1960-06-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to give the house the intention of the government with regard to the resumption of the discussion of capital punishment.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: The hon. gentleman sent me no notice of this question, so I speak entirely on the basis of my recollection of the situation. I believe when the matter was last before the house on a private member's motion we found ourselves in the position where, at the request of the Leader of the Opposition, it was provided that an extra day would be made available in the event that there were still some hon. members who had a desire to speak but who, were the debate to be concluded on that day, would be denied an opportunity of expressing themselves on so important a matter.
What I will do is look over the record and ascertain the position of affairs and the nature of the discussion at that time, and be in a position on Monday to report in general as to the course the government has in mind.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS EQUALIZATION PRINCIPLE    REFERENCE TO EDITORIAL IN TORONTO &quot;GLOBE AND MAIL&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisla-Twillingate):: I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance whether his attention has been directed to an editorial in the Globe and
Mail this morning which makes a bitter attack on the whole principle of equalization in federal-provincial financial relations, and whether this is a forecast of the attitude which the government will take in July.


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Perhaps I can conclusively and comprehensively answer the hon. gentleman's question, and perhaps set at rest his blossoming fears, if I say I have not seen the editorial in question. I have not had time yet today to read editorials. I presume the editorial is the responsibility of the editor of the newspaper. When government policy is declared it is the practice of the government to declare it in the house when parliament is in session.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister reassure the house that the government has no intention of abandoning the principle of equalization?


Donald Methuen Fleming: I can direct the hon. member to the statements that have been made in the house, I believe both by the Prime Minister and myself, I think the most recent one being during the debate of a few weeks ago on the amendment to the Federal-Provincial Tax-Sharing Arrangements Act, when I pointed out that in that measure the present government had carried the principle of equalization further than it had ever been carried before for the benefit of those provinces which were not in as strong a fiscal position as others.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Yesterday the hon. member for Skeena asked me a question with regard to an attack on the matron of the prison for women at Kingston. At approximately two o'clock in the morning on March 29, 1960, one of the matrons on duty at the prison for women, Kingston, was assaulted by a female inmate while carrying out her normal patrol through a dormitory occupied by some of the inmates. She was struck on the head with a soft drink bottle and received several jabs in the arm with a cooking fork. She was taken to the Kingston General hospital where the

Inquiries of the Ministry wounds she had sustained were stitched up and returned to her duties on April 19.
Investigation has not disclosed any reason for this sudden attack, although the inmate was questioned at length by the warden and the psychiatrists who are in attendance at the prison for women. The inmate was placed in disassociation as a disciplinary measure and will forfeit all earned remission. She has subsequently been released from disassociation and is now serving her sentence in a normal manner.



BOY SCOUTS ASSOCIATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: should like to direct a question to the Acting Secretary of State. I should be grateful if the minister would advise the house whether he has received an application from the Boy Scouts Association to change the name of the Canadian general council of the Boy Scouts Association to the Boy Scouts of Canada. If so, what action has been taken?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, notice of this question was just brought to my attention as I was coming into the house. I will make the proper inquiry and have an answer on Monday.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Donald Methuen Fleming: On June 8 the hon. member for Essex East asked me whether it is a fact that the Bank of Canada is now selling long term bonds held in the portfolio of the unemployment insurance fund and buying treasury bills with the proceeds.
Yesterday he repeated the question, and added this gloss upon it in remarks which he smuggled in with his question. As reported at page 4710 of Hansard he said:
-because if the Bank of Canada is selling long term bonds this is an indication that the Bank of Canada is greatly concerned about unemployment in the future.
The hon. gentleman is just about as wrong as usual, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that the unemployment insurance fund has not been buying treasury bills. As a matter of fact, it has not held any treasury bills now for the past several months. Any transactions in its security portfolio are simply routine ones that have been carried out in accordance with
plans made for some time. These are available as of the end of each month if hon. members ask for that information. It has never been the policy to give this information on a day to day or week to week basis but as of the month end.
I think all hon. members of the house will be pleased to know that the borrowings from the Minister of Finance on behalf of the unemployment insurance fund have recently been reduced. As of May 31 the total of loans outstanding from the Minister of Finance was $37 million. As of yesterday they had been reduced to $25 million.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I may, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house what the official rate of duty is on remarks included with questions?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member had better ask the Minister of National Revenue.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I shall be pleased to do that.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. McGee in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT Marine Services-
410. Aids to navigation-Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $6,015,938.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: This item will be found at page 73 of the blue book, the details at page 518.


Mr. Cardin:: Under this item, Mr. Chairman, I think we can discuss a subject which has been before the House of Commons on previous occasions and which has interested members of parliament for some years, particularly the members from the province of Quebec. It has to do with keeping navigation open on the St. Lawrence river during the winter months.
As hon. members well know, there have been many technical difficulties in keeping the river open because of the extremely rigorous winters we have had. That is one reason this project has been postponed for some time. I think it is understood that all hon. members from the province of Quebec are extremely-


Frank Charles McGee: 
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was saying that all hon. members representing the province of Quebec are extremely interested in this subject and anxious to have the St. Lawrence river open during the winter months. However, it has been known- and it is a fact, of course-that the St. Lawrence river and navigation on that river are definitely a federal government responsibility under the constitution.
Recently statements have been made in the province of Quebec by the premier of that province to the effect that the provincial government would build an icebreaker and that the provincial government of Quebec would keep the St. Lawrence river open for winter navigation. The question I would like to ask the minister-


Lester Bowles Pearson: -who is not here-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: -and it is an extremely important question, is whether the government of the province of Quebec consulted with the federal government before making the statement, indeed the promise, that they would keep the St. Lawrence river open for winter navigation.
As hon. members will recall, on many occasions the province of Quebec has been very definite about the wording of the constitution and its application, and of course that works both ways. What comes under federal responsibility must be left to federal responsibility, and what comes under provincial responsibility must also be left to provincial responsibility. If it were not we would have chaos. I think the minister could certainly help a great deal by informing the committee, first of all, whether there has been any consultation between the province of Quebec and the federal government concerning permission being given to the province to keep the St. Lawrence seaway open during the winter months.
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister to answer these two questions; first, whether there has been any consultation between the province of Quebec and the federal government concerning the proposition made by the premier of Quebec about keeping the St. Lawrence river open during the winter months. Second, would the minister care to comment on the constitutional aspect of a project whereby a province, in this case the province of Quebec, would keep the St. Lawrence open for winter navigation?


Mr. Hees:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to correct something the hon. member said a moment ago. He said I was not present in the chamber. Well, I think it is obvious-
Supply-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, I interjected that observation because I looked and could not see the minister in his seat. However, he was with the chairman, and I apologize for saying that; the minister certainly was in the chamber.


George Harris Hees: I heard that the remark had been made. Mr. Barrette, the premier of Quebec, and I have discussed on a number of occasions the question of winter navigation on the St. Lawrence in Quebec, and I know of his great interest in it. I did not have a specific discussion with him immediately prior to the announcement he made regarding winter navigation.
In answer to the second question, about whether it is constitutional for a province to go into winter navigation, I am advised that it is perfectly constitutional to do so.


Mr. Brooks:: I wonder if I might ask the hon. member a question. Does the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres consider it constitutional for the federal government to keep the St. Lawrence open during the winter months? Does he consider it an obligation on the federal government?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: As to the first question, I understand that all navigable waters come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, and if the government should decide that it can keep the water open during winter it would certainly be constitutional to do so. As to whether it is an obligation, I would say it certainly is not an obligation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Does the hon. member consider a river frozen over with two or three feet of ice during the wintertime to be a navigable river during that time?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: If the ice could be broken and ships could be made to pass I would say it was navigable; and if it was in the interests of a province that this should be done I would say it would be not only constitutional but desirable.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Do you mean naturally broken by the elements, or by icebreakers?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: By icebreakers.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think that would be approved in certain parts of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he considers it desirable for the federal government to have icebreakers for this purpose?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I do not think the federal government should have icebreakers to keep the St. Lawrence open all winter, especially when we have two winter ports in the maritime provinces, Saint John and Halifax.

Supply-Transport


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to ask the minister a question or two, because he seems to be keenly interested in this matter and I know he has a very good reason for being interested. Is he in agreement with the policy of the Minister of Transport of keeping the ports open along the north shore of the St. Lawrence for winter navigation right up to the city of Quebec?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: My understanding is that it is only local trade in Baie Comeau and Seven Islands. It has nothing to do with the transocean business of the winter ports.


Mr. Chevrier:: But the minister stated on one occasion that he was willing to keep navigation open in wintertime right up to and including the port of Quebec. Does the Minister of Veterans Affairs agree with that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: You won't get me on that one.


Lionel Chevrier: What was that?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I understand the minister never said any such thing.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lionel Chevrier: On a question of privilege, it has been stated that the minister did not make that statement. I have put that statement on the record. I have not got it with me at the moment, but not only has the Minister of Transport stated it but the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works has stated it, and it is on record in Hansard. Does the minister now deny that statement?


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I am not speaking for either.


Lionel Chevrier: It is clear the hon. gentleman is disagreeing with his colleague.
(Translation):


Mr. Johnson:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up a point with the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin). Would he tell me whether, in his view, the fact a river, such as the St. Lawrence river, is navigable is sufficient reason to bar the provincial government from the jurisdiction required to establish winter navigation on it?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Chairman, according to the constitution, all navigable rivers come under federal jurisdiction. In my opinion, this is the only point that should be considered in this case. Under the constitution itself, all navigable rivers are under federal jurisdiction.
(Text):
If I may, I should like to repeat the ques-fion I asked a while ago as to whether the minister said that the provincial governments can constitutionally maintain the St. Lawrence open during the winter months.


George Harris Hees: As I understood it, the question was whether it was constitutional for the province to do icebreaking on the St. Lawrence river. My advice is that it is; that there would be no objection to it if they wished to do it.


Lionel Chevrier: I should now like to put on the record what I had reference to a moment ago so there will not be any doubt about my statement and so there will not be any doubt about the discussion which has taken place between the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and myself. On January 22, 1958 the Minister of Transport, speaking before the Dominion Marine Association and the lake carriers association at the Seigniory club, Montebello, Quebec, had this to say:
With this group of ships available it should be possible within the next few years to meet virtually all requirements in the St. Lawrence and gulf areas, including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed to the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence, even as far up as Quebec, and in the gulf and Atlantic areas generally.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Public Works, speaking at the Ritz Carlton hotel on September 24, 1959, in a speech which he delivered in French, referred to the statement made by the Minister of Transport before the Dominion Marine Association and quoted it, leaving out one small part. I will read what the parliamentary secretary said at that time. It goes as follows:
With this group of ships available, it should be possible, within the next few years, to meet virtually all requirements on the St. Lawrence and gulf areas, including such winter shipping as may wish to proceed to the various ports in the lower St. Lawrence, even as far up as Quebec.
This is clear enough, surely, and needs no comment.
Well, now, judging by the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, it would appear to me that there is a clear difference of opinion between himself and the Minister of Transport. If that is the case I think he should clear it up at once and tell us why the division does exist.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: Certainly there is a difference of opinion between you and me; I would say that.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express disagreement with two statements made just now. Before taking exception to the assertions made by the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres, I want to make sure what he meant by his first statement. I want to know whether he was prepared to declare to the house that the province of Quebec is acting altogether unconstitutionally in enacting legislation to promote winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river

up to Quebec city. If I have misinterpreted the hon. member's statement, I am sure he will want to dispel the false impression he has probably created. I understood him to say that navigable rivers come under federal jurisdiction.
The member should realize that the constitution limits the federal government's authority to navigation, and that is something different.
The provincial government certainly has jurisdiction, at least up to a certain point over navigable rivers, and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres must know that the constitution is to be interpreted in this way.
I should also add that, I have a feeling that this intervention, arose out of a statement said to have been made two days ago in the city of Quebec by the premier of the province of Quebec to the effect that members of the Liberal opposition are not yet aware that we are here, in this federal parliament, to deal with federal matters. It is high time the Liberals stopped proving, here in this house, that statements by the Quebec premier are outlandish or are just so many senseless promises. It is also high time that our Liberal friends stopped playing politics in this house for the benefit of Mr. Lesage, their branch manager in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I cannot see eye to eye with the Minister of Veterans' Affairs on the matter of winter navigation. Quite candidly, I am sorry I cannot agree with him in the matter, but I cannot let his statement go on record without rising in protest.
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, having regard to the hon. member who has just spoken and having regard to the statement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs, which discloses a shocking breach of cabinet solidarity on a very important matter, may I ask the minister directly concerned whether he has any comment to make on this, in the light of the statement which he had previously made, which has been put on the record again this morning and contradicted by his colleague?


George Harris Hees: If the Leader of the Opposition had been in the house when I was dealing with these estimates about a week ago he would have heard the very clear discussion that went on. My position and the position of the government were made very clear indeed. I do not think it is necessary to do so again. He can look back in Hansard. It is
Supply-Transport
all there to be read and understood, and I think he can understand it very clearly.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I read in Hansard what the minister said last week, but I am asking him now, in the light of what has been said this morning by his colleague, whether he has anything to add to what he said.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Fisher:: I think it is rather unfair for the Minister of Transport to be chippy in this way about his position on the St. Lawrence seaway. I think he was quite clear last week; I think he told us he was not going to encourage any development which would have a bad effect on any part of the country. Now, I think that is one principle we can all understand; certainly socialists can understand it. The only doubt that rises in one's mind in this regard is something that I should like to put to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. He has been a long time in this house and a long time member of the Conservative party, and is aware of its principles and the things it stands for.
It seems to me that one of the principles that may be in conflict in this situation that we tend to agree with, as enunciated last week, is the principle of business efficiency and national interest, getting things moved at the lowest possible cost to the shipper and to the receiver. This, it seems to me, is the question that we could perhaps ask the minister from New Brunswick and also the minister in charge, as to whether they think it is even worth while to determine the relative saving that may be possible through winter shipping out of Montreal and Quebec and strike some kind of economic balance. It seems to me that such a move and such an analysis would be more in keeping with the free enterprise principles of the party than this rather socialistic principle that was advanced last week by the Minister of Transport.
It is from that academic point of view that I should like to have an opinion from the minister from New Brunswick, and I should also like to have some assurance from the Minister of Transport about this conflict, which I think he knows exists within his own party among his own party members. I think it is always nice to have a conflict going on within a party. We know there is a conflict within the government party. There probably is one within the Liberal party on this matter, or between the Liberals in Quebec and the Liberals in New Brunswick and Halifax.
What is the suggestion? What is the way out of this contretemps? Quebec wants winter

Supply-Transport
navigation. The minister says it should go so far and then no more, because it is going to be a great disadvantage to Halifax and Saint John. How do you resolve this kind of contretemps? It seems to me that one of the first things we need to do is to find out just how much potential shipping there is for winter carriage to Quebec that would be taken away from Halifax and Saint John. We need to find out whether it is worth while in terms of cost to move this shipping in that way. I should like to know very much from either of the ministers what their views would be on this kind of program.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: I should like to make it very clear that there is no controversy between the Minister of Transport and myself. I agree entirely with the statement which was made last week by the Minister of Transport. As far as the hon. member's academic question is concerned, I am not a theorist at all. I know it is of great practical benefit to the maritime provinces to have our winter ports in operation as they have been since the days of confederation. We are very jealous indeed with respect to anything which might interfere with what we consider to be and to have been our rights ever since the days of confederation. That is the only comment I have to make.
(Translation):


Mr. Bourgel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to add a few words to what has just been said by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson) to the effect that we, in this house, are given to deal with matters which are a provincial responsibility. May I tell him that if any of us used provincial politics to get elected, they are the Conservative members in this house.
Mr. Chairman, I find it strange that members who got elected in the province of Quebec on the claim that they would recover Quebec rights do not stand up now to repeat in this house what they said on the hustings in the election campaigns of 1957 and 1958, about winter navigation, a matter of special concern to the Quebec area.
It has now been shown that winter navigation to the port of Quebec is possible, because 22 ocean-going ships did get there.
I am now wondering why the minister has changed his mind on this matter? As a matter of fact, in conjunction with the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), in this year's debate on the speech from the throne, I quoted parts of a speech in which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) said the government would do everything in its power to

insure winter navigation, not only to north shore harbours, such as Baie Comeau and Sept-Iles, but also to Quebec.
The hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Tasse) was a great promoter of that idea in the Quebec area when he was in charge of the metropolitan office, as evidenced by the many excerpts I have quoted from the talk he delivered in Montreal in 1959. Why does he not rise today in defence of the interests of Quebec city? Why do the ministers from the province of Quebec remain silent, particularly when they see their colleagues from the maritimes quite rightly looking after the interests of their area, why do they not rise in defence of the interests of Quebec?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of privilege.


Maurice Bourget: When you hear the premier of Quebec, Mr. Barrette, say he will build not just one, but two icebreakers-
(Text):
The Depuly Chairman: Order. What is the hon. member rising on?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: A question of privilege.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the privilege?


An hon. Member:: You will find out in a minute.


Lester Bowles Pearson: You will find out there is no question of privilege.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Bourget) stated that no Quebec Conservative member had protested against the intervention of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Brooks). Well, Mr. Chairman, I must say I did intervene to object to the opinion expressed on that matter.
(Text):


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. That is not a matter of privilege but a matter of opinion.
(Translation):


Maurice Bourget: Mr. Chairman, I am not an expert in constitutional law, but I have been sitting in this house for twenty years already -of course there are others too, who have been sitting here longer than I have and I cannot recall the federal government having left to the provinces the responsibility of looking after navigation on a navigable river such as the St. Lawrence.
Besides, as I said a moment ago, before the election, winter navigation up to Quebec had been promised and now, in order not to do any harm to some other part of the country, it is said that icebreakers cannot be built.



I960

[Stage Direction]
That new attitude on the part of government members is rather strange; it was not the one they took before the election.
I hope the Conservative members from the province of Quebec will rise in their places here, or that the ministers will speak up in the cabinet, in defence of Quebec rights.
I am not opposed to the interests of other provinces. Besides, as the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) said, in reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Asselin), we want every part of Canada to benefit from federal government grants to each province. That is our view.
It is not a matter of being unfair to anyone, but to help the various areas that need help. As I see it, you cannot stand in the way of progress, and I ask the hon. member for Quebec East to keep that in mind.
Did we oppose the dredging of the St. Lawrence to stop ships with deeper draught to sail to Montreal? We did not-no more than we opposed building the St. Lawrence seaway. In my view it is a matter of logic. It would be illogical to object to further technical developments being of benefit to Quebec city, and perhaps later even to Three Rivers and even to Montreal.
That is, Mr. Chairman, the situation which I wanted to point out, and I hope that the minister will reverse his decision and not let the provincial government build one or two icebreakers that would cost about $12 to $15 million each and cause us to lose the $25 million we recovered through university grants.
Once more, I ask the minister to reconsider the matter more particularly as it would be of assistance to the shipyards in Lauzon, Sorel, Montreal or elsewhere.
I ask him to consider the question in the light of facts, in the light of what happens during the winter. I am sure that the people in the district concerned would appreciate it.
(Text):
George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, if I may answer the hon. member who has just spoken, he has referred to what went on last winter in the port of Quebec. As he will know very well if he has followed the figures with respect to shipping in and out of that port, there was a very large and important increase in shipping at the port of Quebec last winter.
Supply-Transport
A great many more ships reinforced against ice are being built especially for this trade, and that is having quite a marked effect. My department came to the aid of any ships that requested aid during the winter if they were held up in the ice.
I think the department followed the proper course during the past winter. As I say, the port of Quebec benefited very materially by a marked increase in winter shipping, as the hon. member will know if he has examined the figures. I see a very promising future for the port of Quebec, which is what we would like to see for that port and all other ports in Canada. If the hon. member really thinks the matter over I believe he will agree that what the federal government is doing in this regard is to follow a sensible policy having in mind its obligations to all parts of Canada and all ports in various provinces of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, it is a little difficult to discuss what the policy of the Canadian government is in this matter because of the division between two members of the cabinet which has been made so clear this morning. The Minister of Transport has put on the record that it is the policy of the government to keep the river open in winter as far as the port of Quebec. Then there was the statement this morning by the Minister of Veterans Affairs that that is not his policy. When we brought this contradiction to the attention of the two ministers, the Minister of Veterans Affairs got up a second time and said there was no contradiction between them. Now the Minister of Transport tells us about the policy of the Canadian government. It is the policy, perhaps, of one minister but apparently not the policy of the other minister; so our confusion in this matter, Mr. Chairman, is understandable.


George Harris Hees: I should like to say that there is no difference of opinion at all between myself and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who takes a serious view of the affairs of his province and the welfare of the maritime provinces generally. He and I are in agreement, and I think if the Leader of the Opposition will read what I said when my estimates were up a week ago and read what the Minister of Veterans Affairs said, he will see very little, if any, difference. I do not think there is any difference.
I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, since he seems to have taken an interest in this matter, and since it is obvious that a concerted effort to keep open the St. Lawrence river for winter navigation at great cost to the federal government would undoubtedly take trade from the maritime ports

Supply-Transport
-because after all there is just so much trade coming into Canada by water during the winter months and if it goes into the port of Quebec it will be taken away from the ports of Halifax and Saint John-is his party in favour of taking business from two ports in Canada in order to favour one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the minister has asked me a question. I would remind the minister that his estimates are being considered and it is the policy of his government in this matter which is being considered.


An hon. Member:: Answer.


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the government or any minister gets into difficulty, as he is now, it seems the only recourse is to say, what would you do? The minister has just indicated that there is only so much trade to go around and we must be very careful to divide that equitably among the various ports. I would tell the minister that if there was a Liberal government in power there would be enough trade to go around and keep the St. Lawrence river open in winter, without interfering in any way, shape or form with the maritime ports.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do it?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We did that. During the years we were in power trade increased; year by year port business increased, and now the minister says there is just so much trade to go around. The minister says there is no difference between him and his colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I ask him to read the record of what has gone on this morning and then say there is no difference. The minister says we will keep the St. Lawrence open in winter down to Quebec, while the Minister of Veterans Affairs quarrels with the use of icebreakers for that purpose and asks whether we have any constitutional right in this country to use icebreakers to keep the river open to Quebec.


Mr. Small:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I ask the Leader of the Opposition, did the Minister of Veterans Affairs say that? Did the Minister of Veterans Affairs say-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I cannot hear a point of order. At the moment I just hear a question.


Mr. Howard:: We could very well consider moving the parliament buildings closer to the St. Lawrence, and perhaps the heat that is generated might enable us to keep the St. Lawrence open. You know, Mr. Chairman, eventually I believe we will have to get to the point in this house where the Liberal party will have to refrain from telling the house how good things were under their

regime, and the Conservative are going to have to stop slamming the Liberals for the things that were not done when the Liberals were in office. We will have to deal with the various items on their merits rather than have this petty bickering that goes on back and forth between the parties as to which one is most beneficial for Canada.
Apart from that, I should like to mention a matter that is of concern to the west coast, where we do not have the St. Lawrence seaway. It is a matter of local and personal concern, and is a matter of which the minister is aware. I have a copy of a letter dated December 18, 1959 to the Minister of Transport from the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association. This letter contains a resolution that was passed at the annual meeting of the association last year. It makes reference to the establishment of range lights in place of spar buoys in Metla-katla pass. This was forwarded to the minister, and subsequently discussions were entered into among the Prince Rupert cooperative, the minister and myself.
The minister replied to the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative under date of January 26, 1960. The letter is addressed to Mr. Harding, secretary of the board of directors, and I should like to read a part of that letter:
We have investigated the possibility of installing range lights to assist passage through Metlakatla pass as requested at the annual general meeting of your association. It is proposed to install a set of range lights on the east side of Venn passage and another set on Dundas point. In addition, we will install two additional lights on dolphins off Venn pass in Shkgeaum bay.
Then he goes on to indicate that a vessel entering from seaward would pick up certain lights, and so on. He says it is expected that when these new aids are installed, night navigation through the pass will be facilitated. The interesting part of this letter is that there is a footnote at the bottom which says, "carbon copy to A. D. Vance, Esq." and a carbon copy to myself. Frankly, I do not care whether the minister mimeographs his letters and sends them to people all over the country; that is entirely his business. However, I would point out that A. D. Vance was the Conservative candidate in the electoral district of Skeena in 1958. I just wonder whether this indicates a policy of this government of maintaining a liaison with every constituency in the country through members of the Conservative party, and especially through candidates of that party who were defeated.
I would point out that I communicated with the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative with a view to ascertaining whether Mr. Vance had some association with the Prince

Rupert fishermen's co-operative which would occasion this letter being sent to him. I was advised by the co-operative that Mr. Vance had no connection whatever with the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative, neither with respect to the range light question nor in any other way, for that matter.
Prior to the date of that letter the minister wrote to Mr. Harding of the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative regarding another matter. It was about the question of tenders for an airport at Digby island, indicating that they would be called and so on. I understand they have been called and that tenders have been received within the last week or two for the terminal building there.
On February 5 the minister wrote again to the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association and he dealt then with the establishment of a light on the south end of Williams island, another navigational aid, indicating that the request has now been investigated and that it seems that a light would be most useful to vessels using Lewis passage and that it is proposed to establish that light at the first opportunity this summer. Then on February 24 the minister wrote to me with regard to other things and stated:
-and I am indeed sorry that I neglected to send you copies of my letters to the Prince Rupert fishermen's co-operative association, with regard to Williams island and Digby island.
At the time I sent copies to Mr. A. D. Vance, defeated candidate at Prince Rupert, but overlooked keeping you posted.
Of course it was most kind of the minister to write me this letter, and I appreciate his eventually getting around to keeping people informed as to what has occurred. As I said, I do not care whether the minister has these letters mimeographed or printed and sends them wherever he wants to send them. That, of course, is his business. I have no complaint about keeping Mr. Vance or anybody else informed about what activities are transpiring either there or anywhere else. But it seems to me that this is a practice which is not isolated or confined to the Department of Transport because last year, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that we had another instance.
While this is another subject matter, still and all it is the same individual, the defeated Conservative candidate, who is involved with respect to the building of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks on the Queen Charlotte islands. When I attempted to discover from the Minister of Justice whether any communications had been entered into between Mr. Vance and himself and so on, I was unable to get that particular information although, according to information in Prince Rupert that was made available to me-
Supply-Transport


Mr. Broome:: I rise on a point of order. We are really not on the R.C.M.P. estimates. I think the hon. member has made his point.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Yes. When I started I said that while this was another subject matter, the same individual is involved. I merely mentioned that as an aside and to indicate that this practice of maintaining liaison with the defeated Conservative candidates is not concentrated in the Department of Transport but exists or has existed, to my knowledge, in other departments.
I do not want to go any further than that into the matter. The point is, Mr. Chairman, that if this is the manner in which a government is going to maintain its relationships with communities-that is, to maintain them through its own party structure and organization-may I say that I do not think this procedure is conducive to the welfare of those communities or to the welfare or interest of the government, and I believe it is not in keeping with our concept of a democratic government.
As I said, I do not complain one bit about the minister writing to Bill Vance or to anybody else, so far as that goes, about these matters. However, I would not want to see this practice-and I raise the matter only in this way-develop into an arrangement such as that which has existed in the past under other governments, where the entire public service functions, operates and is channeled through a political party organization rather than through the elected responsible members and organizations in the community.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I think the hon. member has made his point with reference to this item, and I do not think he needs to go into the procedure of other departments. Shall vote 410 carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the minister a question in relation to the administrative thought that has been given to the possibility of dividing up the agency jurisdiction that I believe now runs from Parry Sound northward to the head of the lakes. I should like to know what would be involved in terms of cost of administration.


George Harris Hees: This matter of agency boundaries is still under consideration, but no decision has been made as to any change.


Charles Edward Rea: I recognize the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like something further in the way of information from the minister on that matter. The northwestern Ontario chambers of commerce put forward a representation to the minister a few months ago

Supply-Transport
in this regard. I was wondering on this subject whether there were any other representations of which the minister or the deputy minister knows, and what factors are taken into account.
What I mean is this. I can sympathize with the chambers of commerce. They think we would have better service if we had an agency at the lakehead. What is necessary in order to get an agency at the lakehead? Should the harbour commission make a request? Has the harbour commission made a request? Another question is this. What would be the advantages of having it at the lakehead and what would be the cost to the government of setting up a new agency? Have there been any changes in the traffic pattern out of Parry Sound?


George Harris Hees: This is basically a matter of operation. Some representations have been made. I believe the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River made representations as well as some other people. These representations are all being considered. However, no decision has been arrived at yet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a matter that probably has more general application, and I think it is suitable to do it here. I have written letters to several ministers in this government complaining about the inordinate length and detail of their annual reports, and the fact that they have in them far too much information. I do not know what has gone into the gradual pruning down of this report over the years, but the situation has come to the point that in the annual report of the Department of Transport we get very slight information. I think every hon. member, in reading the annual report, likes to correlate it to the estimates, both in their item form and in their detail. On this particular matter here, where we have a vote for administration, I doubt whether we have a total of more than 250 words of information in the annual report. I do not want to go to the extreme of advocating a great deal of detail. However, what consideration has gone into this matter so that we wind up with such a slight source of background information?
I should like the minister to remember that he has one of the biggest and fastest growing departments. It is certainly one of the biggest spenders. Can we not get a bit more information? I should like to find in the report something about these agencies, shifts, changes and that type of thing. Perhaps it would be possible each year to concentrate upon a different part of the minister's department and to give more details. We know what the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has been doing recently in its annual report. It has been taking a

section of the department activities and blowing them up in detail. I wonder whether we could have the minister's comment.


George Harris Hees: We used to produce an extremely lengthy and detailed report, and there were many criticisms of that report because it was too detailed and too lengthy. In order to try to meet those criticisms we have now produced a shorter and more concise report. However, the hon. member finds fault with it. We would really appreciate it if at any time the hon. member would come and see my deputy minister or any of our officials and make suggestions, which we would welcome with regard to how the report could be better done. At any time that he or any other hon. member wishes any information on any subject that is handled by my department, as I think he and all other hon. members know very well, they are welcome to come to the department. I will send them to the proper officials and will endeavour to get any detail on any matter that any hon. member of parliament wants to know about dealing with my department.


Charles Edward Rea: The hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I just follow up-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I recognized the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres because I thought he was going to follow the hon. member for Skeena with a question. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: While listening to the discussions which have been taking place on this very important matter, I was struck by the fact that we are going into a situation which in the past has proven to be very delicate indeed and very controversial. What is happening now is this. According to section 91 of the British North America Act, navigation and shipping is definitely within the federal field. Within the past few days the province of Quebec has announced that it intends, according to speeches we have heard from the premier himself, to enter into the field of icebreaking in the St. Lawrence river, and in so doing it is coming to the help or aid of the federal government. As a matter of fact it is assuming a responsibility which comes definitely within the federal sphere.
This is a situation which is very similar to that of some years ago when the federal government, after being asked by the universities, aided the universities in the province of Quebec; where one level of government was helping out the other level of government. The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville stated that what we were trying to do here was deal with a question of policy.

It appears to me that it we analyse the reversal of policy which the hon. member and other members of that group have followed, that is where you can really see the political interests.
What is happening now is rather extraordinary. The provincial government of Quebec is now helping the federal government to assume its responsibilities in the matter of shipping and navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I am rather anxious to hear some of the hon. members opposite try to explain why so many accusations were made in 1951, and why the government of the province of Quebec now proposes to assume a responsibility which definitely comes within the field of the federal government.


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member's question I would like to point out to him that this government controls and regulates shipping. We are required to regulate but not to operate shipping. Any private company can operate an icebreaker in our navigable waters, and many private companies do so. May I cite two examples which come to mind; the paper company at Bathurst, New Brunswick, and the Canada Steamship Lines at Midland. Other companies also operate icebreakers. There is no objection to any company operating an icebreaker or to a provincial government operating an icebreaker.
Mr. Chairman, I find it very hard to understand the hon. member's objection to a very progressive and constructive step which has been proposed by the premier of Quebec to assist shipping-


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: And to assume federal responsibilities.	.


George Harris Hees: It is not a federal responsibility at all. It is a responsibility which can be assumed by the federal government, a provincial government or a private company, and as I have stated many private companies do this kind of work for themselves. What the hon. member is trying to do, as I see it, is to object to progress being made by the very progressive government in Quebec headed by Premier Barrette, who I believe has made a very progressive suggestion indeed. I find it hard to understand why the hon. member objects to this very progressive suggestion and policy which would assist shipping in his own province.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: The minister cannot take objection to any words of mine so far. What I have been trying to bring out is the fact that the government, and particularly those members from the province of Quebec, had a
Supply-Transport
completely different idea of what the constitution meant in 1951, and it is a complete reversal of policy.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that if the province of Quebec wishes to operate icebreakers it has a perfect right to do so, and it is a further example of the very progressive attitude adopted by that very progressive government.


Mr. Deschatelets:: If I can follow up the remarks of the hon. members for Richelieu-Vercheres, I would like to ask a question of the minister. If navigation on the St. Lawrence river in Quebec is kept open by icebreakers owned by the Quebec government, can the minister say whether in such case the federal government would maintain the buoys and other facilities relating to navigation, and also say which government would bear responsibility in case of damage?


George Harris Hees: I would like to point out to the hon. member that we do now maintain buoys for winter coastal shipping. If navigation is to be extended in any area of Canada, why naturally we would be very glad to look into the whole situation and carry out the same progressive policy that we have maintained over the past three years in this and other fields.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I would like to add a word or two to what the hon. member for Port Arthur said about the annual report of the Department of Transport. I know there are agencies under the department, such as the Canadian maritime commission, which make their own annual reports which go into quite some detail, and I am sure that what the minister has said about this is quite true. It has always been the case that any member of parliament who may want to inquire in the most extreme detail into activities within a department may do so, but the circulation of the report of the Department of Transport is confined to members of parliament. Other people may obtain the report from libraries, and it is referred to quite regularly by interested people. It would seem to me that some expansion of detail and explanation of the activities of the department in its annual report would be beneficial.
The minister said, as I understood it, that there were in the past extensive departmental reports but that representations were made to the effect that these should be curtailed, and that there should not be so much detail and volume to the reports. As a consequence this report was cut down to the information contained in it at the moment.
Mr. Chairman, I would submit that there should be quite a bit of expansion of the detail in the departmental report, and I hope

Supply-Transport
the minister will take that matter under consideration and perhaps in subsequent departmental reports expand them quite a bit. Offhand I would say that on quickly reading through this report I can And no reference to the item we are now dealing with, aids to navigation, outside of radio aids to navigation, which is on page 11. So far as canal services are concerned, under the marine section, the only reference I can pick out quickly is that relating to navigation schools. In the marine section the only portion I can pick out accurately is that on navigation schools which, it points out, are wholly maintained by the province of Quebec and so on. As far as navigation is concerned, I think this report has been pared to the bone. As a matter of fact it scrapes away at the bone, too.


George Harris Hees: I should like to say that we do prepare supplementary reports on the work of all branches of my department, and these were not tabled simply because of the criticism we have received in the past about the tabling of too much material. If the hon. member wishes, however, we would be glad to table these supplementary reports next year. We want everybody to know about what we are doing in the department. I may say we have had a considerable increase in the demand for the shorter form of our report, but we do not wish to deny any information. Next year we shall try tabling the supplementary reports and see if we can somehow please everybody.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a question to put to the minister in the light of what he has just said. He said the department was anxious to table all possible information in order to please everyone-


George Harris Hees: I said I would give all possible information.


John Whitney Pickersgill: All right. Well, there is some information we would like very much to have, and despite anything that may have happened I would very much like the minister to table some of these harbour studies which he boasts so much about, so the representatives of the public may see them.


George Harris Hees: Well, the hon. member knows that these are privileged documents.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Secret studies.


George Harris Hees: They are very useful studies. If the hon. member wants to check with us about any particular harbour I will be glad to talk to him. We want to give out as much information as possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is all very well, but I was not speaking just for myself but for

the taxpayers. These studies are paid for by the taxpayers. There can be no military secrecy about them, and I would like to know what the minister is trying to hide.


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member knows perfectly well, I am not trying to hide anything. The facts that come out in these reports have a very marked bearing on the future of any individual harbour. In these reports we discuss in detail what could be done, what could not be done, why we think a thing could not be done, and so on. The people who have asked us to help them are not anxious to have this information about their particular harbours made available to all other-and competing-harbours. It would not be fair to them. We are anxious to help all the harbours of Canada to do the best job they can, and they have indicated to us that making this kind of information available to their competitors would hinder their progress rather than help.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am surprised that the minister should say these studies are going to hinder the development of the harbours.


George Harris Hees: All the hon. gentleman needs to do is ask any of the harbour commissions or municipal governments of the 29 harbours with which we have worked since we took office, and I think he will find that they consider these studies to be helpful and useful.


Lionel Chevrier: I can tell the minister of one case where they do not think much of the report.


George Harris Hees: Where is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is a secret.


Charles Benjamin Howard: A further word on the subject of the supplementary reports. I take it that, for instance, there are reports on marine services, canal services, railway and steamship services and so on. Is that the way they are broken down?


George Harris Hees: Yes. One deals with marine services, one with meteorology, one with telecommunications and so on. If the hon. member would inform me at lunch time what he would like to have, we will see that he gets it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Again, it is not a question of what I would like to have. The minister has indicated that it is the practice to provide members of parliament with as much detailed information as possible concerning what is taking place in the department. That is fine and dandy, but there are more people concerned with all this than just the members of parliament. I assume these reports are not supplementary in the sense that they come along after the annual report has been



[Stage Direction]
prepared, and cover the different periods.
I assume, for instance, that the minister has the so-called supplementary reports for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1959 available now. I think these should be distributed along with the annual report, so that by the time the estimates of the department are dealt with members would have an opportunity to go through them and become familiar with the information they contain.
George Harris Hees: I assure the hon. member I am taking his suggestion very seriously. We gave, on past occasions, what many people considered to be too much information. The report was too bulky. We cut it down to try to please the people of Canada and members of parliament. Now, according to the hon. member, people are not pleased, they want more information. Well, next year we will give more information. I hope to have information this afternoon as to just what supplementary reports are available at the moment. If some reports are not available now they could be made available soon. They will be sent to anyone the hon. member, or any other member, wishes. We are trying to be as helpful and constructive as possible.


Mr. Carter:: Did I correctly understand the minister to say a while ago that no consideration was being given to the revision of agency boundaries?


George Harris Hees: No. May I correct the hon. member? We are considering possible changes in some agency boundaries, but no decisions have been reached. If the hon. member would like to talk with my departmental officials about particular boundaries in which he is interested we would appreciate the benefit of his advice.


Chesley William Carter: I was going to enunciate the principle that in my opinion agency boundaries should be confined within provincial boundaries. There is some overlapping, I know, on the west coast of Newfoundland where certain lights come under the Prince Edward Island agency. That makes administration difficult and complicates the discussion of problems in connection with these lights and other aids. Can the minister say how many agencies there are which cross provincial boundaries?


George Harris Hees: I believe there are two, and there may be a third. We will check.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On this item I think one can discuss railway transportation and the royal commission on transportation. There have been a number of representations made to the commission. Because of his busy schedule I doubt whether the minister has been able to follow very closely the presentations that 79951-0-301
Supp ly-Transport
have been made. The province of Quebec did make an interesting presentation in their argument for extension of marine services.
I wonder whether the minister has happened to read those particular recommendations which were made by the province of Quebec.
I see he shakes his head.
The brief was presented by a cabinet minister of Quebec, who argued that the only way to solve the problem of the maximum use of Quebec ports with the new seaway was to reduce the closed season of navigation. The brief went on to argue that the costs of the closed season, through having to build up considerable stocks, pay large insurance premiums, lay off hundreds of skilled workers, and so on, were very great to Quebec. The argument, in brief, is that winter navigation is necessary.
The brief went on to argue that there was nothing new in the idea of winter navigation. It even went on to give some indication that the provincial government has been spending funds in order to extend the season. It points out that the Canadian ship Eskimo reached Three Rivers in January of 1960. But the conclusion the Quebec government comes to in its presentation is and I read:
Our ports should remain, open for 12 months of the year and this has become necessary for the economic development for the eastern portion of our province in order to reduce the cost of transportation which will profit thousands of Canadian shippers and receivers. The government of this province supports the promoters of navigation 12 months of the year in our ports and in our navigable waters.
In view of the discussion we have had it is interesting to have this on the record. But I wanted to come to one particular point and ask the minister and his officials whether they have this information. The Quebec minister, Mr. Johnson, made this presentation and he said:
Economists and geographers have calculated the tonnages which can be carried during a typical winter, not only in the port of Quebec, but in all the other ports of the estuary and the gulf, namely Pointe au Pic, Forestville, Baie Comeau and Seven Islands on the north side and Rimouski, Pointe au Pere on the south side.
This brief does not give the figures of the economic savings. The question I should like to ask the minister is, have any of his economists or geographers been involved in these estimates? Are there any studies or reports available in this particular regard?


George Harris Hees: No. I am advised that the lower St. Lawrence development association has made those studies, but there is no connection between them and the federal government.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May . I put it this way. Can the minister provide me or other hon. members with any of this material from his collecting

Supply-Transport
sources? I am not expecting him to have it if his officials have not prepared anything. Can he see that this material and those studies are made available to us if it is at all possible?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the lower St. Lawrence development association has published two pamphlets dealing with these matters, and just by writing to them the hon. member can obtain the material in exactly the same way the government can. If he wishes we can get it for him, but he can get it himself. If he wants us to do it we will do so.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I will look after that. I ask the minister whether his officials have formed any judgment, favourable or critical, of those studies produced by the lower St. Lawrence development association.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
560. Administration, operation and maintenance, further amount required, $1,376,445.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall this further supplementary estimate carry; it has to do with the same item?


Charles Benjamin Howard: I notice the amount is $1,376,000, if I have the right one. Can the minister gives us an indication of what is involved?


George Harris Hees: The main amount in this item is for the removal of the Federal Express, which is at present sunk in Montreal harbour, and it is of great importance that it should be removed at the earliest possible moment.


Lionel Chevrier: So far as I am concerned it is carried, but I take it the votes prior to this in the supplementary estimates have not been disposed of yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
George Harris Hees: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether we could keep them all together, and whether the committee would be willing now to dispose of all of the supplementaries, of which you have a list, applying to the items already carried so that we can keep current on both the main estimates and the supplementary estimates. Would that be satisfactory to the committee?


Charles Edward Rea: Does the committee agree that we clear up the supplementaries of the main items already passed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Is this classified as a further
supplementary estimate also?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

555. Departmental administration, further amount required, $68,350.


Charles Edward Rea: This is a further supplementary estimate. Shall it carry?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Just a minute.


Charles Edward Rea: These are supplements of the main items which have passed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: This is a general item?


Charles Edward Rea: That is correct.


Douglas Mason Fisher: On this item we can open up a complete and full discussion of the workings of the department and its activities; is that correct?
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, on this item I should like to make a suggestion to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), and I hope he will be able to follow it up.
During the 1957 session, if I remember well, we voted about $57 million for improvements in Montreal harbour, in order to increase facilities following the development of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Now, I think that at great seaports throughout the world, some thought has been given not only to the economic and strictly utilitarian features but also to the human aspect of those ports.
I think that in the Montreal harbour, the economic aspect has been looked after in accordance with actual requirements.
The time has come to consider the human aspect, and this is the point I wish to make.
When you go down to the Montreal harbour-I like to do so occasionally on week ends-you are looked upon as an intruder and at every turn you are in fear of being asked "What are you doing here?"
I submit that Montreal harbour should be more inviting to Montreal residents and tourists, and I think that we ought to go into this aspect of the problem for a few moments.
I think that, with a little imagination, an access could be provided at the foot of Pius IX boulevard for Montrealers and the tourists who wish to admire the natural beauty of the port of the metropolis and breathe a bit of fresh air.
1 think it would be advisable at this time, while preserving the economic aspect of the port, to use a few hundred feet of land for a miniature park where Montrealers, especially those who have no summer homes out in the country, could go with their children on week ends, and find some playground equipment and listen to music.

Benches could be placed there for the use of strollers who wish to rest and watch the coining and going of the ships.
A bit of greensward would fit in nicely too.
I think that if the minister referred this suggestion to a landscape engineer, Montreal harbour could be made more colourful and would add to the enjoyment of all who would go there to spend a quiet hour or two. In addition, as I said, it would be a first rate tourist attraction.
Thus, everybody, especially on week ends, could go there for a bit of fresh air and relaxation in restful surroundings.
(Text):


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, usually on this subject I cover what is a favourite topic of mine, the matter of railway maintenance and the standard of service provided, particularly at the Ottawa union station. I have been dissatisfied with the service at the station for a good many years, but I do not intend to regale hon. members for too long today. In all fairness I must say that there has been some improvement during the last year at the Ottawa union station. Whether that was brought about by the criticism that was made I do not know, but when you arrive at the station by train now the train is broken up so that you do not have to walk quite so far.
That is a decided improvement, but there is room for a lot more improvement. There is the matter of unloading freight from baggage cars when a train arrives in the station. No doubt passengers getting off cars are kept in good shape through having to duck the motorized lorries that travel up and down the platforms. I suppose that the expediting of the movement of freight is involved, but passengers do get mixed up with the odd refrigerator or radio or box of fruit when it is in season. They become alert in ducking these lorries, and they have to; because the operators do not have any consideration for the passengers who have to get out of the road.
Sometimes I wonder whether all this rush to expedite the movement of freight is necessary. I took the trouble to find out why they had to unload the freight in such a hurry and dispose of it. I followed one of these lorries to find out where it went, and all it did was go from track 2 to track 6 and put the freight on another baggage car for shipment. I though an improvement could have been made by putting the second baggage car alongside the first one, because then they could make a really good job of transferring the freight. I still cannot fathom why they do this. I suppose they consider it is their
Supply-Transport
own business, but after a while maybe they will get around to making some improvement.
The other thing I should like to talk about is what has been referred to as punitive deferral of maintenance. Maintenance is deferred with the result that a certain amount of punishment is probably suffered later. I should like to know how far that practice has gone. I wish to know because last fall and winter a series of very serious accidents occurred, and that is where the question of punitive deferral comes into the picture. Maintenance staffs have been reduced and proper inspection is not being made of rails. Washouts have taken place resulting in a number of appalling accidents.
Have the reduction in staff and punitive deferral had anything to do with this situation? A good many employees of the railway, some now retired but some still connected with it, suggest this is one of the reasons the railway is not operating to the best of its ability, and the reason these accidents take place. A lot of people may say there is no relationship whatever, but the very fact that there have been washouts indicates that there has not been proper inspection. Therefore I suggest that the railways should give a satisfactory explanation of the reason these washouts occurred last year resulting in so many appalling accidents.


Mr. Herridge:: Mr. Chairman, I have been very restrained this morning and have contented myself so far with listening with interest to the remarks of other hon. members. But seeing that the gates to the avenue of general debate have now been opened by the introduction of an administration item under the supplementary estimates I am going to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the house a matter that is of serious concern to my constituents. I do so because on the main administration item I discussed the matter briefly but failed to evoke any response from the minister. I bring the matter to his attention again.
I refer to passenger service on the Kettle valley railway. I simply want to read a very brief editorial and then ask the minister a question. Everyone in the house knows that I never get up and waste time but always deal with something that is of importance with relation to policy or that affects my constituents. The editorial is from the Nelson Daily News of Saturday, March 12, 1960. It is entitled "Hammer at Rail Problem"-I have been trying to do that for some years-and reads as follows:
One outcome of the creation of boards seems to be that the government can use them to evade responsibility. In a reply to Mr. H. W. Herridge, member for Kootenay West, Mr. Hees, the Minister of Transport, said that neither he nor the

Supply-Transport
British Columbia government had the authority to order a resumption of a daily passenger service on the Kootenay valley railway between Nelson and Vancouver.
This leaves the citizens of this area in the unhappy position of having to continue with a totally inadequate rail service until such a time as the board of railway transport decides the matter. In other words, we in the Kootenays are entirely at the mercy of a board over which no one, not even parliament, has any control. Our only recourse seems to be to keep bombarding the transport board with our complaints.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I made some representations in connection with this question, which is of serious concern to the people of southeastern British Columbia, and failed to get any response from the minister, which was quite unusual. Usually he is quite ready to reply; in fact he has replied on a number of occasions to much more inconsequential questions than I posed. Is the editorial correct in stating that "our only recourse seems to be to keep bombarding the transport board with our complaints"?


George Harris Hees: Yes, this is a matter wholly within the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then the minister admits he can do nothing to assist us as Minister of Transport for Canada?


George Harris Hees: I have done everything I possibly can. I have drawn the matter to the attention of all the people I can, and that is as far as I can go.


Mr. Campbell (Stormont):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to bring up a few matters concerning the St. Lawrence seaway and the present sad state of the Cornwall canal. My reservations about the St. Lawrence seaway and my solicitude for the present Minister of Transport, who has the unenviable job of making it work efficiently, are well known. I have the greatest admiration for the present minister, who has met emergency after emergency with unfailing courage, imagination and ability. He and his colleagues are performing prodigies of technical efficiency in keeping the seaway working as well as it does.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Did the minister write that speech?


Grant Campbell: My resentment against those who were responsible for depriving my home town of the canal which flowed by its doors for over 100 years is also well known. The hon. member for Laurier, in his capacity as former minister of transport and former member for Stormont, several months ago had the temerity to tell the people of Cornwall that our city was on the seaway
(Mr. Herridge.]
because of some dredging nearby. What monumental cynicism. What kind of seaway is it that has a canal which ends in a concrete wall 80 feet high?
If anybody has any illusions about Cornwall still being on the seaway, one has only to compare the premises of the Cornwall canal with the premises of the Eisenhower lock or even the condition of the Cornwall canal some years ago. The banks of the Cornwall canal are now almost a garbage dump where they used to be a park. The Cornwall canal is now a stagnant backwater where it used to be an international waterway, a window on the world. Before the Cornwall canal was abandoned in favour of the Chevrier waterway it was possible to keep the premises in far better condition. I would still urge the minister, in the interests of employment in the area and the beauty of Cornwall, that more be done to preserve and maintain the canal, even though it is no longer a waterway that is vital to trade.
The hon. member for Laurier appears to have an uneasy conscience as a result of the damage done to Cornwall by the construction of the St. Lawrence seaway locks on the United States side, because several days ago he brought up in this house the matter of pollution in the Cornwall canal about which I had already communicated with the departmental officials. I welcome his interference in my constituency, because I think it is highly commendable that he should endeavour to remedy the ravages done by the seaway. I fear, however, that he may be ignoring his new friends in Laurier, though at least they have the consolation that he is not now in a position, as an ordinary member, to do the same damage as he would be if he were a minister.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Grant Campbell: I am proceeding further.


Charles Edward Rea: I would hope the hon. member will come back to the item.


Grant Campbell: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would strongly urge the minister to ignore any recommendations that the Cornwall canal be closed. It would be disastrous if Cornwall were deprived of what is left of the Cornwall canal. Many men with long service in the Department of Transport would be deprived of their jobs, and the access for occasional ships going to one of Cornwall's most flourishing industries would be cut off if the remainder of the canal were closed.
However, may I suggest that a study be made to see whether it would be desirable to drain a small branch of the Cornwall canal

that was used to service the cotton mills. This particular small branch of the canal is the area which is most subject to pollution. The draining of this part of the canal might eliminate a serious health hazard. It would also provide additional land in the area, and undoubtedly would tremendously enhance the value of property purchased by the Cornwall industrial development corporation. If necessary a new water intake could be provided from the main channel of the Cornwall canal.
There are several fine beaches in the Ontario parks system west of the city, and two large swimming pools are expected to be built in the near future. The question of facilities for swimming, therefore, will not be as urgent shortly as it has been in the past. Another casualty of the seaway is the many cottages on Hamilton's island and Stonehouse point, whose wharves and water facilities have been destroyed by the wash from deep-sea vessels using the narrow channel at excessive speeds.
I have brought this matter to the attention of the department on numerous occasions, and have had several delegations up to investigate it. As a consequence a speed limit has been imposed in this area, and it has done much to remedy the situation. However, occasionally some irresponsible cowboy of a shipmaster ignores the regulation and floods these cottages, causing tremendous damage to the people in the area. I think it is essential, therefore, that some sort of radar device, such as is used by the provincial police on various highways, should be installed in order to impose a check on all vessels using this channel. In this way the owners, masters and, even more important perhaps, the pilots who were guilty of contravening this speed regulation could be severely disciplined.
I have two other brief suggestions to make. The first is of immediate, vital importance, and the other is a more long range proposition which concerns the whole country. I would ask the minister that the $50,000 in the supplementary estimates provided for engineering studies for permanent harbour installations west of Cornwall be used for the immediate construction of modest docking facilities at the site of the Canadian Cottons mill, which was recently acquired by the Cornwall industrial development corporation for rental space for new industry. If space were provided merely for one ship to berth it would be a tremendous inducement to new industry. It would enhance the significance of this purchase of the cotton mill by the industrial development corporation, and would increase the possibility of Cornwall developing new industry as a substitute for the labour loss when the seaway 79951-0-302
Supply-Transport
came in and also as a result of the loss of the cotton mill in the area. This is a matter, as I say, which would be of immediate benefit to many people.
I might say, also, that a thorough brief on this matter has been prepared by the industrial corporation, and I expect that shortly the members of that corporation will be able to come before the department and give full details. Even a jetty projecting out into the 27-foot channel sufficiently large to allow one ship to dock prior to proceeding south and west through the United States Snell and Eisenhower locks would be of great benefit. Not only would it replace some of the docking space which has disappeared and be an additional facility for industry, but it would help to develop an increased traffic pattern in the area which would hasten the day when large harbour developments would be economically possible in Cornwall.
I come now to the last matter. If the St. Lawrence seaway was the greatest engineering feat of the century, it contained one of the greatest engineering blunders of all time. As the Welland canal had already reached capacity or just about reached capacity, to construct the St. Lawrence seaway without increasing the capacity of the Welland canal was very similar to increasing the size of a bottle without increasing the size of the neck of the bottle. If the seaway tonnage begins to approach expectations even the minor surgery performed on the flanks of the Welland canal and the increased use of larger bottoms will not prevent congestion.
When the time arrives, therefore, for serious consideration of twinning the Welland canal I would urge the minister to conduct a thorough survey of the possibility of using the old Trent-Severn system as an alternative. If a line is drawn from the head of lake Superior and is prolonged through Sault Ste Marie to the seaway, it roughly parallels the old Trent-Severn canal route-


Charles Edward Rea: Order; it being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Grant Campbell: As I was saying before lunch, Mr. Chairman, despite the tremendous efforts of the minister and his department in increasing the capacity at the Welland canal and despite the increasing use of larger bottomed and greater capacity ships the time will undoubtedly soon arrive,

Supply-Transport
if the seaway tonnage is to meet expectations, when it will be necessary to give serious consideration to twinning the Welland canal. At that time I would urge the minister that a thorough study be made of the possibility of using the Trent-Severn canal system as an alternative.
If a line is drawn from the head of lake Superior through Sault Ste. Marie and projected eastward it roughly parallels the old Trent-Severn canal route from Georgian bay to the bay of Quinte. This historic waterway is approximately 800 miles shorter than the more roundabout southerly route. Not only would it be shorter, but this alternative route would be all-Canadian and its use would revitalize the fine old logging communities in this area. Part of this area, like the historic old eastern district of Ontario, has not enjoyed the prosperity that is so evident in the rest of Ontario. The economy has gone sour and every effort should be made to sweeten it for both of them.
Instead of spending the astronomical sums required on a second Welland canal the adoption of this route would hasten the day when our dreams of an all-Canadian seaway would be realized and would do a great deal both for this particular area and for the area immediately to the east of it, namely my own area of Stormont.


Lionel Chevrier: I had no intention of speaking on this item again, Mr. Chairman, because I took part in the debate earlier. Were it not for the remarks made by the hon. member for Stormont-the distinguished hon. member for Stormont, I shall call him-I would not have entered this debate. The hon. member has said that one of the greatest engineering blunders of all time was the St. Lawrence seaway.


Grant Campbell: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, may I say that is not what I said? I said it was a great engineering feat which included a monumental blunder.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants to correct himself and say that it is a monumental blunder, that is all right; I will accept a correction. I am sure, however, that the Minister of Transport does not agree with him. I have read most of the speeches on the seaway made by the Minister of Transport and those associated with this great project and they certainly do not support or confirm the view of the hon. member for Stormont.
However, my hon. friend is perhaps annoyed at the fact that the other day I rose to bring before the House of Commons a matter which affected the constituency of Stormont which I represented in this House of Commons, for years, namely the present stagnation and

pollution of the waters of the Cornwall canal, a matter to which the minister very amiably agreed to give careful consideration. The hon. member for Stormont probably takes umbrage at that fact. When I feel that the constituency of Stormont or any other constituency requires the services of myself or of some hon. member of the House of Commons on this side, I intend to rise in my place in this chamber and make myself heard, no matter what any other hon. member thinks. I think that is clearly the duty of any hon. member of the opposition.
Prior to the luncheon recess the hon. member for Stormont indicated in efEect that I had sold the constituency down the river. His colleague who sat next to him, namely the hon. member for St. Jacques, in a speech which he delivered in this house last year, said that the city of Montreal, because of my presidency of the St. Lawrence authority, received nothing and that everything went to the city of Cornwall. He referred particularly to two bridges that were being built by the St. Lawrence seaway authority as well as a great deal of other navigational work that was being done in that area. Both of those statements cannot be true. The truth probably lies midway between the two.
However, the hon. member for Stormont rose in order to deal with a point about which he forgot to speak. I intend to deal with that matter at this time, namely the fact that there has been a considerable reduction in the flow of the river through the present Cornwall canal. The velocity of the water going through the Cornwall canal has been reduced to about one thirtieth, according to an article which appeared in the Cornwall Standard-Freeholder of June 7 of this year. I wish to quote just one short paragraph from it. It states as follows:
Before construction of the power project, flow of water through the canal has been estimated at 2,950 cubic feet per second. Now only 290 cubic feet per second flow through the valve in the closure structure at the lake St. Lawrence dike.
There appeared in the local Cornwall paper a series of photographs. One shows the picture of the stagnation at Mack's bridge, a swimming hole which young children and youngsters enjoyed for many years. Another picture which appeared on May 31 shows the slimy substance which coats the top of the near stagnant water on the Cornwall canal.
I now show those two pictures to the minister. They may have been brought to his attention already. However, all this goes to indicate that there is not enough velocity of water in the Cornwall canal. A serious problem of pollution is arising. The stagnation of water is a matter of seriousness to

the health of the citizens. I think there is a solution to this problem. If the hon. member for Stormont had been a little bit more careful about what he said and had been a little more studious in connection with the nature of the problem in the area, I think instead of attacking me he would have directed his attention to this problem to which I now intend to direct my attention. I think it is the solution to the problem which has befallen the city of Cornwall at this time.
In 1951 an application was made by the government of Canada and the government of the United States to the international joint commission for the development of power in the international section at Cornwall. At that time the Canadian government agreed to build all the canals on the Canadian side of the line. If that work had been done, this problem, of course, would not have arisen. It was not until 1954, after the United States had passed the Wiley-Dondero Act, instructing a United States agency to build all the canals on the United States side of the line, that in July and August in 1954 there was a meeting in Ottawa of representatives of the Canadian and United States governments, and it was then decided that Canada would build a canal and one lock on the Canadian side at Iroquois and that the United States would build a canal and two locks on the United States side of the line opposite Cornwall.
At that time there was an agreement between Canada and the province of Ontario whereby Ontario was to build and maintain 14-foot navigation facilities. When this agreement was brought about there was, therefore, no longer -any obligation on the part of the province of Ontario to fulfil that covenant. However, because of negotiations which took place later between the federal authorities and the authorities of the province of Ontario it was agreed that Ontario Hydro would build a structure in the dike which would be in preparation for future 27-foot facilities on the Canadian side of the line, which are now completed.
It is now that I come to what I think is the solution to the problem that besets the people of Cornwall. Meetings were held by the international joint commission all over the province of Ontario, the province of Quebec and the state of New York to hear objections and protests over the development of these power facilities in the international section. One of these meetings took place in Cornwall on July 25, 1952, and following that and many other meetings held by the international joint commission that commission made an order of approval which approved of the whole project.
79951-0-302J
Supply-Transport
I would just like to read the pertinent part of that order which is dated October 29, 1952; it is a public document and can be seen by anyone. The pertinent part reads as follows:
Now, therefore, it is ordered that the construction, maintenance and operation jointly by The Hydro-Electric Power Commission of Ontario and an entity to be designated by the government of the United States of America of certain works (hereinafter called "the works") in accordance with the "controlled single stage project (238-242)", which was part of the joint report dated 3 January, 1941, of the Canadian Temporary Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Basin Committee and the United States St. Lawrence Advisory Committee, containing the features described in appendix "A" to this order and shown in appendix "B" to this order, be and the same are hereby approved subject to the conditions enumerated below, namely,
(a)	All interests on either side of the international boundary which are injured by reason of the construction, maintenance and operation of the works shall be given suitable and adequate protection and indemnity in accordance with the laws in Canada or the constitution and the laws in the United States respectively, and in accordance with the requirements of article VIII of the treaty.
So if there has been a reduction in the velocity of the water in the Cornwall canal then the remedy lies right there. In this order of approval the international joint commission makes it quite clear that all parties affected on either side of the line by the construction and the operation of the project should receive proper and suitable protection and indemnity.
That is the first clause, but it is to the second clause that I would like to direct the attention of the committee, and more particularly the attention of the hon. member for Stormont so that he can protect the interests of his constituents after hearing this clause read. The international joint commission in the second paragraph of its order stated:
(b)	The works shall be so planned, located, constructed, maintained and operated as not to conflict with or restrain uses of the waters of the St. Lawrence river for purposes given preference over uses of water for power purposes by the treaty, namely, uses for domestic and sanitary purposes and uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation, and shall be so planned, located, constructed, maintained and operated as to give effect to the provisions of this order.
Therein, lies the remedy of those who complain and complain rightfully of the fact that in the Cornwall canal there has been this reduction in the velocity of the water, that there has been this stagnation and pollution of the water, and that there has been this situation which should not exist.
My suggestion, notwithstanding the very kind offer of the minister to give this consideration, is that he be so good as to bring this matter immediately to the attention of the international joint commission. When I

Supply-Transport
spoke the other evening I did not know that the section under which I spoke would have been reached so early; otherwise I would have brought this with me. But it seems to me that with the international joint commission lies the remedy. The international joint commission made the order approving of the project but subject to the protection of the rights of the local people, the rights particularly of navigation. They are clearly set out in this order and they cannot be ignored. It seems to me that if those representations are brought to the attention of the international joint commission they will be given immediate consideration.
However, if perchance they are not then I would suggest that those groups and interests in the city of Cornwall who are interested, and I am sure most of them are, need only make a public application to the international joint commission and the commission will I am sure do in 1960 what it did in 1952, that is go down to the court house in the city of Cornwall and listen to the representations which will be made. In the light of this document it is quite clear to me that there should be no difficulty about solving the problem of the proper velocity of water going through the canal in the city of Cornwall.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I admit I do not know much, if anything, about the difference of opinion between the previous speaker and the hon. member for Stormont. However, I do appreciate the opportunity which has been given by this administration vote under these estimates to raise a matter which is of great interest to myself, as a member of this house from British Columbia, and a matter of grave concern to Victoria and Vancouver. I would be very appreciative if the minister could give us a picture and an understanding of the allocation of shipbuilding contracts which come under the jurisdiction of his department.
In both the first world war and the second world war the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia was of prime and major importance. From my attendance at meetings of other committees I have learned that the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production feel that the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia and its potentialities are still of major importance to them. Therefore, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Defence Production do have a policy, small as it may be, of letting contracts on the coast.
I am most interested in learning the attitude of the minister toward the construction of vessels under his jurisdiction. I want to be exceedingly fair, as I hope I always am.

During the past few months I have received a great many letters from the unions in Victoria and Vancouver which are connected with the shipbuilding industry making certain points and putting forward certain facts. Having received those letters I felt it was my responsibility to contact certain shipbuilding firms in British Columbia and I want to express my gratitude now for the comprehensiveness of the replies I received from those firms.
As I said, I wish to be fair, so I will point out that I was informed by one of the shipbuilding concerns in British Columbia that over the years prices quoted on tenders have been between 12 and 20 per cent higher than those of shipyards in eastern Canada. The shipyard operators in British Columbia also point out that there are various problems to be considered, one of them being the wage rate in British Columbia. Using the figures which have been supplied to me it appears that a joiner's rate at a shipbuilding yard in Quebec is $1.86 an hour; at Canadian Vickers Limited it is $1.91, while in Victoria and Vancouver it is $2.50. In addition, the shipbuilders in British Columbia point out that they are up against the problem of freight rates on steel and other material which must be sent from eastern Canada to British Columbia.
However, I also wish to draw this to the minister's attention that my information has been confirmed that at the time of the construction of the latest destroyer escort in a British Columbia yard it was stated by a high official in Ottawa that the man-hour production record for construction was the finest in all Canada. So here is the position: the British Columbia yards have the highest wages in Canada, and I would most certainly not recommend that they be lowered; they are up against the problem of additional freight costs for steel and various components which have to be moved across Canada. Then, again, they hold, according to the record, the most productive man-hour rate in Canada. We must also consider that according to the Minister of National Defence and according to the policy of the Department of Defence Production it is in the interest of Canada both in war and in peace that the shipyard industry of British Columbia should be maintained.
In view of this I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether it is always his policy with regard to the construction of ships, ferries, dredgers or anything else that comes under his control, that the lowest tender should be accepted, or is consideration given to an over-all plan connected with the maintenance of shipbuilding, repair

and construction yards in Victoria and Vancouver? Would the minister be good enough to inform this committee and the members of all parties what the policy of his department is in this regard? Is consideration given to the special situation of British Columbia and, if so, what preference is given, and on what policy basis is it established?


George Harris Hees: We build our ships by tender and award our contracts under the best tender we receive. Our shipbuilding orders are open to any bidder in Canada. If we have a number of ships to build-and on one occasion I think we had six ships building- we may call tenders in various localities in Canada and restrict the tender calls to those areas to try to give all the areas of Canada a chance. Generally speaking, however, we adhere to the tender principle and our contracts are awarded on that basis.


Harold Edward Winch: It was my understanding that the Department of Transport operates on the basis of the lowest tender. I want to protect the taxpayer just as much as the government does, but we must also maintain a shipbuilding industry on the coast. Does the minister give any consideration, in connection with the awarding of contracts, to the additional cost required to maintain that industry in British Columbia in the interest, as I said before, of having a shipbuilding industry both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coast in war and peace? Does that play any part in the minister's decision as to the allocation of contracts?


George Harris Hees: As I explained, we do not allocate contracts; we call for bids and award the contract to the lowest bidder. However, when a ship is required solely for the west coast we do restrict our tender calling to the west coast, thereby giving west coast shipyards the opportunity to bid.


Mr. Van Horne:: I have only four or five little poijrts I wish to make this afternoon. First of all, I want to congratulate the minister on certainly being the greatest Minister of Transport this country has ever known.
I may say the Canadian National Railways in the maritime provinces, and in my particular area, have been in some instances improving their equipment and service. They have also brought down freight rates in some instances to the point where they can now compete with water transport. It was gratifying to note the other day that the steel required for the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge was brought to Campbellton cheaper by rail than it could have been brought by water.
However good may have been the results of the government's new policies in some
Supply-Transport
areas, I have in my riding certain very definite complaints. If all the people in my riding were happy with the C.N.R. I would tell you so. They are not all happy with the C.N.R., and I feel it is also my duty to tell you why. Just the other day the board of transport commissioners approved the cancellation of the service on 11.6 miles of rail from Connors to Clair. This was done by the board of transport commissioners in spite of the fact that we were able to show at the hearing the business on those 11.6 miles of road had increased 50 per cent per year each year in the last three years. This was done also in spite of the fact that the C.N.R., once it decided to cancel service on those 11.6 miles of track, immediately stopped maintenance of the line without having gone before the board to know whether their request would be accepted. In other words, I think in some places the C.N.R. is trying to use the board of transport commissioners as a rubber stamp, and I think in some instances the board goes along with that practice.
I think it was wrong to cancel service on that line, especially in view of the fact that you have a rail line down near a steel mill near Newcastle which cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $21 million, and it is not in use at the moment. The only use that ever was made of it was to run a few trains down there for the benefit of the public relations department of the C.N.R. In spite of that you have the rail line from Connors to Clair that was built in 1890 and has been in operation for 70 years and in the past three years has shown an increase in traffic of 50 per cent a year, but is no longer in operation. Our people are not happy over the cancellation of service over this line. They have come to depend on that service. I know one furniture factory in particular which is dependent on that particular line to get its furniture from the factory down to the main depot in Edmundston where it can be shipped. This is one complaint.
The next complaint, of course, has to do with the cancellation of train services from Edmundston. I hold in my hand a resolution from the city of Edmundston. This is a very serious resolution. The city expresses itself in very clear language and it is signed by the mayor, Mr. H. E. Marmen, and the city clerk, Mr. Thomas Guerrette. The resolution reads in part:
And whereas, In addition to travelling to Riviere du Loup by automobile or bus being inconvenient to the residents of Edmundston and surrounding area, it is quite probable and practically certain that on several occasions during the winter months it would be impossible for them to travel to and from Riviere du Loup due to storms and the condition of the roads.

Supply-Transport
Therefore, when we cancel a rail service in the maritime provinces, especially in northern New Brunswick where I happen to live, which encompasses the constituency I represent, it should not be done on the same principles and on the same bases as services are cancelled elsewhere in Canada because we have nothing else to replace it. We do not have an airport in all northern New Brunswick that could be used in an emergency. When you cancel the rail service from Ed-mundston to Riviere du Lqpp you put the people of that area at the mercy of the elements, and in many instances very serious consequences can result from the fact that people cannot get to hospitals, cannot get to specialists, and cannot get the services they pay for. In many instances that service is absolutely needed.
I say it is wrong to take any one particular line and say that because it is not profitable we are going to cancel it. Consideration should be given to the fact that in areas such as mine it is impossible to substitute this service with anything that resembles the degree of speed at which people can get from one point to another on the service provided by the C.N.R.
Another thing I should like to bring up is the fact that the people in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, for instance-I happened to be down in that area the other day and one delegation came to me and said: "Why is it that we have to travel by car almost 20 miles to Campbellton in order to take the train to Montreal? We have to pay a taxi fare of $4, $5, $6 or $8, when only a few miles from Dalhousie there is a station at Eel River at which the train does not stop; only one mile away there is an excellent station where the train could stop."
I do feel that with this area of management coming into being in many areas of Canada, especially in areas like mine, where more responsibility is given to local superintendents in the various towns, the service will increase for the better. I feel that once they can make decisions at the local level the people will be freer to present their problems to the C.N.R. and get immediate and favourable answers to resolutions.
However, there are many complaints at the moment, and when town councils take the trouble to send resolutions to Ottawa-and I must say I appreciate very much the very prompt attention and answer the minister gave to this resolution when it got here- the fact still remains that our people are unhappy about this service, about the cancellation of the service, about the fact that trains are being cancelled. If this line were used and was not producing a certain amount

of revenue something could be said in favour of the policies of the C.N.R. The strange thing is that the C.N.R. does not have to go before the board if it merely curtails a service; it goes before the board if it means to do away with the service, as in the case of the Connors to Clair 11.6 miles of track.
For these reasons I feel the board of transport commissioners should be instructed that there should be a policy evolved and it should be made very clear that the board is not in position to cancel these things without taking every means to find out whether an alternate means of transportation will be available. The main purpose of railways away back at the time of confederation was to make sure that there would be transportation in Canada and that there would be a link between the east and the west.
At the time of confederation we had a natural advantage in the maritime provinces, namely cheap transportation by water. We lost that advantage when we joined confederation. We had to substitute that cheap transportation to our natural market in the West Indies and the New England states. We had to substitute that with rail because our markets were changed to central Canada, which did not prove to be successful for the industries of the maritime provinces.
Freight rates continue to be a crippling item in the maritime provinces, but I am very glad to see that the C.N.R. is at last taking some steps here to try to compete with truckers and with other modes of transportation. In some cases their rail rates are down to the point where they can compete today, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, with water transportation.
This makes the building of the Chignecto canal all the more important. If we go back in history we see that at the time of confederation it was very clearly understood by men like Sir Joseph Howe, and others who brought the maritime provinces into the Canadian confederation, that they were surrendering cheap transportation by water which could not be replaced by rail transportation. At that time the building of the Chignecto canal was more than a mere premise upon which our forefathers entered confederation. We have been waiting since 1867 for the canal. I certainly hope, in fact I know, that the studies in progress with regard to the canal will continue. I feel confident that a start will be made on building the canal next year. I certainly hope that nothing will stand in the way of building the Chignecto canal.
It is not good enough to expect the need to be present to the greatest possible degree before the service is provided. It is not reasonable for instance, to expect that a merchant

will have all his groceries on the sidewalk before he builds his store. It is not natural to expect that you will have at this time a full indication of all the traffic that the canal will carry. The need for the canal will become all the more apparent once it is built. It was a promise of confederation and it is something that we have been waiting for ever since.
I am very glad to say that the Campbellton-Cross Point bridge will be completed this year. The Chignecto canal will be built by some government sooner or later, and as the member of parliament from one of the constituencies of the maritime provinces I urge the government to be the one to build the canal. Why should we let another government take credit for the building of the canal? Why can we not realize that the canal has to be built soon or later? Let us do it now. Why further hold up the industrial progress of the maritime provinces?
This link between the bay of Fundy and Northumberland strait would mean a whole new era, a whole new trend in the industrial development of the lower end of the province of New. Brunswick. It would also mean cheap transportation by water. It would restore an advantage we had before confederation which was lost with confederation. I do not know of any party that is not in favour of the canal. I do not know of any member of parliament who is not in favour of the canal. I think we have an opportunity now to urge the government to proceed with the expenditure of the $100 million-odd that the building of the canal will require and build the canal now.
We have come to call the canal the Atlantic seaway, to be a natural adjunct to the St. Lawrence seaway. Truer words were never uttered. The Chignecto canal would be a natural continuation of the St. Lawrence seaway. You did not hear the maritime members oppose the building of the St. Lawrence seaway. We felt it was good for Canada. Let no member of the house oppose the building of the Chignecto canal, for it will also be for the benefit of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Yes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the course of his rare visits to the house did he ever notice the fact that the hon. member for Halifax has opposed the building of the Chignecto canal with great violence?


Mr. Henderson:: Mr. Chairman-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: May I answer the question?
Supply-Transport


Charles Edward Rea: Will the hon. member for Cariboo allow the hon. member to answer?


Walter Clarence Henderson: Yes.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You know, Mr. Chairman, it is only when I look at the hon. jack-in-the-box, the member for Bonavista-Twillingate, that I realize why Mackenzie King went across an ocean to get his advice from the ghosts. I was impressed the other day in watching a television program on which a lady from England said that she had tuned in to Mackenzie King.


Harold Edward Winch: Answer the question.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I suggest that the hon. member get tuned in to Mackenzie King. I have no doubt that there may be some partisan interests, possibly in Halifax, who would hinder the progress of the whole country by asking the government to apply partisan considerations to a national need. What if the government had listened to partisan considerations in the case of the St. Lawrence seaway? It would never have been built. It may be that a member of parliament may feel that the Chignecto canal would hurt the port of Halifax. I do not think the Chignecto canal will hurt any port in Canada, any more than the building of the year-round port at Dalhousie, which the minister will open in two months' time, will hinder business in the ports of Halifax and Saint John. One of the things we are going to do is to run a line from Bonavista-Twillingate to Dalhousie to make sure that from now on the hon. member gets proper information.
I think it is wrong for members like the hon. member who asked me this question to try to put stumbling blocks in the way of the building of the canal. I dare anyone in the house, especially the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, to get up and say he is opposed to the Chignecto canal. The needs of the maritime provinces are far greater than the little insinuations that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate inserts into this discussion. If I had been in Nova Scotia you can be sure I would have been attending the funeral of the Liberal party, for it was a funeral.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I want to make it very clear that my position as to the Chignecto canal is on the record publicly. It is that the earliest possible study should be made of the economic and other aspects of the canal with a view to constructing it for the Atlantic provinces if it can be done.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: If it can be done. It has got to be done.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. member could stay in his seat and not be jumping up and down. I might add that I spend practically every day that the house is in session in my place in the house defending the Atlantic provinces.


Walter Clarence Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a question-well, it is a statement, not a question-to the Minister of Transport concerning the airport at Dawson Creek, British Columbia. This airport is 45 miles from Fort St. John and 85 miles from Grande Prairie. I have had the assurance that one airstrip would be paved and I want to know what progress has been made. In this part of Canada there are no children going to school hungry. It is in the heart of the oil country and the power project at Hudson Hope will bring thousands of people into the area. The Northern Alberta railway has curtailed the number of trips per week. Apparently the passenger business was not paying. I know that I rode back once and there were only three or four passngers on the train. If you want to get home in a hurry you have got to go by airplane. A large number of airplanes are based at Dawson Creek. They belong to the oil companies which are engaged in work there. We have just finished a $2 million hospital there which relies on airplane transportation to bring patients in and take them out. What progress is being made?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Chairman, I will try to remember the correspondence we have had with the municipality concerned. As I recall, the last correspondence was a letter from me to the municipality suggesting that they make a proposition to us to enter into a cost-sharing program for building this airstrip. I should like to check the file but I do not think I have had an answer from the municipality since that time.
As the hon. member knows, we are very inxious and willing to co-operate with the municipality in every possible way. I know very well the tremendous interest that the hon. member for Cariboo has taken in this matter. He has been to see me about it on a great many occasions. He has brought the matter very fully to my attention, and I congratulate him on being a first-class example of a good member of parliament looking after his constituency. I can assure him that we will continue to pursue this matter with the municipality. I will look up the correspondence. As I say, as I remember, we asked them to submit a proposition to us so that we could examine it with regard to a cost-sharing scheme.


Walter Clarence Henderson: I believe they acceded to your request. I think you have a letter in your file.


George Harris Hees: If I have I will certainly go to work on it right away. If there has been any delay, I am sorry, because it is not fair to the hon. member. He has pushed this thing so hard, and he is doing such a good job for his constituency that I would not like to slow down the progress he has made since becoming a member.


Mr. Granger:: I have spoken once, Mr. Chairman, so I will not occupy much time. There is one problem that my district has to which I would ask the minister to give serious consideration, and that is the length of the operational season for Canadian National steamships in Newfoundland. I speak particularly, of course, of my own riding, northern Newfoundland and Labrador. The situation, briefly, is this: Around the end of the year, most of the boats have discontinued operations and in the spring it is usually around May 1 before the Canadian National coastal steamer service resumes operations. In some years, such- as this year, the season is further advanced before the boats can operate. I realize that this is the result of climatic conditions over which we have very little control, and that the servicing of the northern seaports during the winter months will always be a problem.
However, I should like to point out here that a good many of these northern Newfoundland and Labrador communities are entirely dependent upon the Canadian National coastal steamship service for receiving food and supplies as well as the carriage of passengers. These people have to put in their winter supplies and hope that they have made sufficient provisions to carry them over until spring. As I said, this is because of the climatic conditions over which we have little control. Fortunately today we do have some control over ice conditions about which, at one time, it would have been impossible to do anything. I refer to the use of icebreakers to supplement the Canadian National coastal service.
I should like to say right here that the icebreaker service in Newfoundland has been such that I have every reason to say, and to believe, that whenever the services of an icebreaker are required in northern Newfoundland the minister's department has given prompt and sympathetic consideration to that need. I know, too, that I am leaving myself open to a charge that as soon as we get one improved service we want an additional service. I am afraid that is true, but that is progress. I should like the minister to look into

the possibility of supplementing the Canadian National coastal service with icebreakers so as to lengthen the period during which the Canadian National coastal ships could operate in northern Newfoundland each year.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to look into that. I should like to say to the hon. member that there is nothing wrong in his request for more and more service. He is simply doing a job and being a good member of parliament. We will look into it.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have been waiting for quite some time to say a few words on item 415 with regard to the inspection of life-saving equipment. I have to leave in a few minutes to attend to a matter in my office, but I think I am in order in saying a few words now. As usual, I speak from experience and not only from academic knowledge of the question.
I have always been particularly interested in the development of life-saving equipment and safety on the water. I will tell you why. A good many years ago I was, in effect, drowned. I was on a boat that sprang a leak and sank under me, along with some other people who were on board, in the middle of a very large lake. At that time I could not swim. The seams in the bottom of the boat opened up quite unexpectedly. I shall never forget the incident because I have relived those minutes often over the years. After the first few minutes drowning was not an unpleasant experience. It was like being lulled into oblivion by listening to hon. members opposite reading their speeches. Fortunately someone on the shore saw what was happening and came out with another boat. I was rescued by Mr. Dan McLean, who had me taken to shore. After the application of artificial respiration for about 30 minutes I was brought back to consciousness.
I trust everyone will realize my interest in this subject since that time. The interesting side of the story, Mr. Chairman, is that Mr. Dan McLean was president of the West Kootenay Liberal association and the Liberal candidate in the election of 1945. I defeated him, and that is how I showed my gratitude to him for his kindness. However, I can truthfully say that I owe the most precious thing, my life, to a prominent member of the Liberal party and I give full credit to him for that.
I noticed that this subject was mentioned previously during the debate. I mention it, first of all, because of my own particular interest and also because a number of groups in my constituency, launch clubs and boat clubs, organizations of that type, are anxious to see water safety measures improved and developed. In our district, and I presume it 79951-0-303
Supply-Transport
is the same in all other districts where waters are traversed by small craft, there has been a tremendous increase in the number of watercraft being used. There has been a great increase in speed, and there has been also an increase in inexperience because you get young people particularly, with no knowledge of the rules of the road, on the water and with no idea of how to operate a craft safely and properly. Some people drive these high-powered small craft at speeds of 30, 40 and in some cases even 50 miles an hour, past people in rowboats or other small craft with no idea of the consequences of their thoughtlessness.
I know the department has given considerable study to this question. I remember that in 1958 I received a letter from the very genial deputy minister informing me of a meeting that was to be held with respect to government approval of life-saving equipment for pleasure craft. The paragraph at the end of the letter reads:
Attached is a short resume of present departmental policy regarding construction, inspection, testing and design.
I presume that refers to the life-saving equipment. Unfortunately I was not able to attend. I would have been glad to attend because, as I say, I am very interested in this subject. There is attached to this letter a document dealing with approved life-saving equipment. This was in 1958. I just want to ask the minister this question: Has the policy of the department changed or have there been any changes since this document was sent to all members in 1958 with respect to the approval of life-saving equipment?
I have one or two other remarks to make. The people I represent have asked me particularly to mention this to the minister. They believe in the need for very strict regulations with respect to water traffic generally, particularly small craft, because it is there you often get inexperienced, unlicensed personnel as the operators. With the increase in size of small craft and the increase in power, we may be coming to a time when we shall find it necessary to have some sort of rudimentary examination to make certain that the people who use these fast vessels, particularly in crowded waters, know how to operate them safely, and that they have a thorough understanding of the needs with respect to life-saving equipment, including life preservers, fire extinguishers and things of that sort. Even today I am on the water quite a lot because I am very fond of the water-that is to ride on it. I have seen over and over again boats being operated without fire extinguishers, without life preservers and things of that sort by people

Supply-Transport
who do not understand the hazards of operating these small craft without these things.
The other matter I was going to bring to the attention of the minister is this. I have had a number of people who are interested in launch clubs and boat clubs and who are particularly interested in this question, say to me that a special effort should be made to have strict enforcement of the regulations covering this aspect of water traffic. I realize that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police do the best they can. They patrol areas at certain times. They inspect boats for their licences and things of that sort. I also know that they make periodical visits to outlying places where small craft are anchored or used in order to see that they are equipped with life savers, fire extinguishers and things of that sort. They do this to the best of their ability but they can do only so much. They have other duties to perform. You get small craft in considerable numbers operating at some distance from where officers of the R.C.M.P. are likely to be unless they were making a special trip on other business.
In view of the greatly increased traffic and the hazards that go with it, not only to operators of boats themselves and passengers but to people in other boats, I have been asked to suggest to the minister that he give consideration to arranging for special water police in co-operation with recognized organizations-they could be special police under the Royal Canadian Mounted Police-who could take certain rudimentary instruction from the local R.C.M.P. as to the law and regulations and would then be empowered to inspect boats and enforce the law with respect to small craft.
I think that could be done because we had the same sort of thing with respect to our forest service in British Columbia where we had honorary fire wardens and sometimes details of special police having the power and authority of police officers for certain purposes. I think this would be of great assistance in providing the extra personnel necessary, without compensation. I know people who would be willing to do this work and who would be greatly interested in it. At the same time you would secure the cooperation in every district from several groups, shall I say, of rank and file water people who are interested in water sports and water traffic and in the problem as it presents itself today and who consequently would be interested in co-operating with the department in seeing that the law was enforced, not from the point of view of fining offenders and punishing people but from the point of view of informing people and, shall I say, policing them to their advantage and for their own good.


George Harris Hees: In answer to the hon. member's question may I say that the regulations in force in 1958 are basically those that are in force today. There have been some improvements and modifications. We shall be glad to send along to the hon. member for Kootenay West information showing these changes that have been made.
As to the effort to promote safety on lakes and rivers and so on, I dealt with that matter quite extensively when my estimates were up for consideration the last day. I shall be glad to send' the hon. member the pamphlet we have produced entitled "Safety Afloat" and also all the other information we have on this matter showing the steps that are being taken and our efforts to co-operate with the provincial police, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and so on in order to achieve the end that he has very rightly said is a most important one.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just before the minister concludes, may I ask whether he will express his opinion on the suggestion that it might be worth while considering during the summer months having some sort of auxiliary organization in the form of special police under the supervision of the R.C.M.P. or provincial police to assist in the administration of the law and regulations?


George Harris Hees: I am advised that the R.C.M.P. and' the provincial police have been consulted on this very matter and that they are doing everything they possibly can in this regard to bring in the municipal police who, it appears, are the ones who would be best able to deal with this particular matter. We are working on this matter all the time. As I said the last time my estimates were up for consideration, we have yearly conferences with all parties interested in this matter. The suggestions the hon. member has made will certainly be taken into consideration when these matters are further discussed. I can give him that assurance.


Ernest James Broome: I do not want to take up too much time of the committee but, because of the speech made by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I think I should say a few words on shipbuilding. I believe the hon. member for Vancouver East was quite fair and reasonable in his remarks. However, it is an absolute fallacy to consider that the Canadian government can keep all of the shipyards in Canada under a full employment picture. There are just too many yards and there are not enough ships to be built. I believe the minister brought out the point that when there were a number of vessels to be constructed for his department tenders were called for those vessels by regions,

recognizing the necessity of maintaining ship repair facilities and drydock facilities both on the west coast and the east coast and in certain areas of the great lakes. I think that is a sound policy to follow. We must maintain these facilities and they cannot be maintained on repair work alone. I would therefore think that the principle of tender by area might well be considered even when there are not a number of vessels to be built.
But that procedure still will not solve the problem of just having too many yards. I wonder whether the minister might consider a suggestion that the Canadian maritime commission might review this problem with the idea of coming up with some plan for, let us say, the replacement of our rather considerable great lakes tonnage which is rapidly growing old, and which includes perhaps not the most efficient carriers in the world, and whereby some concessions similar to concessions made by other countries might be made so that a replacement program for these great lakes vessels might take place. This would relieve the pressures on the minister and on the government with regard to work for the great lakes yards and would then leave a problem mainly for the east and west coasts.
Further, the hon. member mentioned productivity. He was quite fair in pointing out the high labour rates that are paid on the west coast but as an offsetting factor there is a higher productivity figure. Not only were the number of man-hours lower on the last destroyer escort vessel than on any other destroyer escort vessel built in any other area in Canada but I have been informed that the actual cost in dollars and cents was among the lowest and stood up very closely with the best area. In fact, I was told that it was the lowest cost in dollars of the last few destroyer escorts. I cannot vouch for that fact; it is just what I was told.
I think the minister might also consider fire prevention, particularly in the port of Vancouver with the tremendous facilities and the high dollar value involved in the holdings of the national harbours board in that port. Through the national harbours board or through his own department some consideration might be given to underwriting some of the financial costs of this service which is being provided by the city alone, as far as I know, at the present time.


Harold Edward Winch: On the same point, if I may I should like to say a few words. I am grateful to the hon. member for Vancouver South for having brought us back to Vancouver which is wonderful. However, may I just conclude in this way by talking through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister? In this last 79951-0-303J
Supply-Transport
half hour I have been careful in analysing the remarks made or the answers given by the minister to the questions which I raised. It is now apparent to me that there is a differentiation between the policy of the Department of Defence Production and that of his own department in the allocation of contracts for construction or repair of ships, or mostly construction. As I mentioned, from all the information I received as a member of the House of Commons it appears that the Department of Defence Production, through or on behalf of the Department of National Defence, recognizes the essentiality of having a shipbuilding industry in Canada both on the Atlantic and the Pacific coasts.
I understand from the answers of the minister, which have been confirmed by the previous speaker and also by the city of Vancouver, that the policy of the Department of Transport is to allocate contracts on a reasonable basis to the lowest tender. There is a great deal to be said for that argument, but from my own point of view I would like to say that additional consideration should be given to the maintenance of the shipyards on the Pacific coast.
I have no hesitation in saying that it would be a calamity if the shipbuilding industry and repair facilities on the British Columbia coast were allowed to die. The previous speaker said I was fair in giving an analysis of the costs, and I quoted a most lengthy communication I have had from the shipbuilding industry in British Columbia. They find that as a rule they are somewhere in the neighbourhood of between 12 per cent and 20 per cent higher on a competitive tender.
What I have in mind in rising again is to say this. For the general good of Canada this government sees fit to grant subventions to the coal industry in the maritimes, and I am not raising objection to that. This government sees fit to give assistance to the gold mines of Canada, and I am not objecting to that. This government sees fit to grant aid running into millions to certain branches of agriculture, and I have never voted against that yet and I do not intend to. I contend that the maintenance of the shipbuilding industry of British Columbia is for the general welfare and good of Canada.
Because of certain circumstances whereby our shipbuilding companies in Victoria and Vancouver run approximately a minimum of 12 per cent higher, the policy of the government and of the minister's department should be to see that that shipbuilding industry is maintained. I hope that any work which may be undertaken while the present minister is in office will be undertaken not only in light of that fact but that through his department

Supply-Transport
he will see that the trained personnel we have in Vancouver and Victoria, in all fairness to the shipbuilding industry of Canada, are maintained.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise to discuss another matter at this point. I know time is getting on but I will try to be as short as possible. It has to do with the expressway which will cut through the city of Montreal.
Before the chairman calls me to order I must say at once how it is that I believe I am entitled to discuss this at this time. It is because this expressway, of which I hold in my hand the plans and description, will cut across the lands of Canadian National Railways at the Turcot yards, will go over the Lachine canal and will also require some overhead rights from the national harbours board along the St. Lawrence river. My only purpose in discussing it at this time is to give the house a summary of what it means to the city of Montreal and to ask the minister if he will not give consideration to one or other of the two matters which I want to bring to his attention at the end of my remarks.
"L'autostrade Est-ouest", or the east-west expressway of the city of Montreal, will be a modern route which will allow traffic to move through the central and the most dense part of Montreal in 20 minutes. It will extend from highway No. 2 linking Montreal and Toronto at Montreal west, right through the central and southern part of the city to Moreau and Notre Dame streets, a distance of 8.5 miles. It will be constructed on the ground in so far as the northern part of the C.N.R. at the Turcot yards is concerned for a distance of 2.3 miles, and for the rest of the distance, approximately 6 miles, it will be an overhead expressway. It will allow traffic to move rapidly in divided lanes at 50 miles per hour without traffic lights and it will have in some places six lanes and in others eight. It will have six lanes beginning from Montreal west to Atwater avenue and beginning at De Lorimier street to the intersection of Notre Dame and Moreau. It will have eight lanes from Atwater avenue to the Jacques Cartier bridge. There will be a number of access road connections with the two bridges, with Jacques Cartier bridge lower down and with the Champlain bridge now under construction.
This expressway will furnish modem facilities of entry and exit to commerce, to industry and to the warehouses of the city all along its course. It will facilitate, as I said, access to all the bridges which unite the island of Montreal to the south shore, and it will be a tremendous impetus to the development of

commerce in greater Montreal. It will also serve in a special manner the great port of Montreal all along its northern boundary. This artery will permit the uninterrupted movement of vehicular traffic which can move and travel at relatively fast speeds.
It will reduce congestion on the central sectors of the metropolitan area by assisting access highway circulation whose destination is not a central part of the city. The plans and the report I have in my hand were prepared by Messrs. Lalonde and Valois, the consulting engineers of Montreal, one of the most distinguished firms in the city, who have done work for this government and, I believe, for the former government. About their ability there can be not the slightest doubt.
There is a plan which I hold in my hand at the moment and which shows the beginning of this expressway shortly west of Brock avenue and thence along the line of Canadian National Railways crossing Notre Dame street into Cote St. Paul then back again on Notre Dame, with an access road to the St. Remi and Atwater tunnels, then following the southern part of the city of Montreal along Commissioner street and going over the property of the national harbours board to Moreau and Notre Dame streets.
This project is not new. I remember that when I held the position the minister now holds representations were made to me by the then chairman of the executive committee of the city of Montreal, not in respect of a project such as this, because it was then only in embryonic form. However, I was approached to ascertain what would be the view of the federal government in so far as federal property under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport was concerned, that is to say, the harbour of Montreal and the Lachine canal, which was not then under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. Of course, until it was possible to have a detailed plan, such as we have now, it was not possible for the government to outline its position.
That survey and plan has now been made public. It will mean a great deal to the city of Montreal, to its east-west traffic. Whether the construction will have any effect upon the metro system or not I am not competent to say, but I do know that because this expressway will affect three corporate entities of the federal government, the Department of Transport, which reports for these entities in the House of Commons, is keenly interested.
The cost of this project is $117,500,000 made up as follows: construction, $62,800,000; appropriation, demolition and other compensation, $34,200,000; approaches to Champlain

bridge and other works in connection therewith, $12,100,000; approaches to the Jacques Cartier bridge, etc. $8,400,000.
When this matter is determined-and it has not yet been determined, so I understand, by those interested-there is no doubt but that the minister and the government will be approached and there are two things that come to my mind now. The first is that in view of the tremendous cost of this scheme to the city of Montreal it may well be impossible for the city to build this without assistance, and I am wondering whether the minister could not give consideration to making a substantial contribution toward the construction thereof. The alternative is that if in the consideration of the Trans-Canada Highway Act the province of Quebec in its wisdom decided to make this expressway a part of the trans-Canada highway, it could then, by virtue of the provisions of that act, obtain a substantial contribution toward this construction.
The point I wish to make-and I want to make it as clearly as I can-is that this whole matter is not only of vital importance to the city of Montreal and to the metropolitan area but it is also of importance to the interests which the minister represents in this house-to the national harbours board over whose property this expressway will run; to the C.N.R., whose property will be taken in part for the construction, and to the Lachine canal now under the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
I believe some 30 or 35 acres of federal property will be involved in this project, and I invite the minister to give his earnest consideration to this proposal, which is of vital necessity to the city of Montreal.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The other day I was dealing with coastal shipping on the west coast. Just before I reached the completion of my time I made some slight reference to the question of subsidies and subventions made by the department to Union Steamships and, more lately, to the Northland Navigation Company. There was then an interjection in the form of a question by the hon. member for Vancouver South. I did not hear the remark very clearly at that time, but it was: "Will you go into the matter of their subsidies"? I understood the hon. member to mean, at that time, the subsidies to Northland Navigation, and I replied as reported on page 4497 of Hansard:
The amount is $294,000.
Then the hon. member for Vancouver South said:
One million dollars is what Union Steamships asked for.
Supply-Transport
Then, at that point, the chairman intervened to point out that my time had expired. I did not know the full amount of subvention or subsidy for which Union Steamships asked, but I understood it was in the neighbourhood of $600,000 or $700,000, plus an extra subvention which brought it close to $1 million. I know it was a substantial amount.
Union Steamships Limited, which had a virtual monopoly of coastal shipping for a number of years, has now been replaced by Northland Navigation Company which also has a virtual monopoly over coastal shipping on the west coast, although there are other competing firms which interest themselves in shipping by barge and freight but which are not in the business of providing passenger service to the up-coast points.
When the transitional period between the time that Union Steamships were operating under subvention and the time that Northland Navigation Company entered the picture and received a subvention, the department officials, the minister and the chairman of the Canadian maritime commission, then Mr. Odette, were extremely kind and arranged for the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who is also affected by this shipping problem on the west coast, and myself to sit down with them and go into quite a bit of detail, by the use of maps and other materials, and to point out in each of our respective districts the communities that were involved and the need that existed for providing facilities to those communities.
The hon. member for Comox-Alberni dealt with this question the other evening-I believe it was a week ago yesterday-when the estimates were also before the committee, and he also mentioned the need for better coastal shipping services. I, of course, reiterate the same thing and indicate that there has been a deterioration in and a lessening of the service provided by Northland Navigation Company to the west coast points.
In this regard I should like, if I may, to draw some brief comparison between the subsidies and subventions payable on the east coast with those payable on the west coast. This is detailed in the estimates and I do not think it is necessary to pick them out in detail at the moment. There are a number of companies listed under east coast services which provide services between different points which receive an amount of money somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,750,000. This is listed on page 563 of the details in the estimates book for the year ending 1961. At a rough guess I would say there are around 20 or so items of subventions listed for eastern local services, and two for western local services. If even a portion of the money

Supply-Transport
that is paid as subventions to the east coast service, that is, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $5,750,000, or a larger portion than now, were provided for the west coast shipping facilities we might have less cause for complaint along the west coast than we do at the moment, because when you compare $294,500 as the subvention for west coast service with some $5,800,000 on the east coast you can easily see the preponderance of money that goes to one area as compared with the other.
When my time expired the other day I had made slight reference to the fact that there was a degree of politics which entered into the shipping facilities available to the west coast. I believe it was this comment and the reference to Union Steamships that probably occasioned the desire by the hon. member for Vancouver South to go into the subsidies of Union Steamships. There is no doubt that some concern was expressed, there was some disagreement, over Union Steamships having a monopoly on west coast shipping and a monopoly on the subventions. When I first heard of it this complaint was voiced by hon. members associated with the party which is no longer represented here. I refer to members of the Social Credit party. This, of course, tied in with their activities with the provincial Social Credit government in British Columbia. Their complaints were directed against the fact that an honourable Senator in the other place, namely Senator McKeen, was the owner of Union Steamships and also a Liberal, and that there was something underland and nefarious in this type of arrangement.
I do not hold any brief, nor did I ever, for one of those companies over the other, be it Union Steamships, Northland Navigation Company or any other company which might be involved. I am concerned solely and simply with the question of service. There are a number of factors, of course, which have contributed to the decline in service, which I should like to deal with for just a moment. I would point out also that when Union Steamships appeared before the royal commission on coastal trade, it was one of the two shipping companies that wanted to be completely exempted from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act in its activities on shipping. In its report the royal commission, of course, declined to accept the suggestion of Union Steamships and of the other company whose name escapes me at the moment. The royal commission did not recommend that they be exempt from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
I should like to give the committee in words other than mine an indication of some of the difficulties experienced by one of the up-coast

communities by reading a short reference or two from a letter dated January 30, 1960 from Bella Bella, addressed to me and signed by a nurse at the large memorial hospital that the United Church of Canada has at Bella Bella, and also a letter along the same lines from the matron of that hospital. Before I do read it may I say I received a communication from Dr. Darby, from the hospital also, on this same sort of thing. As I said, this letter is addressed to me and reads in part:
re: Northland Navigation Service
I don't know whether I do any more complaining than anyone else in your constituency,

This is because I received other communications from the same people in the same community at the same hospital about activities of Northland Navigation Company and its discontinuing service over the Christmas period without any notice or without any notification to the Canadian maritime commission. They had written before. The letter continues:
-but we have just been advised this morning that Northland is withdrawing their Skeena Prince-
This is one of the ships they have.
-from serving our area. This was supposed to be our passenger service, although frankly, who would want to travel on it, I don't know. Of late months they have been more co-operative about bringing the Canadian Prince around this way, but refuse to land at the government wharf, which necessitates going out in a boat to board her. This is all right for someone who is able to jump from boat to boat, but at any time it is not too safe a method of boarding a boat.
I should like to point out what occurs when the steamer stops at Campbell Island or Bella Bella. Often there are hospital patients who either board the boat or leave it at this particular point. With the steamer stopped out in the stream, as it were, necessitating someone going out in a launch to meet it, one can understand the difficulties that are experienced and how unsafe it would be at some periods of the year. It might be perfectly safe on a calm day but those hon. members who know the west coast know that particularly in the fall, winter and spring months the waters can become very rough by reason of storms, winds and rain. There are often winds blowing and a high sea running with turbulent waters caused by tides and so on and conditions are extremely difficult for anyone who has to go out in a small launch to board this particular Northland Navigation Company boat.
Complaints have been made about this matter on quite a number of occasions and I merely make this one reference to the words of this young lady, Miss Betty Wilson, who is a nurse at the hospital, in order to indicate

the attitude and the feelings of the people who live in that community. This is only one of many up-coast communities that are served or not served by passenger steamer service. The answer given by Northland Navigation is that when they took over these contracts from another company the subsidies were paid to provide service to particular points and those points of call are mentioned in the contract. They say it is not economically possible for them to add additional points of call for a variety of economic reasons.
One reason is, of course, the fact that over the last number of years the number of passengers who travel on the coastal boats has been declining with the advent of additional and much faster air services. I remember one trip I made on one of the Union Steamship passenger boats from Prince Rupert across to the Queen Charlotte islands. It was about four years ago and I went aboard the boat about five o'clock in the morning at Prince Rupert. The boat was due to leave at about seven or eight o'clock. I had driven from Terrace to Prince Rupert, which is about a three hour drive, so when I went on board the steamer I got into my berth and went to sleep. I got up at about eleven o'clock or 11.30 and I felt like I owned the ship. It was a huge passenger boat with berth accommodation for 150 to 200 passengers and in walking around I did not meet another passenger on the ship. The game warden and I turned up for lunch and we were the only two passengers on that ship running from Price Rupert to the Queen Charlotte islands, a distance of approximately 100 miles.
This is an indication of the effect that air transportation has had upon the number of passengers travelling on these steamers. When the hon. member for Comox-Alberni dealt with this question the other evening he indicated that there was a problem but he did not know what the solution was. Having concerned ourselves with this matter for some time we have made suggestions to the government about what should be done to develop a better type of shipping service on the west coast. In general terms perhaps I might be permitted to place before the minister again our suggestion as to what should be done.
I would think that the present system of paying subventions to one company or another to provide a more or less haphazard and skimpy service is not good enough. Over the years it has been shown that any attempt to adjust this system has not fared too well. I suggest that a separate crown agency, whether it be Canadian National Steamships or another crown agency established under the Department of Transport for this purpose,
Supply-Transport
undertake to operate an extensive shipping service on the west coast. At the same time I suggest that an air line organization should be connected with it so that the profits that could be made from one phase of the operation might be used to offset the deficit that would undoubtedly develop in the other phase of the operation.
I think we all realize that if it were not for the $294,500 subsidy now paid to Northland Navigation Company that company would not be able to operate that type of service and the service provided would be much less than is the case now. I do not have access, of course, to the confidential figures of these companies, although they are in the files of the Canadian maritime commission, but I am sure that Northland Navigation Company at present, and Union Steamships before, have operated the passenger part of their service on the west coast at a loss. It is the freight end of the service that makes a profit.
It is also a fact that the majority of passengers who travel by steamer on the west coast do so in the summer months from May to September. I believe there was some reference to that by the royal commission on coastal trade indicating that more than half of the passengers using this service on the west coast travel in the three or four summer months. Perhaps there would be a profit on this phase of the operations if the figures were computed for the summer months only but there would be a huge deficit in the winter months when passenger travel declines.
The same thing is true of freight. Freight shipments will increase or decrease depending on the operations of the logging industry in particular. If there is a curtailment of logging operations in the summer because of fires the whole logging industry will close down because, as has occurred in the past, the forests are closed for six to seven weeks. This means a curtailment of freight movements to the logging camps. If there is a decline in the lumber industry, as is developing at the moment, this also affects freight and passenger service. Even though a private concern is operating with a subsidy, it will find it convenient to curtail as much as possible the service it is required to provide in order that the company will not go completely bankrupt. There is a ceiling of $294,500 on the subvention which that particular company will get. This is geared, I understand, to indicate that the company can operate at a 10 per cent profit before taxes or 5 per cent after. If they do make more money, there is a recapture clause.

Supply-Transport
All of this difficulty would be overcome if we had a crown corporation which was able to enter into this field with its first goal, although not exclusively, the provision of service to these up-coast points. Naturally I do not envisage a regular, daily call by a ship such as the Prince George or something of that nature. I do not envisage anything lavish in the way of luxury liners operating up and down the coast. This merely envisages a decent type of ship and service being provided to these coastal points. Many of them now get service perhaps twice a month or every other week, and some of them not at all. The people in some of these communities have to arrange to get their supplies or freight by travelling themselves by their own boats perhaps 60, 80 or 100 miles to some point of call of Northland Navigation. It is this suggestion that I commend to the attention of the government and the minister.
I am afraid that if something of this nature is not done we will continue to limp along with a deteriorating, declining passenger and freight service to up-coast points, and in addition we will be faced with having to increase the subsidy to Northland Navigation just as the government was asked by Union Steamships for an increase in order to put it on an economical basis. Since Northland is apparently operating on a shoestring their ships are deteriorating. They are not able to do the amount of repair and maintenance work on the ships that is necessary. They are restricted in their attempts to provide newer or additional boats for this service. I can foresee the time when this company, Northland Navigation, will come pounding on the minister's door, doing the same thing as Union Steamships did, saying that their boats are in such bad condition they need another quarter of a million dollars in order to put them back into shape. I am sure the officials of the maritime commission, as well as the minister, who watch this situation closely will have come to that conclusion too.
I think I will leave that phase of it there, for the moment. One cannot point out too strongly the great need there is for providing a better type of shipping service to these isolated up-coast points that now have to suffer tremendous hardship, and should not have to suffer any longer with the type of service that they have been provided in the past few years.


Mr. Robichaud:: I only have a few brief remarks to make at this point of the estimates. I have two problems which I should like to bring to the attention of the minister. As the minister knows, we have operating from northeastern New Brunswick one of the largest fishing fleets of its kind on the
IMr. Howard.]
Atlantic coast. In fact in the Caraquet-Shippegan area alone we have a fleet of over 100 draggers and longliners operating, and a similar number operate from the Gaspe, Prince Edward Island and the Magdalen islands. What I should like to bring to the attention of the minister is the lack of storm warning systems in this area, which is at the mouth of Chaleur bay and covers certain sections of the gulf of St. Lawrence. In order to avoid such disasters as occurred around this time last year in the Northumberland strait I would urge the minister to have his department give serious consideration to the establishment of a storm warning station on Miscou island. Miscou island is located on the northeastern tip of New Brunswick. I would say 90 per cent of the fishing fleet to which I referred a moment ago operates within a short distance from Miscou island, and at least within radiotelephone range, with which all these boats are equipped. So I ask the minister if his department will give serious consideration to this suggestion.
Another matter which I should like to discuss very briefly, Mr. Chairman, is the reference which was made earlier this afternoon to the Chignecto canal. On numerous occasions over the last two or three years the minister has been referring to the preliminary engineering estimate of the Chignecto project which, according to the minister's own words, was being prepared by the Department of Public Works. In fact it was on March 4 last year, as reported on page 1593 of Hansard, that the minister advised this committee that, arising out of the work that had been done, he had asked for certain other estimates to be worked out. This is normal procedure on a project of such a nature.
Again on March 26 of last year the minister reported to the house that his department was giving very close study both to the economic and to the engineering feasibility of such a project. A few weeks later, on June 11, he referred to estimates ranging from $90 million to $140 million. On March 30 of this year, a year later, in reply to a question from my colleague the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi the minister is reported as saying at page 2607 of Hansard, and I quote his own words:
An estimate prepared by a private engineering firm within the last year suggested a cost of about 590 million, but subsequent review has indicated that government agencies concerned would find it difficult to accept technical assumptions made therein.
In recent weeks a report has been issued, prepared by the Chignecto canal committee and resulting from the preliminary investigation into the economic feasibility of such a project. We were informed by the Prime

Minister in this house on April 13, as reported on page 3188 of Hansard, that following that report a formal request will be made for a full scale economic study by the federal government to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal. The Minister of Transport on May 26, 1959 indicated that a close study was being made by his department of the economic and engineering feasibility of this project. According to the Prime Minister, almost a year later, a formal request is being waited from the premier of New Brunswick for the federal government to undertake an economic study to determine the economic feasibility of the Chignecto canal. I ask the Minister of Transport to tell this committee where we stand. Was an economic study undertaken last year? What work has been done? What progress has been made? How is it that only a few weeks ago, notwithstanding the statements which had been made last year by the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister advised this house that he had to receive a formal request from the premier of New Brunswick to undertake such a report?
I would remind the minister that the previous administration did not back out because of the cost of the construction of Camp Gage-town when it was decided that this establishment would contribute to the economy of the area. Instead of waiting for a pre-election announcement to coincide with the provincial election in New Brunswick, I ask the minister to advise the house now that the federal government is undertaking a full scale study in order to determine the economic feasibility of this canal. If, however, as he stated, such a study has been going on for the last two years, I ask the minister to make a progress report to this committee before this item of the estimates is passed.
The Chignecto canal is too important a project to the economy of the Atlantic provinces to be tossed around as a political football, as was done last year in connection with the Prince Edward Island causeway. If the construction of the canal is feasible and if it is economically sound the federal government should plan now-not next year but this year-for this construction at a time when such major capital projects are badly needed in order to alleviate this unprecedented unemployment situation in the Atlantic provinces.


Harold Edward Winch: I fully appreciate the fact that the minister would like before five o'clock to answer a number of the questions that have been raised. However, I hope I may have just two or three minutes in order to raise one other matter upon which I should like to hear the comment of the minister.
Supply-Transport
It is one which was not pointedly drawn to my attention until recently. I should like to hear from the minister as to what is the policy and the authority of his department on construction projects as far as they are concerned with the construction codes where the construction is taking place.
If my memory is correct, his department does construction mainly in two spheres, namely construction on property within a municipal border but where it is a crown construction or construction below the high water line. It is my understanding that his department takes the view that construction, even on municipal property or construction below the high water line, does not come under the construction or building codes of anyone whatsoever.
I believe this point came to the fore just last week in Vancouver where a certain construction under his department does not conform to the building code of Vancouver. I also understand that on a construction, if it is below the high water line or even if it is on the land side of the high water line, there is no requirement for inspection by building construction inspectors of the municipality or of the province.
I think an extremely important principle is involved here. I can remember what happened many years ago-I believe I was only 18 years at the time-when I was working as an apprentice electrician on a government job with no construction inspection by the city. I can remember one night when we were on the night shift the bin floor of the construction collapsed but by the grace of God nobody was hurt or killed.
The point upon which I should like to hear from the minister is this. I can see him looking at his watch. I should like to get clear from the minister this point. Why is it not correct or, if not, why is it okay that on a construction by his department on crown property, especially below the water line, they do not have to conform to the building code of the municipality or the city which is adjacent and why is there no inspection outside of his department's own engineers? There may be inspection by them but there is no inspection, as I understand it-at least that was the situation years ago when I was working on government projects-by city inspectors. I am personally of the opinion that the building codes of cities, municipalities and provinces should be adhered to and also that inspection of government projects should not just be done by the engineers or the contractors employed by his department or a government department but by those whose responsibility it is, away from the contracting

Supply-Transport
point of view, to make sure that in construction and in fulfilment, it abides by the building codes of the city, municipality or province.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the minister replies I should like to draw his attention to a resolution passed at the 1960 annual meeting of the fisheries council of Canada and to read it into the record so that it will appear with the minister's estimates. I hope he will give consideration to this matter. It is headed "Importation of Fishing Vessels" and reads as follows:
Whereas some processors of fish are suffering severely from lack of suitable fishing vessels; and
Whereas the federal government restricts the acquisition of the desired craft in the foreign markets through:
(a)	The necessity of having to secure permission from the Department of Transport to Import a vessel-a restriction which we do not believe exists in the case of instruments of production in any other Canadian primary industry;
(b)	Heavy duties levied on vessels up to 100 feet in length when imported from most favoured nation countries; and
Whereas experience has shown that larger vessels are going to play a more important part in production in future years;
Therefore be it resolved that the Fisheries Council of Canada request the federal government to remove these hindrances to the adequate building up of the Canadian fishing fleet.
I am not going to elaborate on that resolution. I intend to bring it to the attention of his colleagues. I hope the minister will give it careful consideration. I hope he will remember that he used to do a great deal of fishing when he was on this side of the house and that he will do something to help the fishing industry.


George Harris Hees: I am glad to assure the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate that I will give it some serious consideration. In answer to the question put to me by the hon. member for Gloucester with regard to the studies pertaining to the Chignecto canal, I should like to report to him that my department has done a preliminary economic survey of this project. The Department of Public Works has done a preliminary engineering survey. However, there is nothing final that I can report to the committee as a result of these surveys so far. As I think I have indicated to him, I have always been greatly interested in this project. I have looked into it a great deal myself and I will continue to do so. The government will certainly give this matter a great deal of consideration.
In answer to the question-


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Before the minister leaves that subject may I ask a question?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Is the study still under way?


George Harris Hees: Yes; it is still under way.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: By both departments,
namely the Department of Transport and the Department of Public Works?


George Harris Hees: Yes. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver East, may I say that this matter which he has raised is a technical one. It deals with questions under the jurisdiction of the national harbours board. I will discuss this matter with the officials of the board and later, when the national harbours board items come before the committee in the examination of my estimates, I will give him an answer at that time, if that procedure is satisfactory to him.


Harold Edward Winch: Yes.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Before we go on to other matters I have a short question to ask the minister on this item. I think it is the only place at which I can ask him. Earlier this session the Prime Minister led us to understand that there was some department which was studying the feasibility of having a seaway on the Richelieu river from lake Champlain to New York. I was wondering whether the amount of money involved in this particular item, or some of it, is earmarked for that particular study of the Richelieu waterway. Perhaps the minister might also inform the committee as to exactly what studies are now being undertaken on this project.


George Harris Hees: We have given some study in this department to that project and have been in consultation with the Department of External Affairs on the matter. We have a continuing interest and will be giving it further study, but I am afraid there is nothing definite in this regard which I can report to the house.


Lionel Chevrier: May I ask a question following on what the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres said. The minister probably knows that the United States interests have, I understand, asked for an appropriation of $600,000 for a survey of their side. They would like the Canadian government to spend not a similar amount, because it would not take that much money, but to put into the estimates an amount which would make possible a survey of the cost of the Richelieu cut-off. After all, that is all that can be asked for at the moment. What is this cut-off going to cost, and what are the economic advantages and the traffic likely to come from it. I think that is the main thing which interests the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres and those of us who sit on this side of the house.

Perhaps I might be permitted to say this. I think the minister should make representations to the international joint commission because it is they who were seized of this whole problem and they said, "We would like to get this problem back to us so that we can study it after the St. Lawrence seaway has been completed". Now the seaway is complete, and by virtue of that report which they made I think representation should be made to them with that end in view.


George Harris Hees: I shall be glad to speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs because this matter concerns him very much, I know, and I will discuss with him the possibilities which the hon. member for Kichelieu-Vercheres and the hon. member for Laurier have suggested.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, a great deal has been said today about various seaports from Newfoundland to the west coast, and I would like to mention one which I am very interested in, and that is Ontario's first seaport at Moosonee. A great deal has been said about this matter in elections, and what we hear is not necessarily what is coming to pass.


George Harris Hees: May I say to the hon. member that this is a matter which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works, not the Department of Transport.


William Arnold Peters: I do not think frankly it comes under anything.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. If the minister intimates that it does not come under his department then I am sure the hon. member realizes that he cannot discuss it under this item.


William Arnold Peters: On the point of order, there is no port there at the present time. There is no question that the work will be done by the Department of Public Works in the federal field and also the provincial field, and although the minister may not want to assume responsibility for it, but it is a seaport like any other seaport. It is now a seaport and ocean vessels do call at Moosonee. There are docking facilities-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. As I have already said, the minister has indicated that it does not come under his department, and I feel that the Chair will have to go along with the minister who knows his department. Therefore I ask the hon. member not to discuss this matter under this item.


William Arnold Peters: Could I ask the minister-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Charles Edward Rea: The Chair has made its ruling. Shall the item carry?
Supply-Transport


Charles Benjamin Howard: There is another point I want to make on this in a general way. It has to do with the question of coastguards, which is also an extremely important matter to the west coast. There are references to this subject matter in the January 8, 1960 edition of the Fisherman, which is the publication of the fishermen's union on the west coast. On page 5 reference is made to a committee of the women's auxiliary and of the union itself which met with the Minister of National Defence to discuss the Canadian coastguard service. They presented a brief to the minister which I understand will be communicated to his colleague, the Minister of Transport, and no doubt that has taken place.
The contents of the brief are set out here in general form. There is no indication whether this is the exact wording of the brief, but if it is not this is a shortened form of the points made in the brief and perhaps I can make reference to them. The first is:
Integration and co-ordination of all existing government vessels with a control centre which will be kept informed of their movements at all times.
I understand that something along this line has been done. Second:
Equipment on such vessels to include a sick bay with inhalator and first aid personnel, modern fire fighting equipment including asbestos suits, etc., skin diving gear, rocket guns for firing lines, and most important, trained personnel.
On each of the existing governmental vessels, one person shall be appointed for marine rescue work. He shall be responsible for the equipment and training and shall ensure regular contact with the control centre.
At least three coastguard cutters to be built or existing units to be converted for this purpose, each unit to have helicopter support.
Cutters to be strategically located on the coast and able to move into any area not serviced at the time by one of the emergency vessels, that is, fishery patrol, lighthouse tenders, etc.
Continuation of air-sea rescue under the direction of the central control centre mentioned in (1) above.
That was the integration and co-ordination of government vessels with a control centre. Then lastly:
Strict enforcement of minimum safety-at-sea regulations by all small private and commercial craft. This to include, in addition to lifesaving equipment, a working knowledge of the "rules of the road."
That is the rules of the road at sea. It appears the Minister of National Defence was visibly and openly impressed with the material contained in the brief and he asked some questions relating to the shortcomings of the existing air-sea rescue service. Many illustrations were given of cases in the past where help had been, as they put it, too little and too late. They point out another shortcoming of the air-sea rescue service is that because

Supp ly-Transport
of the lack of some central control and integration system the large government fleet operated independently of one another. Vessels from the fisheries patrol, the Department of Transport, the Department of Public Works, the navy and Royal Canadian Mounted Police vessels were not being efficiently or fully used because of the lack of a central control to co-ordinate all of their activities.
The minister was told also, according to this information, that during several months of the year many of the vessels being used were either out of service, laid up, or otherwise not available and that an adequate service would require the vessels to be at readiness on a 24-hour a day, seven days a week, 52 weeks a year basis so that in an emergency, regardless of the time of night or day or the season of the year, adequate vessels would be available to participate.
The committee indicated that it received an extremely friendly hearing from the minister who indicated that this was the first time any group had submitted a program to him in such detail. The minister is reported to have expressed the opinion that the proposals seemed to be practical and workable and that they would receive the closest attention from himself and his colleagues. It is unfortunate, perhaps, that the Minister of National Defence could not be here to give us his impressions of this delegation and to contribute to our discussion of the proposal for a coastguard.
However, I should like to inquire specifically of the minister in regard to the seven points which are mentioned, whether the hon. gentleman has had an opportunity of discussing them in some detail with the Minister of National Defence and what conclusions, if any, have been reached. Perhaps the minister could indicate what attitude has been taken toward the points mentioned in the brief- the equipment of vessels with sick bay facilities, having one person on each made responsible for the equipment and getting in contact with the control centre, the strategic location of vessels at various points on the coast, the placing of them all under central control, the announcement of immediate safety regulations for small private and commercial craft, and so on.
I know the minister is just as concerned as those who come from the west coast are about this problem. We, of course, are in contact with fishermen and others in our constituencies, as well as with the families of fishermen-wives of men who have been lost at sea-all of whom have a special interest in the efficient working of an air-sea rescue service. I do not think I need go into great detail about the need which exists for the

establishment of a service which would ensure to the greatest possible degree that any accident which occurred at sea would be dealt with with dispatch and the men reached in the shortest possible time through a coordinated system such as was outlined by the delegation which met the minister.


George Harris Hees: As the hon. member knows, I had a good meeting with the delegation which came down here. We discussed the matter thoroughly. They put forward their brief. I asked questions; they answered them, and vice versa. As the hon. member also knows, we appointed a co-ordinator recently whose job it is, among other things, to make recommendations as to how we can best accomplish the aims which the hon. member has outlined and which the delegation outlined to me. All those interested in safety at sea on the west coast have these aims in mind. We are just as interested as he is in this question. We shall press the matter forward as quickly as we can and the co-ordinator will be in touch with the organization the hon. member has mentioned.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I call it five o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: It is not five o'clock yet.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I was wondering if the minister had made any changes in his attitude as far as the accounting methods of Canadian National Railways and other crown enterprises which come under his jurisdiction are concerned in order that there may be a more effective system of accounting to parliament than exists at the present time.
We have a tradition in Canada in so far as public enterprise goes, of allowing-


Charles Edward Rea: It being five o'clock, in order to permit the house to proceed into the consideration of private and public bills it is my duty to rise, report certain resolutions and request leave to sit again.
Progress reported.
Resolutions reported and concurred in.



PRIVATE BILLS

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


Mr. McCleave:: I believe it has been agreed among all members of the house that second reading be given to all the divorce bills that now stand on the order paper for second reading with one exception, and that the house then return to consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport. If that is

the agreement I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria, (B.C.), the second reading of all divorce bills standing on the order paper for second reading, with the exception of order No. 294, which is Bill No. SD-320, on which the hon. member for Skeena is to speak.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Speaker, there may be some slight misunderstanding. The reference of the hon. member to dealing with divorce bills for second reading with the exception of Bill No. SD-320, which is order No. 294, which is to be dealt with separately, was quite correct, but to proceed then back into committee of supply to deal further with the estimates of the Department of Transport is not my understanding of the arrangement. This is the unfortunate part of it, if I may explain. I was trying to listen to the comments of the Minister of Transport and at the same time make those arrangements. This may have occasioned the misunderstanding. It is not my understanding that we are to go back and discuss the estimates of the Department of Transport.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would like to make it clear that so far as we are concerned we knew what our minds were and we are quite prepared to carry out the understanding.


Mr. Churchill:: Will hon. members give consideration to the proposal put forward, even if there has been a slight misunderstanding by certain hon. members? It would be helpful in the progress of the business of the house, which has been going very well, if we were to continue with the estimates of the Department of Transport. There will be plenty of opportunity later to carry on with the other business which is before us.


Lionel Chevrier: In so far as the estimates of the Department of Transport are concerned, we on this side are quite prepared to carry on in order to dispose of them in the remaining time before six o'clock. In so far as the divorce bills are concerned, my friend the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate (Mr. Pickersgill) spoke and I do not want to be heard on that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I might say that generally, Mr. Speaker, we give as much consideration to those people who have parliamentary divorces as we do to the estimates of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: There are two proposals, both of which require unanimous consent. As I take it, they are conditional one on the other, or are they independent? The first proposition is this. In the hour which has been set aside for private bills consideration is to be given first to the second reading of divorce
Private Bills-Divorce
bills standing for second reading, with the exception of order No. 294. Is the house agreed to proceed in that manner?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The second proposition is that when these second readings are disposed of the house will then waive this hour and return to committee of supply to deal with the matter interrupted at five o'clock.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the decision of this group is to proceed with divorce bills in this hour.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the wish of the house to proceed with divorce bills in accordance with the arrangements just arrived at?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Just to make it clear, the items for second reading which are now proposed by the hon. member for Halifax are items numbered 265 to 300 with the exception of 294; 302 to 322; 325 to 378; and 382 to 406. Is it the wish of the house that these bills be taken in one motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SECOND READINGS-SENATE BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. SD-291, for the relief of Myrtle Gertrude Lily Molloy Heany.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-292, for the relief of Kathleen Margaret Sinclair McKenna Roberts.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-293, for the relief of Marion Toba Wolfe Cohen Shapiro.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-294, for the relief of Marie Lucille Simone David Raymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-295, for the relief of Otto James Kerr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-296, for the relief of James Justin Sims.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-297, for the relief of Sylvia Overland Katz.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-298, for the relief of Blanche Brigitte Paulette Gagne Joly.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-299, for the relief of Carmel Duguay Mitchell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-300, for the relief of Catherine Maureen Kelly Mavor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-301, for the relief of Maria Ruland Reutter.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-302, for the relief of Joseph Louis Victor Dupere.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-303, for the relief of Rose Polivka De Bom.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-304, for the relief of Vemis
Clifton Christie.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-305, for the relief of Thomas Edward Imbleau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-306, for the relief of Jean Guy-Cardinal.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-307, for the relief of Marie Mathilde Charlotte Boisjoli Dore.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-308, for the relief of David Lloyd Tune.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-309, for the relief of Sybil Fenster Shaicavitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-310, for the relief of Lynda Marjorie Cowell Smith.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-311, for the relief of Alois Zisser.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-312, for the relief of Stanley Sepchuk.-Mr. McCleave.
iBll No. SD-313, for the relief of Nadine Tudor Labreche.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-314, for the relief of Robert Gordon Stitt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-315, for the relief of Philippa Jane Hutchins Tanton.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-316, for the relief of Julianna Barna Nadasdi.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-317, for the relief of Franciszek (Frank) Wyspianski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-318, for the relief of Mary (Moira) Steel Taylor Madison-Roberts.- Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-319, for the relief of Marie Evelyn Lindsay Slade.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-321, for the relief of Joseph Armand Dube.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-322, for the relief of Margaret Elizabeth Perkins Petrachuk.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-323, for the relief of Istvan Horvath.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-324, for the relief of Kathleen Margaret Manchios Kotsos.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-325, for the relief of Peter Zeppetini.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-326, for the relief of Jean Louis Beaudet.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-327, for the relief of Antoni Kubowicz.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-328, for the relief of Georg Zechanowitsch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-329, for the relief of Sonia Kwas Cada.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-330, for the relief of Stanislaw Wroblewski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-331, for the relief of Jean Ednah Hiltz Dewey.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-332, for the relief of Vera
Jarvis Lahaye.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-333, for the relief of Claire Marie Marchand McGuinness.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-334, for the relief of Marie Denise Theberge Duguay.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-335, for the relief of Marie Rita Desneiges Trepanier Pelchat.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-336, for the relief of Darrell Ashley Conner.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-337, for the relief of Gladys Florida Allard Chenier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-338, for the relief of Sonia Floomberg Schaffer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-339, for the relief of Alice Marylyn Archibald Warren Wornell.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-340, for the relief of Doris Miller Burke.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-341, for the relief of Jacquelyn Gregory Bradley Walker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-342, for the relief of Monica Carolyn Nolan McCullough.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-343, for the relief of Aime Albert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-344, for the relief of Renee Helen Engel Graham.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-345, for the relief of Florian Poissant.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-346, for the relief of Mary Kathleen Potts (Wittingham) Barretta.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-347, for the relief of George Herbert Bissessar.

Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-348, for the relief of Leslie Robert Stickles.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-349, for the relief of Philippe Simard.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-350, for the relief of Estelle Caroline Lohnes Antilla.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-351, for the relief of Yolande Marguerite Delorme Houde, otherwise known as Yolande Marguerite Delorme Cyr.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-352, for the relief of Andree Edmonde Augusta Fontaine Barriere.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-353, for the relief of Eleanor Jean Mott Taylor.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-354, for the relief of Rose Van Embden Singer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-355, for the relief of Jack Emile Chiarella.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-356, for the relief of Elaine Louise Robinson Solkin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-357, for the relief of Gerald Onie Shannon.-Mr. McCleave.

Bill No. SD-358, for the relief of Percival Verna Nathan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-359, for the relief of Valerie Elsie Price Perrault.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-360, for the relief of Joseph Edmond Giroux.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-361, for the relief of Allen Dwight Westover.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-362, for the relief of Shirley Grace Edythe Sayers Sutherland, otherwise known as Shirley Seguin Sutherland.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-363, for the relief of Claire Ruth Rubins Lyons.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-364, for the relief of Stanislaw Przybyla.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-365, for the relief of Ian Church Wood.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-366, for the relief of Marie Hariette Claudette Boisvert Beaudry.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-367, for the relief of Arthur Edward Parker.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-368, for the relief of Owen John Lummis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-369, for the relief of Ronald Norman Hogg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-370, for the relief on Roy Walter Williams.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-371, for the relief of Barbara Doris Jennings Fitzgerald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-372, for the relief of Christine Nancy Littleton Cohen.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-373, for the relief of Czarna Rose Lemkowicz Bialer, otherwise known as Czarna Rose Lemkowicz Bealer.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-374, for the relief of Kazimierz Romanowski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-375, for the relief of Norma Katherine MacDonald McLean.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-376, for the relief of Diane Hawkins Edler.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-377, for the relief of Marcel Pouliot.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-378, for the relief of Gisele Raymond Vallee.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-379, for the relief of Madeleine Arbour Gauvreau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-380, for the relief of Pierre Frederic Bruneau.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-381, for the relief of Nancy Virginia Webster Canning.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-382, for the relief of Annie Zilinskas Schneidereit, otherwise known as Annie Zilinskas Schneider.-Mr. McCleave.
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-383, for the relief of Jean Paul Alfred Lebel.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-384, for the relief of Bernice Ellis Biltis.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-385, for the relief of Evagelia Karidi Tsitsos.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-386, for the relief of Barbara Raphael Salomon.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-387, for the relief of Richard Denis Giblin.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-388, for the relief of Fanny Husey Baggs.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-389, for the relief of Lambly Dorothy Audrey Hage Lambert.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-390, for the relief of Paul Emile Raymond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-391, for the relief of Doris Mary Luxford Devenish.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-392, for the relief of Beulah Benford Brown Lawrence.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-393, for the relief of Kathleen Walsh Cohan.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-394, for the relief of Francis Whiting Clark.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-395, for the relief of Gustave Roy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-396, for the relief of Joan Shirley Davies Herscovitch.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-397, for the relief of Eugene Grandmont Ladouceur.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-398, for the relief of Ivy Helen Gentles Bell Pull.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-399, for the relief of Herve Vaillancourt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-400, for the relief of Madeleine Hermine Kelen Endrenyl.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-401, for the relief of Marie Jeannine Andree Boisclear Lafrance.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-402, for the relief of Peter Aric Bray.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-403, for the relief of Gerard Lafond.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-404, for the relief of Jessie Davis Hill.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-405, for the relief of Grace Ruth Goldenberg Goldberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-406, for the relief of Elsie Mae Freake Vardy.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-407, for the relief of Gisele Fortin St-Laurent.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-408, for the relief of Pauline Anne Elizabeth Cunliffe Hebb.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-409, for the relief of Mary
Violet Maloney Elm.-Mr. McCleave.
[Stage Direction]
Private Bills-Divorce
Bill No. SD-410, for the relief of Gilles Jacques.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-411, for the relief of Bernice May Snow Oss.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-412, for the relief of Guy Grenier.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-413, for the relief of Margaret Mary Ryan Girvan Hollett.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-414, for the relief of Caroline Petryshyn Was.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-415, for the relief of Rhonda Lee Petersen Butt.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-416, for the relief of Alexandra Protonotarios Kingsland.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-417, for the relief of Frances Thersea Smith MacDonald.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-418, for the relief of Anna Soltysik Slawinski.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-419, for the relief of Wera Podkopaewa Kraska.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-420, for the relief of Ronald Mugford.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-421, for the relief of Ida Denis Matte.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-422, for the relief of Sterling Norman Woods.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-423, for the relief of Mary Wolloch Vineberg.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-424, for the relief of Lotte Wilhelmine Schwitzer Hornig.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-425, for the relief of Margaret Clare Haigh Marshall.-Mr. McCleave.
Bill No. SD-426, for the relief of Claire Syrek Stolovitz.-Mr. McCleave.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Shall these divorce bills be taken in one motion?


William Arnold Peters: No, Mr. Speaker.



JOHN GILBERT OAKLEY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-52, for the relief of John Gilbert Oakley.-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


Ernest James Broome: If you need a seconder, I second it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-26, for the relief of Julianna Catharina Mehilerc-sik Jutras-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1
carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


William Arnold Peters: This is not a Newfoundland divorce. You do not have to do that; we passed the Newfoundland one.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-28, for the relief of Barbara Jean Gillies Harris Cooke-Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Edward Rea: Shall clause 1 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Progress reported.
Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, before the next order is called, we have had a bit of fun for the last couple of minutes and I wonder whether I could appeal to the sweet reasonableness of the house. I do not know what is going to happen to you, Mr. Speaker, if you have to continue running up and down the steps. I think perhaps we could proceed to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport if the hon. member agrees.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You got into this. Get yourself out of it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: Will the house give unanimous consent to going back to the business that was interrupted at five o'clock?


Charles Benjamin Howard: No.


Ernest James Broome: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to know who the member is who has refused permission to go back to the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rea):: The hon. member for Skeena.



ERWIN THOMAS STEPPAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. SD-30, Eor the relief of Erwin Thomas Steppan- Mr. McCleave-Mr. Rea in the chair.
On clause 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Benjamin Howard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might make a comment or two with respect to Bill No. SD-30. In the petition the allegation is made that the petitioner and the respondent were married on or about January 24, 1942 at the city of Montreal in the district of Montreal. It is also alleged that at the time of the marriage the petitioner and the respondent, the husband and wife, were domiciled in Canada and have since continued to be and are now domiciled in Canada, in the province of Quebec. There is reference to the current domicile and in paragraph No. 6 it is alleged that on or about January 26, 1959 at a certain address in the district of Montreal adultery took place between the wife and the co-respondent whose name and address are given here.
Attempting to prove those questions which are germane, the petitioner appeared as a witness, was sworn and was asked certain questions by the clerk of the committee. He gave his name, occupation and address and then he was asked by the clerk of the committee:
Q. Are you married?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. To whom?
He gives the name of the respondent in the case and spells the name.
Q. When were you married?
He gives the church they were married in and their faith. He is then shown a document and asked these questions.
Q. Do you recognize this document I show you?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is it?
A. My marriage certificate.
Q. Are the statements contained in it true?
A. Yes.
Q. Except for the discrepancy in the spelling of your wife's name?
A. Yes.
Then the marriage certificate is filed and marked exhibit 1. He is then shown a photograph which he says is a true likeness of his wife and was taken approximately four years ago. So the reference in the petition to marriage has been proved by the evidence so far submitted. Some additional questions are then asked by Mr. Seguin of the city of Ottawa who appeared as counsel for the petitioner. With respect to the question of domicile these questions were asked:
Q. You told us you lived in Montreal. How long have you lived in Montreal?
A. Since 1928, the day I came to this country.
Q. When you emigrated to Canada?
A. Yes.
Private Bills-Divorce Q. You have lived ever since in Montreal, in the province of Quebec?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you have never moved out of that province?
A. No, sir.


Ernest James Broome: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member allowed to waste the time of the committee simply by reading and occasionally paraphrasing the evidence given before the committee? I believe there is a rule that quotations shall not be of undue length and shall have something to do with the point the hon. member is making. All the hon. member is doing is simply reading the evidence and certainly the rules of the house must provide that that cannot be allowed.


Charles Edward Rea: I appreciate any guidance hon. members can give me. If the hon. member can refer me to a citation covering this matter the Chair will be happy to entertain it.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will not speak on the point of order because this question has been raised on a number of occasions and has been dealt with.


Mr. Hodgson:: You just want to hold up the house for no reason at all.


Ernest James Broome: Just a smart aleck.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not hear these comments that are made by people who sit in their seats.


Ernest James Broome: You certainly don't want to hear them.


Charles Benjamin Howard: It is strictly against the rules.


An hon. Member:: What do you know about it?


Ernest James Broome: What consideration have you for the rules? None whatsoever.


Charles Benjamin Howard: If hon. members want to speak there is a proper way of doing so instead of sitting in their seats and barking out comments like puppy dogs.


Ernest James Broome: If you would spend more time in your seat this would be a different place.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I do not want to get into exchanging remarks of this type across the floor. The point that is being proved here is that this man had domicile in Montreal in the province of Quebec and has never moved out of that province. Therefore the matter is properly before us because sometimes there may be conflict with respect to whether or not there is jurisdiction to deal with a particular case. Then there are some events leading up to the allegation of adultery which

Private Bills-Divorce
Mr. Seguin draws out in evidence. He asked him how long they lived together after they were married and the petitioner said for about two and a half years or some time at the beginning of 1945. Then there is this testimony:
Q. Did you leave her or did she leave you at that time?
A. She would have nothing to do with me. I told her, "The least thing you could do is before going to bed to wash yourself" and she hit me with a bottle. She told me to get out and see-
Here, a word is used that I would not use in this place. It is the shortened form of the word one applies to a woman of the streets, as it were.
That is when I broke up with her.


Clayton Wesley Hodgson: Read on.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. member is asking me to read on. Undoubtedly he has an intense interest in this sort of thing. There is some phraseology in here, Mr. Chairman, and some words are used-I know they are given in evidence-


John (Jack) Henry Horner: They would not bother you.


Charles Benjamin Howard: -which refer to some particular thing, but I would not use them here. They are in the evidence for any hon. member who desires to make reference to them. Then these questions follow:
Q. And you remember the approximate date when you left her?
A. It happened sometime in August or September of 1944 or 1945; I don't remember the exact date.
Q. It was after she beat you with the bottle you left?
A. Yes.
Then farther down there are some questions by Mr. Seguin with reference to condoning this act and there is a reference to a child. You have indicated before, Mr. Chairman, that we have no right to discuss the children, so I think I should not make reference to that. Then these questions follow:
Q. Since you left your wife have you had anything to do with her? Have you cohabited with her as man and wife?
A. No, sir.
Q. Have you been going out with her?
A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know anything personally of the adultery alleged in the petition to the effect that your wife was in a certain place with a man-
He gives here the name of the corespondent.
A. Yes, sir. I was in the car on the parking lot of the place where the motel is situated.
Q. Did you go in the cabin or the room?
A. No, I was in my car and I saw the detectives going in.
The reference to the detectives, I imagine, is a reference to Mr. Albert Janelle, who appears as a witness and who is listed as an

investigator, and Mr. Armand Labonte, wh( is also a witness and lists his occupation a: chief of police. In any event, we will go oi with the questions:
Q. That is all you know about it?
A. I saw the detectives going into the motel.
By Senator Bradley:
Q. You don't know who was in the room?
A. I saw my wife and this fellow go in.
Q. And you saw the detectives go in?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you see anybody come out?
A. I saw the detectives come out.
Q. But not your wife or the man?
A. No.
Then there is another question by Senatoi Bradley on the top of page 11:
Q. Do you know who the man was?
A. I know now who it was.
Q. You did not know at the time?
A. I knew slightly because the man did appeal at my dance hall at certain times.
The petitioner lists his occupation, in reply to questions by the clerk, as a dance hal owner. Then there is this question:
Q. What is his name?
He gives the name of the corespondent Then the next questions relate to the fad of whether or not there is any close relationship between the petitioner and the corespondent, whether there is any collusion Mr. Seguin asks these questions:
Q. Had you ever talked to this man before?
A. Maybe "hello" when he would come upstairs,
Q. And that is all?
A. That is all.
Q. Did you ask this man to go out with youi wife?
A. No, I did not.
Q. Did you ask your wife to go out with him?
A. No, I did not.
Q. It is also alleged that your wife gave birth to a baby girl. Do you personally know anything aboul that?
A. I found out about that sometime in December, 1958.
This would undoubtedly be a reference tc a child born some years after the parties had separated, although that is not clearly established. Then there is this question:
Q. You were just told; she did not admit it herself?
A. She did admit it.
Then by Senator Bradley, there are these questions:
Q. What did she say?
A. She was very drunk and she told me exactly what happened, that she gave birth to a child sometime in September, 1956, and she gave the child out for adoption.
I think perhaps we may be running afoul of the rules to mention the child, except tha1 this may be permissible here because ii would give some corroboration or proof oi the adultery. These parties separated in September, 1944 or 1945, according to the evidence given earlier, and the petitioner

had not seen her or been out with her or cohabited with her since that time. This child having been born in September, 1956, according to the evidence, would indicate that adultery had taken place. It is only in that context that I think mention of this child might be in order.
Then Senator Bradley, who is interested in this same point, asks some further questions:
Q. Did she give you the name of the father of that child?
A. No, she did not.
Q. She just told you she had another child?
A. Yes; and she mentioned the name given to the child-I think it was-
Then he gives the name.
Q. Did she tell you when the child was born?
A. I believe October 1, 1956.
Q. Were you the father of that child?
A. No, I was not.
Senator Gershaw then asks questions about the surrounding circumstances of this conversation between the respondent and the petitioner which led to this reference to the child having been born. He asks:
Q. Where did this conversation take place?
A. She came to me for some money-I had given her the money. She was feeling good and we started talking. She broke down and started to cry and said "X had a child four years ago and that is why I am drinking even more now-it is on my mind."
Q. Did she stay overnight?
A. No, she never stayed overnight with me since the day we broke up.
Then Senator Bradley asks further questions about condoning the act, and they are as follows:
Q. You have never had any sexual relations with her since your breakup 15 years ago?
A. No, sir.
Then they want to discover whether there is any collusion in connection with this divorce and Mr. Seguin inquires:
Q. Did you arrange this divorce with your wife?
A. No.
Q. Would you take her back or forgive her?
A. Never.
Then Senator Bradley follows this questioning further by asking:
Q. Did you do anything in the way of embarrassing this woman or thrusting men in her way or anything of that kind?
A. No.
Q. And you didn't talk to her about this divorce?
A. No.
Q. This is not framed between you?
A. No.
Then the chairman, Senator Kinley, speaks up and says:
Q. You do not forgive her?
A. No.
In the questions a number of things are indicated. One is that they have been parted for some 15 years. Another is that there has been no collusion between them to plan the
Private Bills-Divorce
divorce, no collusion for the wife to meet the corespondent or for the corespondent to meet the wife, and that this was not arranged for by the petitioner. There is also, from the evidence given so far, an indication that adultery had taken place because of the baby girl that was born to the respondent, the wife, some 10 years or 11 years after they had separated. On the surface this fact would indicate that adultery had taken place, especially since the petitioner is asked by Senator Bradley the direct question:
Q. Were you the father of that child?
A. No I was not.
As I say, on the surface this would indicate that adultery had taken place. It is probably far greater proof of adultery than that which we have been given in many other instances.
While investigators or an investigator and a chief of police are involved in this case as witnesses on behalf of the petitioner, as yet I have not looked up that part of the evidence as to what they discovered. If it is anything similar to the evidence that is usual in cases of this nature, it will not be so conclusive in its proof of adultery or corroboration of adultery as is the evidence that has been given to us so far by the petitioner himself.
It is true that it is one-sided evidence. It is true that the respondent was not there to give evidence. Although she was called, she did not appear. Having been served with notice of the action, I am sure that if she were much interested she would have appeared. Had she done so she might have given evidence and it might well have been the case that some of it might have been different. As to that, I do not know.
But this evidence that is before us, I would say without going further into what the investigator and the chief of police have to say about what they discovered, would be more conclusive proof of adultery having taken place than possibly would the evidence of the investigators themselves, although there is no evidence here as to just who the corespondent was or not as to who the corespondent was but as to who the father was of the child that was born some four or five years ago. If it is necessary in a divorce action to have a corespondent and the name and address of that corespondent, then perhaps it is necessary to go further into the evidence. I notice my friend the hon. member for Halifax shaking his head in the negative. Perhaps for my information I could ask a question. Could I take that to mean that it is not necessary to have a corespondent in a divorce action?


Robert Jardine McCleave: My hon. friend means the name of the corespondent. That is so. If the name cannot be found by diligent search or inquiry it is provided that the person does

Private Bills-Divorce
not have to be named in the petition. It happens that there are a few cases further on in which that practice is adopted.


Charles Benjamin Howard: However, as I said earlier, I would suggest that the evidence given so far, even though there is no name or address given of the corespondent, there is certainly an indication that there is or was a male corespondent so far as the birth of the child was concerned and it would seem to me that that fact in itself would be sufficient inasmuch as it is not a contested case and that we need go no further.
However, perhaps inasmuch as the evidence is here it might be worth-while determining in a brief way just what evidence is given by the investigator and the chief of the police and what they actually discovered with respect to the actual allegation of adultery having taken place with this particular corespondent because apparently that is what the case is based upon and is what should be considered, although I myself would say without hesitation that the case has been proved already.
Mr. Albert Janelle appeared as a witness and was sworn. He gives his name, address and occupation as an investigator to the clerk of the committee. Then he is asked some questions by Mr. Seguin. He then tells for whom he is working, he identifies a photograph that is exhibit 2 as being that, as he said, of the gentleman's wife or respondent and he gave her name. Then this question is asked:
Q. On what occasion did you see her?
A. I saw her on January 26, 1959. A lawyer, Rene Durenleau, he called me up and asked me if I was free on the 26th, at night about half past six to follow someone who was to pick up a certain lady at-
He gives here the address. It sounds as though this lawyer had an undue amount of information as to what the individual was about to do, whom he was to pick up and when he was supposed to pick her up and at what address. This is what Mr. Janelle tells us. He tells us that he was called up and asked if he was free on the 26th, the specific night and the specific time at night, namely six thirty, to follow someone who is going to pick up a certain lady. As I say, Mr. Durenleau, the lawyer in this case, must have had an undue amount of ability to discover information of that nature if it was not already planned that on the 26th a certain lady would be picked up at a certain address and there would be an investigator there to notice all that sort of thing. In fact, Senator Ger-shaw follows that point up and says this:
A lawyer asked this detective to be ready to go at a certain hour on a certain night. Well, that seems as if the whole thing was planned or arranged that they all be there at that time.
IMr. McCleave.l
Mr. Janelle spoke through an interpreter, and the interpreter says this:
The witness answers that it was to keep watch.
Even so, if it was to keep watch, it was to keep watch upon a certain thing that he was told beforehand would take place and that he was to follow someone who would pick up a certain lady at a particular address on this particular night. In any event Mr. Seguin follows with the question in this regard:
Q. But did he actually give you a time or anything, or give you an address?
Then there is left out the usual capital "A".-it is not in the evidence-indicating an answer. I suspect that this is merely an omission of this letter and that the answer is as follows:
Oh, yes, he told me about half past six.
Q. To go there around half past six?
A. Yes. He told me that the wife's husband would probably be there, that he had given the lawyer the investigator's licence plate number.
Q. And who was that man, is he here in the room?
A. Yes, but I didn't see him at that particular time. I saw him when I got there, and he followed us, and I had two men with me. My man told me that there was a car following us, but I knew that it was a Rambler station wagon. I stayed in my car with one man, and another man kept watch on the street.
Apparently there are three detectives or three investigators involved in this case and the respondent himself, all of whom knew that at a certain time something was going to take place and they were to be there. Anyway, Senator Bradley follows this question up as follows:
By Senator Bradley:
Q. Who was in this car following you?
A. I don't know. I followed the man to the motel with the wife. He stopped his car in front of 1107, and eleven. One side was a gas station with a restaurant, 1107. The restaurant's name is Lauren-tides. On the other side of the motel is number 1111.
Q. This thing does not make sense. I mean, you are still on-street, and all of a sudden we find you at a motel, and nothing happened on-. But X have not had an answer to my question yet about the car that was following.
By Mr. Seguin:
Q. Tell us about that?
A. He only found out who the person was in the car at the motel afterwards.


Charles Edward Rea: Order; the hon. member's time has expired.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I would like to say a few words on this bill. Here we have a case which is a very good one. There are two gentlemen over there who particularly like defending the rights of individuals. In this case we have a couple who were married some time ago and the question was put, "How long is it since you left her?", and the answer was "Fifteen years". Fifteen years,

Private Bills-Divorce
yet these people over there are trying to protect the rights of the individual. This couple have not been together for 15 years and in the intervening time the wife has had an illegitimate child. Yet that pair over there are trying to protect the rights of individuals. It is nothing but plain cruelty-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member must refer only to Bill No. SD-30.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I don't know whether the hon. member objects to the evidence or whether he says it is wrong or whether he does not believe in it, but on page 11 we have the question:
Q. You were just told: she did not admit it herself?
A. She did admit it.
That is with regard to the illegitimate child. The hon. member goes on and reads the evidence, and we can all read, I hope. These people have not been together for 15 years, according to the evidence. An illegitimate child has been born to the wife, and certainly we should grant the divorce and get on with the proceedings and pass on to the next case. This evidence is clear if ever there was a clear case before this committee. It went through the Senate committee and the evidence is all here. I think we should get on and give those people a divorce and try and do something for the rights of others, besides narrow-mindedness and pig-headedness on the part of-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Halifax.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Skeena was reading the evidence but his time ran out before he was able to read some further evidence at the bottom of page 16 which gives a better appearance to this case than the evidence he read before in which he made reference to what looked like an arrangement to follow the wife on this particular night. Even looking at the evidence which appears at the bottom of page 16 the case was not, I think one would say, a particularly happy one, but I think the scales of justice have been thrown into proper balance and we can make up our minds that this person is deserving of a divorce by the fact that the wife had been carrying on with another man at another time, as the baby attests, and also by the fact that the marriage to all intents and purposes was dissipated a long time ago.
I will not read the actual evidence; I prefer to take part in the debate rather than read this sort of thing before people in the public gallery and hon. members in the committee. But there is evidence on page 16 which
rather softens the effect of some of the evidence which has been read hitherto.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I imagine the hon. member for Acadia could look down the neck of any medicine bottle with two eyes at the same time when it comes to narrow-mindedness.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Well, at least I am not a communist.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Do you know anyone in this house who is?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I know someone who could be.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You are nothing but a dirty liar.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I resent accusations of this kind, Mr. Chairman, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw them completely.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He called me a communist.
The Depuiy Chairman: I did not hear the hon. member say you were a communist. I may be wrong in what I heard, but would the hon. member advise me whether he did so?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: 1 said I was looking at one who could be.


Charles Benjamin Howard: He was looking at you when he said that, Mr. Chairman.
The Depuiy Chairman: The hon. member did not say you were.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege, I believe the hon. member for Skeena used the phrase, "dirty liar". That is definitely unparliamentary and I suggest he withdraws it.
The Depuiy Chairman: I did not hear that phrase.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He said that from his seat.


Charles Benjamin Howard: No, I said it while standing up, as I make all my remarks.
The Depuiy Chairman: If the hon. member said "dirty liar" I will have to ask him to withdraw that remark.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I will gladly do that now that the hon. member for Acadia has backed away from his initial slanderous accusation.
The Depuiy Chairman: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: That is what I said at the start.


Charles Benjamin Howard: You do not withdraw it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I said what I said.
4812	HOUSE OF
Private Bills-Divorce The Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. member for Skeena has the floor.


Charles Benjamin Howard: That is why I withdrew the reference I made to the hon. member for Acadia.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. That matter has been taken care of.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I thought it had too, but my volatile friend over there insists on jumping up.


Charles Edward Rea: Order. Come back to the bill.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The hon. member for Acadia in his initial remarks read precisely what I had read and in effect said precisely the same thing as I said.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Why do you not pass the bifl?


Charles Benjamin Howard: He said the evidence so far indicates that there is proof of adultery.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Get on with the bill.


Charles Benjamin Howard: This is what causes ulcers and high blood pressure-impatience, intolerance and slanderous statements.


Charles Edward Rea: Order.


Charles Benjamin Howard: They are statements which would not be allowed in many other places. But as the hon. member for Acadia pointed out, he reiterated what I had said up to that time. The evidence goes on to indicate evidence of adultery by the petitioner, a child being born out of wedlock to the respondent after some 10 or 12 years after they had separated, and that full weight should be given in considering this particular petition. It makes me wonder, therefore, why it was necessary to go through all the expense and rigmarole of having two or three investigators or detectives prove, in a rather incidental way-


Charles Edward Rea: Order. The hon. member is back to procedure again. I must ask him to stick to the bill.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not intend to get into the question of procedure, only to say that this evidence is given in support of the allegation of adultery so that the marriage can be dissolved, and it makes me wonder in my own mind what adultery is. I got into a discussion of this sort before. This is the evidence given by Mr. Janelle after he got inside the hotel. He was asked:
Q. Now, you went to the door; what door?
A. Number 17. A man came and opened the door, he was wearing shorts;-
That is not evidence of adultery.
-the bed was undone;-


That is not evidence of adultery but only evidence that a bed was undone. So a woman was sitting on the chair. That is not evidence of adultery, it is evidence only that she was sitting on the chair.
Q. She was sitting on a chair, you say?
A. All she was wearing was a slip and brassiere. The bed was all undone.
That again is not evidence of adultery. It is only evidence of what she was wearing or, perhaps, of what she was not wearing.
Q. Did you talk to this woman?
A. I asked both the man and the woman what their names were. He told me his name was-, and she told me she was-. The man asked me. "What is the matter, is it wrong to go out with her, she always told me that her husband was dead?" I answered, "He is not dead, he is in the car."
That is not evidence of adultery. It is only evidence that the husband was in the car.
When the owner of the motel came to ask me what I was doing there I told him I was waiting for some one. I saw this car coming, and I recognized the Rambler that had been following us. That is why I told the woman in the motel room that her husband was not dead, that he was outside in the car.
So far, there has been no evidence of adultery; only evidence that people were attired in a certain way. Senator Bradley is also concerned about what is evidence of adultery, because he says:
Q. We want to get clearly, witness, what you saw in that room 17?
A. The bed was undone. The sheet had been thrown to the foot of the bed. The bed was undone.
That is the fourth or fifth time the bed has been undone, but it still does not prove adultery.
Q. Was there anybody in the bed?
A. There was no one in the bed, but someone had been in the bed.
Q. Who was in the room?
A. The woman.
Q. Mrs.-and a man?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you know who the man was?
A. No. I don't know who he was. I asked him for his licence and he told me it was none of my business.
That, I think, is the proper answer that a person such as this should give to one of these nosey investigators. Nowhere in this evidence is there any reference to adultery, and I wonder why people waste their time coming here with this sort of evidence when the evidence of the petitioner himself shows that a child was born out of wedlock after a separation of years and that he himself was not the father of the child. That should be sufficient grounds on which to grant his divorce. Those are the grounds to which I give my support in considering this particular case.
The chief of police of Marieville also gives evidence in this case. He said he went to this

>articular street on January 26, 1959 accom->anied by a Mr. Janelle, and parked the car
0	watch.
At about 7.25 a convertible Pontiac came up, topped in front of 3442, and the man stepped out if the car and entered that number, and came iut with a woman-the woman on the photograph.
Then they followed the car to the motel. Che man and woman-the corespondent and he respondent-walked into a cabin. The ividence continues:
We waited 20 or 25 minutes; the lights went out n the cabin, and we walked to the door. Mr. 'anelle knocked; it took a minute or a minute and
1	half before he came and opened the door; the nan was wearing his b.v.d.'s. He asked what we ranted and Mr. Janelle talked to him. The woman ras sitting on the side of the bed wearing only a lip and brassiere.
Janelle said she was not sitting on the led at all, but that she was sitting in a hair. I point out that this kind of evidence night just as well not be here at all. It adds lothing to what has already been stated, ^s I have said, there is ample evidence ilready as far as adultery is concerned over i period of some 15 years-evidence that a hild had been born out of wedlock of which his woman's husband is not the father. Chis, I would say, is proof positive that idultery had taken place whereas the evidence ;iven by the chief of police and by Mr. anelle is merely that they discovered a ouple of people together in this motel. It oncerns only the state of dress of the two leople concerned, and all this took place vithin 20 or 25 minutes between the time hey got to the motel and the time they mocked on the door.


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

Lionel Chevrier: May I ask the Leader of the Ipposition if there is any change in the
Business of the House business which was announced last night for next week?


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are two slight changes to announce. I listed for Monday certain bills dealing with financial matters. I should like to change the order. The bills are given on page 4765 of Hansard, but I will repeat them.
1.	The second reading of Bill No. C-74 referring to the Customs Tariff.
2.	Bill No. C-73 referring to the Excise Tax Act.
3.	Bill No. C-65 referring to the Estate Tax Act.
4.	Bill No. C-69 referring to the expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system.
5.	Bill No. C-64, to amend the Emergency Gold Mining Assistance Act.
6.	Bill No. S-32, to authorize the construction and maintenance of a bridge across the St. Lawrence river near the twon of La Salle.
7.	Bill No. C-68 referring to the Income Tax Act.
If this business should be completed on Monday there is available item 10 on today's order paper, the resolution in the name of the Minister of Finance dealing with the Public Service Superannuation Act.
For Tuesday, the first item will be consideration of the resolution in the name of the Prime Minister, dealing with the matter of the tenure of office of judges, followed by the motion in the name of the Minister of National Revenue to set up a select committee on the subject of broadcasting. Any of the items which I have called for Monday which are not completed on Monday would be dealt with again on Tuesday if the business proceeds rapidly enough.


Lionel Chevrier: I suppose the Minister of National Revenue is free now to deal with this matter.


Gordon Minto Churchill: And quite happy.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Question

[Stage Direction]
The following answer, deposited with the Clerk of the house, is printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:
minister's aircraft expenses, whitehorse-

Mr. Hardie: 1.	What was the cost of aircraft charter for th( Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and party, from Whitehorse, Yukon, to Fort Smith Northwest Territories, in September, 1959?
2.	How many stops were made between Whitehorse and Fort Smith, and what was the duratioi of each stop?
Answer by: Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minisiei of Northern Affairs and National Resources)
1.	Pacific Western Airlines
Whitehorse, Y.T. to Fort McPherson, N.W.T	 $784.63
Wardair Limited
Fort McPherson, N.W.T. to Fort Smith, N.W.T	$2,330.77
(Via Aklavik, Tuktoyaktuk, Inuvik, Norman	

Wells, Fort Simpson, Yellowknife)	$3,115.40
2.	Approximate times of departure and arrival:
P.W.A. aircraft
Departure Whitehorse 1 p.m. Dawson 12 noon Hungry Lake 1.30 p.m.
Arrival Dawson 5 p.m.
Hungry Lake 1 p.m. Fort McPherson 5 p.m.
Wardair Limited
Fort McPherson 7 a.m. Aklavik 10.30 a.m. Tuktoyaktuk 3 p.m. Inuvik 6 a.m.
Norman Wells 10 a.m. Fort Simpson 10 a.m. Yellowknife 5.30 p.m.
Aklavik 7.30 a.m. Tuktoyaktuk 12 noon Inuvik 5 p.m. Norman Wells 7 a.m. Fort Simpson 4 p.m. Yellowknife 3 p.m. Fort Smith 7 p.m.
Date
September 6 September 7 September 7
September 8 September 8 September 8 September 10 September 10 September 11 September 11
[The following items were passed in committee of supply]:



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
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.
Aids to navigation-
560. Administration, operation and maintenance- further amount required, $1,376,445.


[Stage Direction]
queen's PRINTER AND CONTROLLER OF STATIONERY OTTAWA, 1960
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 11, 1960	POSTMASTER APPOINTMENTS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. A. Cathers (York North) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on banking and commerce and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.