers which came up the river on Labour day week end last year broke their propellers against obstacles in this section of the channel. Then there is the necessity for marking some bars which have so far remained unmarked in the Arrow lakes. Local residents know where these hazards are. They are only two or three feet below the surface of the water at low water. The old-time tugboat captains knew where they were, but now you have these

Supply-Transport
pleasure craft coming up from the States and there is a great risk of serious accident. I would ask the minister to check for the need for more markers in the Arrow lakes a mile or two south of Arrowhead. One of the sand bars which is unmarked is less than two feet below the surface at extremely low water, and there is another rock hazard at about the same depth.
In addition, I suggest there should be careful supervision over the buoys in the narrows between the upper and lower Arrow lakes. These buoys are anchored to their sites, but some of them get torn away at high water. In some cases they have not been replaced. Unless something is done about it a number of these pleasure craft will probably run ashore on sand bars. I suggest that this section of the river be checked very closely and also the aids to navigation between Castlegar and the international boundary. There is some very swift water there and I suggest consideration be given to placing some prominent sign this side of the international boundary south of Fort Shepphard-or Waneta-which would indicate that craft must go to the easterly side of the water to get away from some dangerous rapids. What has been done is excellent, and is quite sufficient for those persons from local boat clubs, and even some of those from Spokane who have travelled the river a number of times, but I notice that increasingly people coming into the Arrow lakes do so without any prior knowledge of the river or the narrows, and I marvel that there are not more accidents. I bring these few matters to the attention of the minister, and suggest he should ask his officials to check them very carefully because there is going to be a tremendous increase in water traffic.
There is one other matter I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. I understand, of course, that the preparation of charts comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, but I repeatedly get requests for a chart of this river from the international boundary onward. I understand that consideration was given to preparation of one last year by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, but they were loaded with work and unable to complete it. I suggest that a chart is very necessary. Its publication should not involve any public expenditure. It could be sold readily at a dollar at the international boundary, or at Trail, and should be available to local people who are interested in navigation on these waters. Thus its cost to the treasury could readily be recovered.
That is all I have to say at the present time.


George Harris Hees: We are very glad to have reports at any time telling us if any buoys or markings are missing. We would like to have that information as soon as we can. We welcome these reports, and if the hon. member or the people in his area would tell us the location of any of these obstacles which were mentioned this afternoon we should be glad to take on the task of seeing that they are properly marked.


Mr. Baldwin:: May I say while we are on this subject that I should like to compliment the department in connection with the navigational aids I saw last year on a trip to the northern waters of the Athabasca. I had occasion to travel on that route to the north, and I was impressed by the efficiency of the system.
I have travelled northern waters for years and spent many a night on a gravel bar. I think the navigational aids which have been provided by the department has made traffic much easier and I suggest the minister give consideration to supplying similar aids on the Peace river. There is not the commercial traffic on the river that there was many years ago, but there is an increasing number of pleasure boats and I think it would be of great assistance to people using the river in this way. It is so easy now to navigate that I think any hon. member would be able to keep off the shoals and gravel bars.
I have one further comment to make but before doing so I should like to ask the minister if he can assure the committee that it is the intention of his department to keep up this work, to supply navigational aids, and to keep navigation open even from the farthest south port of Fort McMurray to the north, and to continue this service?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am glad to assure the hon. member that we not only intend to keep up this service but to improve it where we can.


Gerald William Baldwin: I am glad to hear that, Mr. Chairman, because last year when I appeared before the Manning commission I heard statements made by the railway companies and other parties who advocated the eastern route for a railway north to Slave lake. These were predicated on the belief that navigation services from Fort McMurray to Uranium City were going to be closed out thus leaving the traffic free for the railway companies. They would then be in a position to proceed without any competition.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour recently returned from a visit to Uranium City and knows the difficulties confronting those people. They have relied upon the use of the Athabaska river system from

Fort McMurray into lake Athabaska to provide a safe, effective and reasonably cheap service to carry their in-bound traffic. The figures quoted by the railway companies indicated that a sum in the neighbourhood of $500,000 would be added to the charges on freight going into the Uranium City area, if the railway were built on the east route. As long as it appears that the lower reaches of the Athabaska river will be kept open, the people in that sorely pressed area will look forward to receiving their freight at a reasonable charge.


Mr. Stefanson:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question at this time. Are some improvements to be made to aids to navigation at lake Winnipeg this season? Also what steps have been taken to re-establish the Selkirk subagency?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, the answer to
the first part of the hon. member's question is yes. The whole question of subagencies is now under discussion.


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, the minister and his officials will have received representations from fishermen about my question. Many west coast fishermen have purchased equipment for use with the Loran system of navigation, the short form for the long range navigation system. I believe there were two Loran stations on the west coast and it was hoped additional ones would be established in order that the fishermen with the sets could use them. I understand that another system called the Decca system was developed in England. It operates substantially the same way. I believe experiments with it were conducted on the west coast a few months ago. I should like to know how it is working out and what is the intention of the department with reference to establishing additional long range navigation stations on the west coast for use by fishermen.
There are splendid aids to navigation off the southern part of the coast of British Columbia north of the strait of Georgia, up through Johnstone strait and the inlets below cape Caution, and between Vancouver island and the mainland. There are insufficient aids to navigation including spar buoys, bell buoys, lights, etc. off the upper or northern coast of the province. Perhaps the larger volume of traffic operating off the coast of the southern mainland explains the situation. The department has been extremely kind in the past in meeting requests for additional aids to navigation and I would request that consideration be given to the provision of additional aids off the coast of the northern mainland.
Supply-Transport
With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to a problem that falls under the divided jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works. 1 have engaged in extensive correspondence with the hydrographic branch and with the Department of Public Works with reference to the dredging of the Metlakatla bar off the coast of Prince Rupert and I disagree, as do many Prince Rupert fishermen, with the decision of the government not to proceed with the dredging of this bar. This project plus additional aids to navigation would be of great assistance to fishermen in that area. They can cross the bar from half flood through to half ebb tide but when it is below ebb tide the bar is too high and there is not sufficient water to allow passage. Boats either have to wait or travel some distance to the south and take another entrance to the harbour of Prince Rupert.
Will the minister indicate to me and to the committee the working conditions, or the conditions of employment, of lighthouse keepers and tenders and people who work at lighthouses; their hours of work, their time off, and so forth; how much time they are required to spend as a lighthouse tender before they get to be a keeper, and so forth?
I notice on page 519 of the details something which seems rather odd. Perhaps the minister can give an explanation of this also. About the eighth or tenth item from the bottom there is a classification of moulder helper and patternmaker. I assume from the reference here that this classification is the type of work involved in making castings of different metals for different purposes. I do not know whether that is so or not, but I am sure that would be the designation that a patternmaker would have in making patterns for castings. I would assume the moulder helper would work in that capacity also. I wonder why there is no moulder involved? What are the functions and duties of those two particular classes?


George Harris Hees: Regarding the placing of navigational aids, every year representatives of my department meet with various marine organizations in the areas and discuss with them what is needed. Then to the very best of our ability we try to carry out the wishes expressed.
With regard to what we are doing in the area represented by the hon. member, the Prince Rupert agency has specific items and I shall be glad to show them to the hon. member if he wishes to see all the details. We have an expenditure during this year of about $100,000.
Regarding the salaries and working conditions of lighthouse keepers, while I was

Supply-Transport
visiting Prince Rupert three years ago, a visit to which the hon. member kindly referred a while ago, I went out on the Alexander Mackenzie to visit various lighthouses and lighthouse keepers. I think that lighthouse keepers are about the happiest group of people that you will find anywhere. Ours appear to be very happy in their jobs. I should like to assure him that their salaries and conditions of work are under constant review. I believe he will find on talking to them that they are pleased and satisfied with their jobs at the present time.
Regarding the employees to whom the hon. member referred, the moulder helper and the patternmaker, at our marine agencies we have a carpenter shop and a blacksmith shop, and naturally it might look strange if there is a moulder helper when there is no moulder. I am advised that is the strange way the civil service commission writes up these particular positions. I agree with him that these particular classifications are puzzling at times I assure him the employees of these marine agencies on these jobs are able to do the work that is asked of them.


Frank Howard: I appreciate the minister's feeling and attitude toward lighthouse keepers. Sometimes you cannot get all the comments. The microphone is very sensitive. I heard some reference to the fact that the lighthouse keepers' salaries are under constant review; that they are happy, contented and so on. That is not the question I asked. I asked what are the working conditions; how much time do they spend in the lighthouse or at any particular lighthouse before relief for them is obtained, and things of that general nature? What specific conditions of employment apply to lighthouse keepers, and not whether they are contented and happy, was my question.
I had some difficulty in getting my hearing aid to function properly, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps the minister mentioned this; if so, I did not get it and I apologize, but I did make some query as to what is transpiring with respect to long range navigational systems. If the minister mentioned that I did not hear him and I apologize and I would appreciate it if he would reiterate it. If he did not mention it, perhaps he will tell me exactly what is happening in that regard.
Third, if under the present classification someone is classified as a helper but is not a helper, then certainly the civil service commission should change the classification. If he is performing the duties and functions and carrying out the responsibilities that a moulder, which is a craft and trade, has to carry out, then I am of the opinion that on

a salary of $2,870 a year he is grossly underpaid. Even as a helper he is grossly underpaid at that rate.


George Harris Hees: Regarding the working conditions, salaries, and so on, of lighthouse keepers, those are classified positions which come under the civil service commission and all those details are worked out by the commission. I will be very glad to get the details for the hon. member and let him have them as soon as I am able to obtain them.
Regarding the installation of additional Loran installations, these, as the hon. member knows, are very expensive indeed and the question of additional installations is now under very active study.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, there is some reference in this vote to membership fees in international organizations listed in the details on page 518. I am not able to find those international organizations. I doubt whether they are listed on page 518. Will the minister put the organizations on Hansard?


George Harris Hees: Yes, I have them right here. The international association of lighthouse authorities, $439; the permanent international association of navigational congresses, $200; these are the only two.


Robert Simpson: I should like to get some information from the minister with regard to some of the inland lakes in the northern part of our provinces, particularly in northern Manitoba, respecting aids to navigation. Each year we see an increasing number of pleasure craft on those lakes. I am wondering whether there is any obligation on the Department of Transport to provide reef marks on those large northern lakes, or whether there is any financial assistance available to various groups such as campers' associations, and so on, to mark those reefs so that they make the lakes safe for navigation?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman. We mark the reefs when charts have been made of the lakes, and charts are made by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys when there is demand for them.


Robert Simpson: Just one brief question on that explanation. For instance, in my opinion some of the lakes in that area should be classified as navigable waters. What is the explanation of the term "navigable waters", so far as the Department of Transport is concerned?


George Harris Hees: It is not a question of whether or not the waters are navigable, it is a question of whether any commercial use of any importance is made of the waters. If there is,

then there are charts made and the reefs are marked. If the hon. member could bring specific lakes, specific waters, to our attention we would certainly have a look into such cases.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted some information on the contract services for lake Superior. The details are on page 520 of the book of estimates. There was $75,000 last year, and nothing is to be spent this year. Does this mean that the amount last year was just for the icebreaker services?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this was the contract price for the icebreaker tug which we employed last year before we built our own icebreaker. There is no figure for this year because the icebreaking is being done by our own vessel.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wanted to bring up another matter in connection with the lake Superior services and this relates to the situation at Nipigon. There is every promise that Nipigon may develop into an ore shipping point, although this may be some time in the future. We have a most complicated transportation situation at Nipigon. We have the harbour, which is rather small, and which is dredged by the Department of Public Works; the Ontario department of highways has a bridge over the river very close to the harbour, and we have the Canadian National Railways bridge over the river which is also close to the harbour. We have the Nipigon river, which is a stream emptying into lake Superior and which carries a great deal of pulpwood. I believe there is more pulpwood carried on this river than any other river in Canada. The Department of Public Works has spent money in the past in building up the retaining walls along the river as it goes out into the harbour area.
The residents in the town have informed me that their worries in connection with this particular river and harbour came to a head last August when they had a flood there which led to the crumbling of some of the embankment. I have made requests of the Department of Public Works to examine the situation and make sure that every step has been taken to protect the embankment there. I wonder if the minister could explain to me what role his department plays in interrelating the development and the safety of a harbour such as Nipigon which is so complicated with all these other transportation authorities having an interest in having a good safe harbour, a good safe river, and no danger of any embankment sliding into the stream or into the harbour.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, we work out these various problems in close consultation with
Supply-Transport
the Department of Public Works. It is a joint operation and whenever a situation like this arises the two departments get together and do the best they can.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Could I make a request of the minister that he check with the Department of Public Works to see what they have done in this regard and make absolutely sure of the future safety of the community and the future safety of the harbour in terms of silting up or of any breakaways from the bank, and to see that the situation is examined by some kind of engineering team so that some kind of report can be made available both to the departments and to the people in the area?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the Department of Public Works will consult us if they feel navigation is involved. Any time we are asked to work with them on matters of this kind or are advised of a situation of this kind we will be glad to look at it in conjunction with the public works department.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: There has been mention by one or two members of overlapping between the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. This moves me to ask a question which I had forgotten to ask previously at the request of some of the people of my constituency, particularly those interested in using wharves, lumbering, and things of that sort. Apparently the Department of Transport is in the habit, in outlying places, of appointing permanent employees or officials of the Department of Public Works as their agents.
Now, the first question I want to ask is, are they agents of the Department of Transport at all times or only at such times as they are rendering services for which the Department of Transport is responsible? My second question is, does the Department of Transport accept full responsibility for the actions of agents appointed by them who are officials of the Department of Public Works?


George Harris Hees: If they are performing functions for us, then we are responsible for their activities and they are agents of ours.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: My other question was, are they agents of the Department of Transport at all times, as it were?


George Harris Hees: No, only when they are performing specific tasks for us.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then during this time the department accepts responsibility for their actions?

Private Bills-Divorce


George Harris Hees: It is a matter of function; it is not a matter of time. If they are doing a job for us as our agents we accept responsibility for what they do.


Frank Howard: I wanted to follow up this line of discussion I had with the minister a moment ago. I am sorry it got off on something else, but it had to do with the long range navigational aids. The minister indicated, and I think his words were, that this was under active study or active consideration and that plans were in the offing for establishing a system of that nature.


George Harris Hees: I should like to correct that. I did not say plans were in the offing. I said the matter was under study.


Frank Howard: I am perhaps adding words that the minister did not use, and I apologize for that. The question is under study. I know it has been under study for quite some time, and I know there is a conflict as between types or systems of aids to navigation, some developed in the United States and some developed in other countries.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; it being five o'clock, in order to allow the house to proceed to the consideration of private and public bills it is my duty, pursuant to section 3 of standing order 15, to rise, report certain resolutions, and request leave to sit again later this day or the next sitting of the house as the case may be.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-50, for the relief of Rose Vosko Ribkoff-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall we take the 45 divorce bills under one item?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Edward Rea: Then the committee will consider Bill No. SD-50.
On Clause 1-Marriage dissolved.


William Arnold Peters: The bill we have before us is report 59 of the Senate. This is probably what we, after our long experience in debating these bills, would call a very stereotyped divorce case in which it would appear from reading the evidence that it was a framed case, that the evidence we are discussing was not necessarily the evidence that was involved in this particular case but that it was a common television type of divorce case. Unfortunately or fortunately it 

affects some extremely young people. The clerk of the committee established the following information:
By the Clerk of the Committee:
Q. What is your name?
A. Rose Ribkoff.
Q. What is your age?
A. Twenty five.
Q. Where do you live?
A. Montreal.
Q. What is your occupation?
A. Bookkeeper.
Q. Are you married and if so to whom?
A. I am married to Irving Ribkoff.
Q. When were you married?
A. March 13, 1954.
Q. Where?
A. In. Plattsburg, New York.
Q. In Plattsburg or Glens Falls?
A. I was married in Plattsburg.


Mr. Jacobs:: Mr. Chairman, there is an error as to the year of the marriage. I would ask that paragraph one be amended to correspond to the marriage certificate, as being the 13th day of March, 1954 instead of 1953.
This may have been a Friday. If it was, it was probably not too good a day because it would appear, just from reading this evidence and from drawing an inference, that this young girl, at that time only 19 years of age, on Friday the 13th, went down to the United States and got married probably without her parents' consent. At any rate, the marriage took place as proved by a document that was presented, namely the marriage certificate which was filed and marked as exhibit No. 1. A photograph taken two and a half years ago is presented as exhibit No. 2. This is a likeness of the husband of the petitioner. Mr. Jacobs, an advocate from Montreal I believe, appeared as counsel for the petitioner and began his questioning as follows:
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Mrs. Ribkoff, where was your husband born?
A. In Montreal.
Q. Where has he resided during his life time?
A. In Montreal.
Q. During your marriage with him what city did you live in?
A. In Montreal.
But they did get married in the United States. The questioning continues:
Q. To your knowledge where is your husband living today?
A. In Montreal.
Q. Did you have any children with your husband?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. How many?
A. Two.
Q. What are their names and how old are they?
A. Arlene Adele is 5, born October 18, 1954; and Stephen Warren, 3, bom August 24, 1956.
It may be interesting, Mr. Chairman, to go back and check with the marriage certificate because there is some doubt whether they got married in 1953 or 1954. At any rate the questioning continues as follows:

Q. During your marriage with your husband could you tell us how you got along with him?
A. Not very well.
Q. What trouble did you have?
A. He beat me, he insulted me, he was abusive, spoke harshly, came home late.
Q. How late would he come home?
A. Three and four a.m.
Q. How often?
A. Almost every night.
Q. Did you speak to him about his conduct?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What was his reply?
A. He said that it was none of my business.
Q. As a result of the facts you have stated did anything happen to you in April 1957?
A. Yes, I became ill.
Q. What type of illness did you contract?
A. Tuberculosis.
Q. As a result of that illness did you spend any time in the sanitarium?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How long were you there?
A. Ten and a half months.
Q. During this period of time who looked after the children?
A. My mother did.
Q. Do you remember your husband coming to see you in the sanitarium in January 1958?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Did you have any discussion with him?
A. 1 did.
Q. What did he tell you at that time?
A. I told him I was to be discharged the following month and that we would require a home in Montreal, and he says as far as he is concerned it is my problem not his because he has no intention of setting up home for me like that.
Q. Were you discharged the following month?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. February 1958?
A. Yes.
Q. Where did you have to go?
A. To my mother's.
Q. Since that time has he ever set up a home for you?
A. No, he has not.
Q. Did you do your own part, did you make any attempt to try to bring the family together?
A. Yes, I did, because my mother's house was too small and I felt I wanted to take an apartment with my husband and try to make a go of our marriage.
Q. Did that ever work out?
A. No, he refused.
If we go back to the real reason, Mr. Chairman, why this marriage did not succeed or why the parties did not get along, what do we find? I have not been able to find out how old the husband is. She was 19 years old when she got married. I am not sure how old the husband was. I am not really sure why Mr. Jacobs changed the date on the marriage certificate. But if the new date was correct instead of the old one, the petitioner got off to a bad start in the first place because of the situation existing and probably there was a terrific amount of resentment involved in this marriage. What we are about to find out as to the grounds for the adultery charge in this case is not necessarily important to the case at all but it has incidentally arisen out of the fact that the husband resented the marriage in the first place and
Private Bills-Divorce
that the arrangements did not work out. The second child followed the first. The stay in the sanitarium did not help the situation at all so that by the time she was ready to leave the sanitarium the husband had decided that he had no intention and certainly no desire to set up a house for his wife. Senator Roebuck continues with the questioning and he is interested in ascertaining whether any arrangements had been made for financial support, particularly in view of the fact that the husband has already indicated that he has no intention of renting an apartment.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. Did he give you any money for the support of yourself and the children?
A. Yes.
Q. How much?
A. Not very much.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. How much weekly, actually?
A. $20 a week.
Q. As a matter of fact, by court order is he now contributing $25 a week for the support of you and the children?
A. Yes.
Q. And you have sufficiently regained your health and I understand you are engaged as a bookkeeper?
A. That is right.
Q. And the children live with you?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you have anyone looking after them while you work?
A. Yes, I have an efficient housekeeper.
By Senator Lambert:
Q. Do these payments come in regularly?
A. Yes.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Do you have any personal knowledge of your husband's alleged adultery on March 3, 1959 at the Croyden apartment hotel in Montreal?
A. I was informed by the detectives.
Q. But you were not present at the time?
A. No.
Q. Is there any collusion or arrangement between you and your husband to obtain this divorce?
A. No.
Q. Have you in any way connived with anyone to bring this petition before the committee today?
A. No.
Q. Has there been any condonement or forgiveness on your part?
A. No.
Q. Would you take him back today?
A. No.
Mr. Chairman, these questions must be asked but it would seem to me that we are only asking people to lie and to perjure themselves for no particular good reason. We are all aware, I am sure, on reading this evidence that the wife is not paying for this petition, that she has no money.


Mr. Nesbitt:: How do you know?


William Arnold Peters: I have read the bill. Have you? We have no indication whether the evidence proves that or not. If the hon. member wishes to make comments I would like to see him rise-

Private Bills-Divorce


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: It would appear to me that the wife is receiving for herself and her two children the princely sum of $25 a week under a court order. Out of this amount we are being asked to believe that she has been able to save enough money to obtain this divorce, a divorce which costs on the average around $2,500. It would seem to me that this woman has not enough money to live on as it is and would certainly not have much money to pay for a divorce.
If we come to that conclusion, then we must also come to the conclusion that she is going to a get a divorce because her husband is willing to pay for that divorce, and if he is willing to pay for the divorce 1 think we can draw the further conclusion that he has already arranged another alliance for himself and wishes the divorce in order to marry somebody else. This is the deduction which has been proved by a young lady who makes a living doing this kind of thing-


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


William Arnold Peters: I think we are safe in saying that in this particular case it is probably the husband who wants the divorce more than the wife. The amount of money indicated in the evidence which the woman has is not sufficient to allow her to get a divorce, pay for the lawyers and the other costs involved.
Senator Roebuck continues the questioning as follows:
Q. Did you ever discuss the question with your husband about his actions on March 3, 1959?
A. No.
Q. When did you have your last marital relations with your husband?
A. When the baby was conceived, when Stephen Warren was conceived.
Q. That would be some nine months prior to August 24. Well, at all events, since March 3, 1959 have you had any relations with your husband of that kind?
A. No.
Then Peter Rosen appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, and having been duly sworn testified as follows. We have heard of Mr. Rosen before. He lives in Montreal and classes himself as an investigator. He is questioned by Mr. Jacobs as follows:
Q. I am showing you a photograph which has been filed as exhibit 2, can you identify the man in the picture?
A. That is Mr. Israel Ribkoff.
Q. Did you have occasion to investigate the conduct of Mr. Israel Ribkoff or Irving Ribkoff?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. What did you ascertain?
A. I saw Mr. Ribkoff on several occasions at the time when he visited his wife's home on Ellendale, and learned he had a four door car, black, licence number 217178; and I also found he stayed at the Croyden apartment hotel on Cote des Neiges road; he was staying in room 720 at the time. On March 3, 1959 I followed him that

day and he arrived at the corner of Peel and Sherbrooke streets and he met this young lady and he picked her up, she was waiting for him at the corner, and they drove to a restaurant on Decarie boulevard circle, to the restaurant Ruby Foo's, and they were there about an hour and a half; they then came out and they drove back to Mr. Ribkoff's apartment, the Croyden apartments on Cote des Neiges road, and they both came out of the car.
Mr. Chairman, is this not exactly what we are told happened in this type of case not long ago in another connection? The young lady working in these cases does not come to the apartment. She wants to meet in a restaurant so that they can have a cup of coffee and talk the matter over so it is all on the up and up. This is what happened in this particular case. She is waiting on a street corner, not at her home. You will remember that many times on returning home they were left on a street corner so that the people on the street they live on do not know they are being driven home every night by a different man. In this case she is picked up on the street corner and driven to a restaurant, a fairly respectable restaurant I presume.
The evidence continues:
Mr. Ribkoff locked both doors of the car, and they both went into the building. I followed them in, and they went up to the apartment 720 and they both went inside and the door was shut. I waited around a few minutes, and I then went down to the lobby and I used a pay phone there to call my man. As a result of the call my man met me there shortly before 11.30 and together we went back up to the room 720. I rang the bell.
Mr. Chairman, I think all stationery stores should be really angry at the turn of events taking place in these divorce cases recently. Before we always had them putting adhesive tape or some other kind of tape on the door, but now they do not bother. From the number of cases we have read before it must have been a very profitable business for stationery stores and I think they should in all fairness spread the money around which they get out of this and that they should follow the previous practice. It was so phony it sounded plausible.
This is a very stereotyped sort of case and you can know almost what is in it without reading it; but there are small differences in the evidence and I should read it. The questioning is continued by the chairman of the other place, Senator Roebuck, as foRows:
Q. What time was this?
A. That was shortly after 11.30. We went up to the apartment and I rang the bell. It took a few minutes and a man came to the door, and as he opened the door we pushed our way into the room. The man started to yell at us and wanted to know what business we had coming in there.
Mr. Golden, my man, quietened him down-
It does not say so here but they probably twisted his arm or something.

-and I showed him this photograph I had, exhibit 2, and asked him if that was his picture and if he was Israel Ribkoff. He admitted that it was his picture, that he was Israel Ribkoff. He wanted to know what it was all about. I told him we were acting on behalf of his wife. We looked around, it is one large room, continental bed there, with two pillows on it, and the bed was disarranged, but we didn't see anybody else. So 1 asked him, "Where is the woman you came into the apartment with?" He said, "What do you need her for?" I said, "We want to speak to her." So we tried the door, which was a bathroom door, and it was locked, and she was in the bathroom.
They not only knocked on the bathroom but this is what they did:
So I knocked on the door, and she wouldn't come out, so I said, "You had better come out, lady, or we will break the door." So Mr. Ribkoff spoke to her through the door and she asked him to give her something. He handed her something, I think it was a slip through the bathroom door, and she opened up and came out a few minutes later dressed in a slip: and I asked her for her name and address, and she at first didn't want to but I told her I would check it and find out where she lived, she told me then that her name was Mliss Jean Hill and she lived at 5705 Westminster Avenue.
Here again is another of these cases where the people have no respect whatsoever for privacy of any description. They tell a young lady that if she does not come out of the bathroom they will break the door down and come in. I would be very surprised if these people could get away with this type of action and still have the licence or the privilege to call themselves investigators. They quietened the man in this case. I do not know how. They may have used force on him. Then they go on to force this young lady to come out of the bathroom by telling her that if she does not they will break the door down.
By Mr. Jacobs:
Q. Did you notice any clothing around the room?
A. Yes, women's clothing on the chair near the bed, and some man's underclothing and a shirt and tie on another chair in the room.
Q. There was no doubt in your mind the bed had been occupied by two people?
A. No, definitely it was pretty well mussed up, what we saw.
I draw your attention particularly, Mr. Chairman, to that last question and to the reply which was given. I suggest that that question could never be answered in the affirmative. The reply to that question would always be an expression of opinion. Unless two people were in the bed it could not definitely be said that two people had occupied that bed. Anything else would be an expression of opinion by the witness.
Next, Abe Golden appeared as a witness on behalf of the petitioner, gave his age as 52, his address as Montreal and stated he considers himself to be an investigator. Mr. Jacobs asked him questions, to which he gave answers as follows:
79951-0-285
Private Bills-Divorce
Q. I show you a photograph which has been filed as exhibit 2, can you identify the man in that picture?
A. Mr. Israel Ribkoff.
Q. Were you with Mr. Rosen on the evening of March 3, 1959?
A. Yes sir.
Q. When you saw Mr. Israel Ribkoff?
A. Yes sir.
Q. Tell us under what circumstances and where?
A. Room 720 at the Croyden hotel, on Cote des Neiges. We entered the room. Mr. Ribkoff was in the room number 720. All he had on was his trousers. There was just a continental bed which was used, and we saw no woman, and Mr. Rosen went over to the bathroom door and knocked on the door, and we tried to get the woman out, and she wouldn't come out; she hollered out of the bathroom, "Throw me something Iz." So he threw her slip in, and she comes out, this woman, wearing the slip. Mr. Rosen asked her her name, and she didn't want to give it at first, but then she said, "Jean Hill". Mr. Ribkoff asked us to leave the room, so we left-didn't want to argue with him.
Q. What was the condition of the bed in that room?
A. The bed was disturbed.
Q. How many beds?
A. One continental bed, double bed.
By the Chairman (Senator Roebuck):
Q. Did the bed show signs of two people having been in it?
A. Yes, gentlemen.
Q. It showed signs of having been slept in?
A. Yes, gentlemen.
By Senator Golding:
Q. Was that the only time you were on the case?
A. Yes, sir.
On application by Mr. Jacobs, the name "Irving Ribkoff" was amended to read "Israel (Irving) Ribkoff", wherever the said name appears on the petition. Amendment granted.
This is one of those cases that is as phoney as a three dollar bill. There is no doubt in my mind that this evidence could easily have been manufactured. There is no real evidence that intercourse had taken place at all, and if it had not taken place, then obviously there can be no support of a charge of adultery and until there is some proof or indication that intercourse did take place, then there is no adultery.
I suggest we cannot pass this bill on the ground in the petition which said definitely that adultery had taken place. It is not good enough to say adultery could have taken place, or that it is possible for it to take place. I am sure it is possible that adultery can take place at any time and in almost any place, but that does not necessarily mean to say it does and just because there is an opportunity is no reason in my opinion for any consideration to be given to this objection. This case in particular is based on very limited and stereotyped evidence. As a matter of fact there is not enough evidence here for a decent discussion of the problem. The bill itself reads as follows:
Whereas Rose Vosko Ribkoff, residing at the city of Montreal, in the province of Quebec, wife of Israel (Irving) Ribkoff, who is domiciled in

Private Bills-Divorce
Canada and residing at the city of Quebec, in the said province, has by her petition alleged that they were married on the thirteenth day of March, A.D. 1954, at the town of Plattsburg, in the state of New York, one of the United States of America, she then being Hose Vosko; and whereas by her petition she has prayed that, on the ground of adultery since then, their marriage be dissolved; and whereas the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence adduced and it is expedient that the prayer of her petition be granted: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
The said marriage is hereby dissolved, and shall be henceforth null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.
It says here: "the said marriage and adultery have been proved by evidence."
I suggest that the marriage has been proved, but I strongly maintain that the charge of adultery has not been proved, and this is the only type of evidence which can be accepted. If we want to say we will grant this divorce because we think the man has a new girl friend he wants to marry, or because we think the petitioner has a boy friend she wants to marry, very good. I think we should grant the divorce, and that these are sufficient grounds. But I maintain strongly that if we are going to say in the bill that adultery has been proved then that is not a fact. We are drawing an implication so broad that it becomes ridiculous. This is one of those stereotyped cases that the lawyers have developed of a kind which is meeting with considerable success in the other house and which should receive very close scrutiny by hon. members here. We should not ask people to come before us or the other house with evidence of this nature and ask for relief on this type of testimony.
Mr Howard: Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments to make-


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Blocking and more blocking.


Frank Howard: I beg your pardon? Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the hon. member was relieving himself of a political platitude or if he had some comment to make and that is why I begged his pardon.
I am disturbed about one aspect of this case which has cropped up time and time again in these cases, the means by which investigators obtain their evidence. People just do not allow complete strangers to walk into their homes at late hours and finding them in a state of partial or complete undress interrogate them about these personal matters.
Mr. Rosen, the first investigator to testify in this instance is probably more honest than his partner and many other investigators because he explains how he gained entry to

the room. Let me read his evidence at this point. At page 12 he is questioned by Senator Roebuck as follows:
Q. What time was this?
A. That was shortly after 11.30. We went up to the apartment and I rang the bell. It took a few minutes, and a man came to the door,-
This is the relevant part:
-and as he opened the door we pushed our way into the room.
This is how most investigators gain entry. They push their way into homes disregarding people's rights. They barge in trampling the rights of the individuals.
Someone snickers in an awkward, nasty way at my reference to people's rights indicating that they do not have any.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Indicating that you do not acknowledge them.


Frank Howard: That is the blatant answer we get indicating that I do not acknowledge their rights.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is correct.


Frank Howard: That is precisely the point I am getting at. I am acknowledging the rights of these individuals to their privacy. I suggest the manner in which the divorce laws are drawn-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I cannot allow the hon. member to discuss a matter of procedure and he will have to come back to the bill.


Frank Howard: In order to meet the test under the rules of the other place governing divorce the rights of individuals are trampled upon. This is what happens in complete disregard of the rights of those individuals to privacy. Mr. Rosen indicates that there was objection on the part of the respondent to the invasion of his apartment. I continue:
The man started to yell at us and wanted to know what business we had coming in there.
The man objected to the forced entry of these two strangers at this late hour and was justified in doing so because he did not know them and there was no conversation. They forced their way in thereby invading the rights of the individual to his privacy and contravening the Criminal Code with respect to trespass and possibly with respect to assault. This is the impression I am given by members of the bar who have much more knowledge of these matters than I have.
As though he were referring to Robinson Crusoe, Mr. Rosen goes on to state:
Mr. Golden, my man, quieted him down-
We do not know how this was accomplished, whether by persuasive talk or threats of physical violence. I contend that the

investigator used threats of additional trespass, assault and damage to property. About inquiring where the corespondent was, Mr. Rosen stated:
So I asked him, "Where is the woman you came into the apartment with?" He said, "What do you need her for?"
That may be classified as hearsay and not admissible, but in any event that is what he said. I continue:
I said, "We want to speak to her." So we tried the door, which was a bathroom door, and it was locked, and she was in the bathroom. So I knocked on the door, and she wouldn't come out, so I said, "You had better come out, lady, or we will break the door."
As in previous cases we have here the evidence of an investigator to the effect that he violated the privacy of an individual and contravened the provisions of the Criminal Code with respect to trespass and later on with respect to threats of property damage and further trespass and assault.
It is accepted certainly by us here as being the normal thing which occurs; it is accepted generally by society. I think it is accepted-I do not think it should be-because we probably all realize that in these circumstances this was the method that had to be used by the investigators to gain this particular evidence; otherwise, they might not have obtained it and we might not have the case before us. These people are employed as investigators to work on behalf of the petitioner. They knew from their past experience that they had to discover certain things in order to appear before parliament and give evidence with respect to those things.
They go on to talk about the state of the clothing and the state of the bed, whether it was a single or a double bed, and so on. But we have come to accept here-I think unfortunately-the fact that in some instances the rights of people have to be violated; that the Criminal Code has to be violated; that trespass has to be indulged in; that sometimes physical violence has to be indulged in and, as indicated in other cases, sometimes threats have to be made, assault has to be carried out in order to obtain this sort of evidence. Yet we all know, Mr. Chairman, that under other circumstances if this were to occur and it did not occur in conjunction with a court case, or it was done by someone who did not have a search warrant, immediately there would be charges laid against the individuals involved in trespass, assault, theft or whatever else arose out of the activities of the individuals in the case.
It is regrettable that we have come to forget that those rights do exist in society, at least we have forgotten them in so far as
79951-0-285J
Private Bills-Divorce
divorce cases are concerned. We wink our eyes at them or say to ourselves: Because the law insists that manufactured evidence be developed, insists that hyprocrisy be the rule of the day, we also shut our eyes to other violations of such rights and practices. In this case there was the pushing of their way into the room and threats to knock down the door if a certain thing were not agreed to. We say, "Well, this is all right and we will content ourselves to let it pass." Let us forget it and not look at the fact that there was an invasion of privacy and there were violations of the Criminal Code to obtain the evidence, because we know that the law itself relating to adultery is crazy in the first place and insists upon this sort of activity to provide the grounds for divorce.
I should refer to the circumstances in order to give the entire picture. Evidence was given by Mr. Golden, another investigator. He also relates his activities, starting at page 13, from which I am reading now. He was questioned by Mr. Jacobs as follows:
Q. Tell us under what circumstances and where?
This was in relation to when he saw the defendant. I continue:
A. Room No.-at the-on Cote des Neiges.
All that he says, Mr. Chairman, is that they entered the room. We recall this, Mr. Chairman, the door was open, as a matter of fact, and they entered. He makes no reference to the pushing of their way into the room, no reference to the man starting to yell at them, no reference to his own participation, as given by Mr. Rosen. Perhaps I should clear this up. Mr. Rosen said that the respondent started to yell at them, wanted to know what business they had and Mr. Golden-that is the other investigator- quietened him down. When Mr. Golden comes in to give his account of what occurred, the circumstances, and where this occurred, he makes no reference to his quietening anybody down or if he did how he did it; no reference to their manner of entry into the apartment, no reference to what the respondent said at that stage of entering the door, only the words "we entered the room". That was all.
Then he gives an account of what the respondent was wearing, the bed that was there, the condition it was in, and so on. Yet he does not incriminate his own partner with respect to what Mr. Rosen said. He said to the lady in the bathroom-and you will recall, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Rosen said, "You had better come out, lady, or we will break the door". His partner says that Mr. Rosen went over to the bathroom door and knocked on the door. He said, "We tried to get the woman out and she would not come out". She hollered out of the bathroom "Throw me'

Private Bills-Divorce
something". He was referring to the respondent, and then he indicates that he threw her slip in and she came out wearing her slip.
If in the first instance I over-emphasized this question of invasion of rights of the citizen, I should say this. I gave half the evidence. The other half of the evidence was silent on this question. Mr. Rosen makes no reference to the activities of breaking and entering or pushing their way in; no reference to quietening anybody down; no reference to threatening to break down the door if the lady would not come out of the bathroom; no reference to the individual starting to yell at him. I think it should have been ascertained why there is this conflict in evidence unless we are to assume that perhaps the feeling in the other place-


Mr. McPhillips:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, it is quite true, as the hon. member says, this witness did not say anything about forcing his way into the room, but neither did he say whether he had a hair cut, a shave or had on a clean shirt. This has nothing to do with the evidence, Mr. Chairman. My submission is that this sort of discussion could go on ad infinitum. It adds nothing to the case. We must deal with the evidence as it appears in the record.


Mr. Drysdale:: Very sound.


Charles Edward Rea: There is one point that perhaps should be brought out. The hon. member has been discussing at some length the question of forcing entrance, and that sort of thing. It is quite true that he can refer to how they got in there but the method by which they got in has nothing to do with this committee. I think this is under the jurisdiction of other departments of the municipal government. It is quite true the hon. member can refer to how they go in there but to go farther than that has no bearing on this bill.


Frank Howard: I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that their method of entry has nothing to do with whether adultery took place or not. This is the key point in the bill.
I would submit what they discovered once they made entry had nothing to do with whether or not adultery had been committed. This was another factor which the hon. member for Timiskaming developed in connection with this bill, and which I think requires a bit of additional discussion.
Perhaps I should say, as a sort of tardy defence, Mr. Chairman, that I only made reference to this question of forcible entry as it may relate to the rights of individual

citizens under the Criminal Code, and that we should not countenance this sort of thing to the slightest degree.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the Chair suggested to the hon. member that he had gone into this question in greater detail than was necessary. I do not see that there is any reason now to repeat it.


Frank Howard: Yes, Mr. Chairman, but as I said, this is only in tardy defence of my action and I had just reached the end of that reference, in any event. I was going to get to the question of adultery. At one time I thought I understood the meaning of adultery. I had read about it and seen references to it in the newspapers and things of that nature. I had had discussions with other people, as one does from time to time, about this sort of thing. I thought I understood just what it did mean. However, in participating in these debates, and after listening to some conversations here, quite frankly I have come to the conclusion I do not know what it is. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, some guidance is needed from you, and I am sure you will not hesitate to provide it, if I am off the track a bit. Perhaps some guidance is needed as to what the rules are in this committee, in connection with the passage of this particular bill, in relation to what adultery means. What do we take it to mean?


Charles Edward Rea: Order; this question was discussed, I believe last Tuesday, and the Chair ruled that a definition of adultery had nothing to do with this bill. The committee of the other place apparently has decided that adultery has been committed. Hon. members of the committee can suggest that they believe it has or that it has not, and vote one way or the other. This is their privilege. They do not have to agree with the committee of the other place, but the Chair will not allow the discussion of a definition of adultery at this time.


Frank Howard: Then may I say, from the outset, that I disagree with the other place entirely in the conclusion to which the other place has come. I say that, not in criticism of the other place in any way but only to indicate that I disagree with the committee of the other place on this point. If I cannot engage in a discussion of my thoughts as to what adultery does mean, perhaps I might be permitted to make reference to the evidence in this regard which seeks to establish this particular point, and thus point out why I disagree with the conclusion of the committee of the other place as to what the evidence shows. Perhaps in this way I can get my thoughts over to the committee.

Alter this Mr. Rosen had gained entry to the room, after he had knocked upon the door-


Mr. Brunsden:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is it permissible for an hon. member to read in this house the proceedings in the Senate with respect to this case?


Charles Edward Rea: It has been ruled that it is permitted to refer in this committee to the evidence given on a bill before the committee of the other place.


Frank Howard: The evidence produced in support of adultery is given first by Mr. Rosen. I assume that we cannot get to the point of determining whether or not adultery is proved until he actually gets into the premises. There is some doubt about that in some cases. In any event, he says this:
He admitted that it was his picture, that he was-
Then he gives the name of the respondent. I do not believe that is an admission of adultery, an admission that is a picture of yourself and that you are a certain person.
He wanted to know what it was all about.
I do not take that as an admission of adultery.
I told him we were acting on behalf of his wife.
In my opinion, this is not proof of or an admission of adultery.
We looked around, it is one large room, a continental bed there, with two pillows on it, and the bed was disarranged, but we did not see anybody else.
This is not proof of adultery but is only proof of the fact that they saw one person in the apartment, that there was a continental bed with two pillows on it and the bed was disarranged.
So I asked him, "where is the woman you came into the apartment with?"
We might be getting close now in the matter of proof of adultery, but still that question itself does not prove it.
He said, "what do you need her for?" I said, "we want to speak to her."
This is not proof of adultery.
So, we tried the door which was a bathroom door, and it was locked,
Then subsequently evidence was given, Mr. Chairman, that there was a lady inside the room, and presumably she needed a slip to wear before she could come out. This is not proof of adultery, in fact it is the converse because she was in the bathroom, the man was in the bedroom and the door between them was locked. Then he goes
Business of the House
on to threaten her about coming out and he mentions the man's name who spoke to her through the door.
-and she asked him to give her something. He handed her something, I think it was a slip, through the bathroom door, and she opened up and came out a few minutes later dressed in a slip;
This is not proof of adultery, it is only proof that the young lady put on a slip and came out of the bathroom.
-and I asked her for her name and address, and she at first didn't want to but I told her I would check it and find out where she lived, and she told me then that her name was-
Then he gives her name and address. This is not proof of adultery. There is no indication of it. Then these questions are asked:
Q. Did you notice any clothing around the room?
A. Yes, women's clothing on the chair near the bed, and some man's underclothing and a shirt and tie on another chair in the room.
This is not proof of adultery, but is merely proof of the fact that there is clothing on a chair near the bed. If ever there was a leading question to elicit a certain answer, this is it-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; shall I rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

["I should like to add two items to those I announced last night for consideration on Tuesday after the other matters have been considered. I should like to add item No. 13 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the proposed construction and completion of a certain railway terminal by Canadian National Railways. For Wednesday the first item to be called will be No. 11 on today's order paper, namely the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the International Development Association. That item will be followed by the budget resolutions."]
Mr. Dumas:: I wonder if the leader of the house could tell us whether the business as outlined last evening stands for next week, and in the same order?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to add two items to those I announced last night for consideration on Tuesday after the other matters have been considered. I should like to add item No. 13 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the proposed construction and completion of a certain railway terminal by Canadian National Railways. For Wednesday the first item to be called will be No. 11 on today's order paper, namely the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the International Development Association. That item will be followed by the budget resolutions.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:

[Stage Direction]
Other payments to international organizations and programs-
499. Purchase and transportation to Chile of flour and pork for the relief of Chilean disaster victims and to authorize reimbursement of the agricultural commodities stabilization account in respect of the purchase of such pork, $1,600,000.
[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
402.	Departmental administration (including the former St. Lawrence river joint board of engineers -Canadian section), $2,732,470.
Canal services-
403.	Administration, $97,240.
404.	Operation and maintenance, $2,127,773.
405.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $1,040,685.
406.	Operating deficit and capital requirements of canals and works entrusted to the St. Lawrence seaway authority with the approval of the governor in council, and to authorize, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act or any other act, the disbursement by the authority of revenues derived from the operation and management of such canals and works, $1,716,969.
Marine services-
407.	Marine services administration including agencies, $904,250.
Marine service steamers-
408.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $18,363,133.
409.	Construction or acquisition of vessels and equipment, $6,500,000.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 6, 1960
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1961, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.