1960-03-08

Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege. I do so at this stage because it has just come to my attention this morning and it affects the house and every member in it as well as the official publications of the house. I refer to today's Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day at page 4, the government order or notice of resolution No. 10 in the name of the Prime Minister with respect to the proposed new section 99 of the British North America Act. Subsection 1 makes reference to "the judges of the superior district and county courts" without any comma between the words "superior" and "district". This would indicate that the desire is to establish a new type of court, namely the superior district and county court.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Frank Howard: My hon. friends can say "oh, oh" if they like, but I would point out that there are great discrepancies in what is indicated in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day and what is reported in Hansard for the day this resolution was transferred to government notices of motion, and also in the correspondence that the Minister of Justice has entered into with the provinces, which correspondence has also been tabled in Hansard.
I raise the matter at this time in the hope that these discrepancies may be cleared up so it will be clear precisely what the Prime Minister is hoping to do by proposing this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not just sure what specific complaint the hon. member has to make. Is it the commas to which he has referred?


Frank Howard: The fact that there is a discrepancy between what appears in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day and what appears in Hansard for the day on which this resolution was transferred to government notices of motion. It revolves around the
lack of commas which, as you can appreciate, could indicate other than what was originally intended.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that the hon. member who raises this important point does not impute the change to any deliberate action on the part of any member of the house.


Frank Howard: Oh, no.



RAILWAYS, CANALS AND TELEGRAPH LINES

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Howe.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposition):: I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce whether he would care to comment on a report in the press this morning from London dated March 7 to the effect-and it has just been brought to my attention or I would have given him notice- that Japan has placed orders for a ten year uranium supply from the British atomic authority.


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of a news report that the United States navy, with the approval of the United States chiefs of staff, has ordered the withdrawal of 32 destroyer picket ships from the D.E.W. line system. Would the minister say whether Canada was consulted before this decision was made, and would he comment upon the report that the United States joint chiefs of staff overrode the commander of NORAD in authorizing this change?


Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, Canada was consulted during the last meeting of the joint



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry board, and we were advised that ships would be withdrawn from the seaward extension of the D.E.W. line.
With regard to the second part of the question as to whether the NORAD commander was overruled, I would not be prepared to make any comment on that matter. These ships were never under NORAD command.
Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Was Canada in favour of these ships being removed, and does this not reduce very materially the defence provided by the D.E.W. line system?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this reduces materially the defence provided by the D.E.W. line system. The D.E.W. line system is an early warning system; the seaward extension was an extension of that warning system in order to give warning of the approach of hostile bombers if they came in from the sea. As the threat of the hostile bomber appears to be decreasing, so it was considered possible to withdraw those ships. There are still the aircraft patrols which will be able to give warning from across the ocean.


Hazen Robert Argue: Would not this diminishing of the bomber threat to which the minister has referred make the Bomarc expenditures useless?


George Randolph Pearkes: No, Mr. Speaker. It may be a diminishing threat, but it has not diminished.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John Drysdale (Burnaby-Richmond):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the house whether the government has reached any decision as to appealing the judgment in the Canadian Breweries Limited case? If the decision is that this case should not be appealed, what is the government's intention with regard to the Western Sugar case, which also arises out of a merger?


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, in the Canadian Breweries case, in view of the finding of fact by the learned trial judge that the extent and effect of control of the price of beer by provincial liquor control boards is such as to take the industry out of the field of price competition, it has been decided not to appeal.
The government is, however, proceeding with the Western Sugar case, which is expected to come to trial toward the end of this month.
On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister please inform the house what quantities of pork products are now held by the agricultural stabilization board? Will he also advise as to the intentions of the board respecting the sale of any of this product in Canada, and whether any of it will be sold during the present period of heavy hog marketings in such a way as to have an adverse influence on the hog market?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, stocks of pork products held by the agricultural stabilization board at this date are approximately 32 million pounds of pork cuts and 99 million pounds of canned pork. The board has just completed the sale, by tender, of about 500,000 pounds of ham stored before last September to be used for manufacture into a chopped, canned product. I am assured that the sale of this product for this purpose will have no adverse influence on the hog market.
The board does not propose to release any further pork cuts for sale in Canada in any form until such time as there is a more favourable balance between domestic pork requirements and hog marketings. In any case no cuts will be sold into the domestic market until after Easter. Board stocks of canned pork will be offered for sale in the domestic market starting April 18, under an arrangement similar to that followed in 1952 and 1953 when canned pork accumulated by the agricultural prices support board was made available for sale in Canada. The detailed terms with respect to this sale will be announced in due course by the stabilization board.
This sale of canned pork into the domestic market at that time is not expected to have any significant influence on the hog market.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. It is being reported that an instrument known as the flight memory unit, designed to be fitted in the tail of large commercial aircraft, records on a fine steel wire any conversation between the pilot and

the crew. It is entirely automatic and requires no attention once installed. It furnishes a full record of intercrew communication and flight data. This would include the moment of impact in the event of an accident-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. So far the hon. member is making some observations about an instrument. Has he a question to ask?


Hubert Badanai: The question is, has T.C.A.
or the Department of National Defence made any move to secure such an instrument for aircraft coming under their control; and, if not, will the ministers concerned look into it?
I may add that I have sent notice of my intention to ask this question to the Minister of Transport and the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: If the minister is prepared to answer, well and good, but it strikes me as a question which could properly go on the order paper.


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):: There is a relatively short answer, so I might as well give it. I wish to thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his intention to ask this question.
My department has no knowledge of the particular instrument known as the flight memory unit. However, over the years similar units have been developed to record flight data. These units have been used for special purposes such as recording flight altitudes, rates of climb and descent, and other flight information. These units have never been accepted for continuous use on commercial air lines, and I am advised that Trans-Canada Air Lines does not plan to instal units of the flight memory type.
My department will secure all information possible on the flight memory unit developed by the Australian government's aeronautical research laboratories.



LIVESTOCK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. My question is based on a newspaper report in the Globe and Mail of March 3, which states that Alderman Kenneth Ostrander of Toronto has charged before the board of health that dozens of city stores are now passing over their counters meat which has not been subject to government inspection. Alderman Ostrander blamed three or four operators at the union stockyards who, he claims, are taking sick animals and turning
Inquiries of the Ministry them over to firms in Toronto and other centres. The alderman is also reported to have said that he was assured by an official connected with the federal health of animals division of the Department of Agriculture that culled cattle, many of them ill, were being sold, killed and cut up for human consumption.
My question is, would the minister tell the house whether he has been informed of this situation and what action, if any, has been taken by his department to stop the sale of sick animals for human consumption.


Douglas Scott Harkness: The department is aware of the reports in the Toronto press concerning the allegations made by Alderman Ostrander respecting the sale of diseased meat in the city of Toronto.
The federal government has no jurisdiction over the sale of meat in Toronto in so far as requiring that all meats sold must be subject to government inspection. If meat is being sold in Toronto from diseased animals which have not been subject to federal meat inspection, the responsibility for dealing with this matter rests entirely with the local authorities.
The reports implied that diseased animals had been removed from the union stockyards in Toronto for slaughter in premises not under federal meat inspection. Inspectors of the health of animals division exercise authority over the disposal of diseased animals in public stockyards, including the Toronto yards. Inquiries instituted by the department following the statements attributed to Alderman Ostrander have failed to reveal instances where diseased animals were disposed of other than to inspected plants for slaughter under federal veterinary inspection and post mortem examination to determine their fitness for human consumption.
An observation that may be made in this connection is that a clear differentiation must be drawn between diseased animals and thin, aged animals, which are classified as culls but which are otherwise in normal health.


Mr. E. W. Brunsden (Medicine Hat):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Had the minister any previous knowledge that British Columbia cattle were being sold on the Toronto market?


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have no knowledge of it, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. J. Michaud (Kent, N.B.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can the minister

Inquiries of the Ministry advise whether any action has been taken by the provincial government to transfer to federal authorities the provincial oyster leasing responsibility in the remaining portions of New Brunswick? If so, was this action the result of representations made by fishermen's groups or the result of direct government initiative?


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to ask this question. As matters stand at the moment the government of the province of New Brunswick has approved, through provincial order in council, the transfer to the federal government of oyster leasing responsibilities in all the remaining portions of New Brunswick. A submission is now being made to council requesting approval to sign the agreement on behalf of the federal government.
As far as representations are concerned, I am not sure as to whether or not the fishermen's groups made representations, as these would be made to the provincial government which had the responsibility. In so far as the federal government is concerned, the initiative was taken by the New Brunswick government and concurred in by the federal representatives. I should perhaps add that a number of members of parliament have expressed interest in having this transfer made.
(Translation):



REQUEST FOR SIMULTANEOUS PUBLICATION OF FRENCH TRANSLATION OF COMMITTEE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielte-L'Assomplion-Monicalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Acting Secretary of State.
Since the French version of house committee reports is published each year only after considerable delay, is the minister considering the possibility of having those reports come out at the same time in both languages, in the same way as Hansard?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Acting Secretary of State):: I thank the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm for his question which several other members have already put to me privately. On inquiry, I learned that a shortage of translators makes it impossible to have those reports come out simultaneously in both languages.


I take this opportunity to commend the splendid work being done by the Hansard translators and by the interpreters of our debates in this house. Those interpreters compare favourably with the best in international organizations.
As for the question put to me by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, I must inform him that, if we wanted all house committee reports to come out at the same time in both official languages, we would have to increase the translation division estimates. However, I assure the hon. member that this problem is being carefully looked into at this time.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: In view of the minister's reply, could I ask him why he does not hire more translators considering the present unemployment situation?


An hon. Member:: It is going to be done.


Léon Balcer: It is a matter of estimates.
(Text):



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In response to a question from me earlier this session the minister indicated that the budget would not be brought down during the month of February. Could the minister now indicate whether he expects to bring it down this month and, if so, approximately when?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be in a position to bring down the budget in March or April.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE INQUIRY AS TO CALLING OF CONFERENCE ON FISCAL MATTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance, now that he has seemingly recovered from his paroxysm of last night, whether it has yet been decided when the federal government will meet with the provinces during the course of the summer on fiscal matters, as was indicated by the Prime Minister?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, no date has yet been set for that purpose, but I hope when the date has been set and is announced in the house the hon. gentleman will be in his seat in the house, as he was not last night.


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I say that if I was not here it was because I had accepted an invitation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. May I ask the Prime Minister, does he not think the invitation from the Secretary of State for External Affairs might have been much more constructive though not as amusing as last night's show by the Minister of Finance?


Donald Methuen Fleming: May I tell the hon. member that we got along very well in his absence last night.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavista-Twillingate):: May I ask the minister a supplementary question. Will the minister give us an assurance that the announcement will be made in this house and not by the premier of Ontario, as now seems habitual?



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Fort William asked this question:
Would the minister consider doing away with the compulsory insurance feature on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation mortgages?
The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
st. John's, nfld.-statement on request for

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Trinity-Conception asked a question concerning the enlarging of the Newfoundland hotel at St. John's. I might mention that I brought to the attention of the Canadian National Railways the observations he made in the house on July 2 last, as well as the representations that were made by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) in this regard.
The management advise me that general consideration has been given to the matter, but no decision has been reached on the question of an extension.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a supplementary question. Did the minister receive any representations from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Browne)?


George Harris Hees: We discuss these matters continually, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY



REFERENCE TO REMARKS BY PRIME MINISTER ON SECOND ROUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of his speech the other night on "The Nation's Business," in which he made the important statement with reference to a second trans-Canada highway that "preliminary discussions are taking place concerning the northern route in the western part". Can the Prime Minister say what is the nature of the preliminary discussions, and what progress is being made?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the discussions are preliminary; that is their nature, and when we are in the position to go farther than that the house will be made aware of the plans we have in mind.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say with what province or provinces he has had those preliminary discussions?


John George Diefenbaker: The question of another trans-Canada highway has not been discussed with the provinces particularly.


Hazen Robert Argue: Can the Prime Minister say with whom the preliminary discussions have taken place, since obviously the provinces have to be consulted?



INCOME TAX


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Yesterday, as reported in Hansard at pages 1789, 1790 and 1791, various questions were asked following that of the hon. member for Kootenay West respecting representations regarding pension vesting provisions. The hon. member for Mackenzie River used these words:
I wonder whether the Prime Minister could explain to the house how this order in council was passed without the knowledge of the head of the government?
Later on the Leader of the Opposition, in the concluding part of the discussion, asked if, on further examination of this matter, I found that there was an order in council, it could be tabled. The statement I made yesterday was that there was no order in council, and that is so. There was not.

Civil Aviation INDIAN AFFAIRS



INQUIRY AS TO PROTESTS REGARDING EXTENSION OF FRANCHISE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if I could ask the Prime
Minister whether he would be in a position, if not today then at the beginning of tomorrow's session, to give the rest of the reply to a question I asked about protests regarding the extension of the franchise to Indians, in view of the fact that this subject is up for debate tomorrow?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, sir.

The house resumed, from Monday, March 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fleming (Eglinton) for committee of supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Chevrier, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fisher.



GOVERNMENT POLICY IN RESPECT TO CIVIL AVIATION

Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: When the debate was adjourned last night I was referring to the competitive factor in Canadian air transport, as illustrated by Trans-Canada and Canadian Pacific Air Lines. I should like now to refer to some previous remarks I made because, as the house well knows, on a supply motion the opposition choose the field of battle, set up whatever straw men they wish, and then proceed to tear these dummy men to pieces. They can pick out those figures and statistics which support their case and ignore those which do not. Fortunately, having had an adjournment, I was able to do a little bit of checking on the expenditures of the transport department on airport construction. I should like to place on Hansard a few figures in that regard.
During the four years in which the present Minister of Finance has had the honour of bringing in the budget, the amount of money placed in the estimates for this particular item has been as follows: 1957-58, $35 million; 1958-59, $61,348,000'; 1959-60, $63 million; 1960-61, $52 million. The total for those four years is some $211 million.


William Moore Benidickson: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the hon. member a question, because I recall very well his figures yesterday. Surely he does not attribute the budget of 1957-58 to the new administration when he makes his calculations on a four year basis. Surely the Minister of Finance has only introduced three budgets.


Ernest James Broome: The budget of 1957-58 was brought in by the previous administration, but it was this government that carried through that budget.


William Moore Benidickson: That is not what you said.


Ernest James Broome: As I have said, the total is $211 million. The hon. member for Laurier made quite a bit of the fact that in 1959 the amount for this item was $63 million while this year it is $52 million, a drop of $11 million. However, if one goes back to the four years prior to 1956-57 one finds that the figures were as follows: 1956-57, $15 million; 1955-56, $14 million; 1954-55, $10 million, and 1953-54, $9 million. The total for those four years is $49,350,000. If you go back even farther to 1952-53, the amount was almost $8 million for this item, and in 1951-52 it was $6.5 million. We find, therefore, that the expenditure for the preceding four years was a little less than one quarter of the amount this government has spent on airport construction in the last four years. The hon. member for Laurier says we are dragging our feet. I would suggest that the people who were dragging their feet were the previous administration.
I would suggest also that if one were to go back and ascertain the complete figures for airport construction from the time the Department of Transport was formed the total of the figures up to the time the former administration went out of office would not equal what this government has appropriated for this purpose. One cannot go back beyond 1950-51 because the expenditures for radio facilities and telecommunications were lumped in with this item, which is now carried as a separate item.
I believe the hon. member for Laurier quoted the Victoria Times to the effect that the airport terminal at Patricia Bay, Vancouver, was a glorified chicken coop. I would suggest that of all the terminals built by the previous administration, this is the only one that could be called a glorified chicken coop. The rest of them were chicken coops, and the only reason this one could be called glorified is because of the beautiful surroundings in which it is placed. However, I cannot say that the previous administration showed very much imagination or forethought in connection with the terminal buildings they did construct, in the light of the fact we are now having to replace them at practically every major airport across Canada.
The record of the previous administration with regard to the Vancouver airport is not one of which they should be proud. If my recollection is correct, in 1953 the hon. member for Laurier, who I believe was minister

of transport at that time, made the magnificent offer of $1 to the city of Vancouver to turn over their airport. Between 1953 and 1956, by easy stages, the amount involved worked its way up to $1 million. However, the city was not interested in turning over facilities which were much more valuable than that to the Department of Transport. The question was put to a plebiscite and the voters turned it down.
I should like to say a few words about the Vancouver airport, because I believe the operation of that airport under a local board has been a model of good operation in comparison with other airports across Canada. In the early days of air transport in Canada the city of Vancouver went out and acquired land for this airport, and in every respect were forward thinking in their decisions and in the actions they took. The situation now, however, is that the city would find it difficult financially to bring this airport up to the standard required for jet age transport. It is my hope that city and departmental officials can get together to ensure that the development of this airport will not be held back. I do, however, suggest that the previous administration was so preoccupied with centralization that no decisions could be made without reference to Ottawa. It might be well to look with favour upon a certain amount of decentralization in so far as the operation of these airports is concerned. Vancouver is a long way from Ottawa, and it takes quite a long time for decisions to be made.
I was told about a T.C.A. line maintenance building which was held up for nine months until a decision could be made concerning one of the three sites. Once that decision was made, all the details in regard to city negotiations were completed in some two or three weeks. I do believe that the airport at Vancouver must receive the backing of the Department of Transport. It must be built by the Department of Transport. I believe some consideration should be given to granting some degree of local autonomy in the day to day operations of the port.
The hon. member for Laurier had quite a lot to say in regard to giving away air routes.
I am not going to go into that, because I believe the minister will have plenty of ammunition to shoot those figures down in flames. However, I want to say just a couple of words about it. As reported at page 1798 of Hansard for March 7 the hon. member forecasts that the actions of this government will have driven T.C.A. into a deficit or loss position. Of course I do not know the figures for this year, but I took the trouble of looking up the figures for previous years. The margin 79951-0-116
Civil Aviation
of profit on T.C.A. operations was never very large. It was only a few hundred thousand dollars last year. However, I would venture to predict that they will still be in a profit position this year. We shall just have to wait until the financial figures are available before we can say which of us happens to be right.
However, I say that competition has been good for T.C.A.; that the action of this government in allowing Canadian Pacific Air Lines to extend their operations across Canada so they could link up their overseas route was a fair, just and necessary decision. I spoke in this house, and I never disguised my sentiments with regard to the fact that I believed that competition was required, that C.P.A. were worried and needed this linkage of their overseas routes; also that competition on transcontinental routes in itself, outside of linking up overseas routes, is a necessary thing so that T.C.A., by reason of competition in air traffic, may build up to where it will be the right decision to make to give further expansion to this air line.
As far as the report of the air transport board on this matter is concerned, on page 4 in their summary of findings and recommendations we find this:
The board finds that the position of C.P.A. as a Canadian carrier operating international services needs strengthening and for that reason, the board, subject to the approval of the minister, proposes to issue to C.P.A. a licence to operate a class 1 scheduled commercial air service serving Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal restricted to a frequency of one return flight a day.
Private enterprise can take on an operation such as that with one flight a day, set up baggage facilities and ticket facilities in those two cities, and be expected to make a profit; but according to the hon. member for Laurier, Trans-Canada Air Lines were to have a monopoly on this domestic business for the rest of eternity. The facts are that anybody who travels by air today knows that service is better because of the competition.
The hon. member for Port Arthur had something to say in that regard, and in his speech of yesterday mentioned that the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Smith) and myself were more interested. These were his words:
-that Canadians want transcontinental competition to suit their business convenience and, if I might just paraphrase, hang the cost either to the taxpayer or the public corporation which we have in existence.
I do not subscribe to the proposition that because an operation happens to be a crown company, that fact makes it pure lily-white and 100 per cent efficient in operation, and all the rest of it. In fact I think because it happens to be a crown corporation it should be suspect as not being as efficient as private

Civil Aviation
enterprise. I will say that this competition, this initial stage of competition-because it is just in the initial stage-has helped T.C.A. as well as making Canadian Pacific Air Lines really a class 1 carrier.
The matter goes further in that Canadian Pacific Air Lines in relinquishing northern feeder lines to Pacific Western Airlines, B.C. Airlines and other carriers, will help to build a strong network of secondary carriers. Under the policy which would have been followed if the hon. member for Laurier had been a member of the government, this could never have happened. I say this is helping to open up the north. Yet in this speech the hon. member twists-I suppose that to say "twists" is not the right way of doing it-


Mr. Graffiey:: Yes; it is all right.


Ernest James Broome: He interprets these facts as being the very opposite of what they really are. I do not want to labour these points, but I want to say a few words about the thundering denunciation made by the hon. member for Laurier in regard to the co-operative arrangement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. The hon. member evidently does not want people in Toronto to have direct connections to Europe.


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


Ernest James Broome: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member point out any place in Hansard where I complained about the co-operative agreement between T.C.A. and B.O.A.C.?


Ernest James Broome: Yes. I read over the hon. member's speech.


Lionel Chevrier: Where is it?


Ernest James Broome: I may have been thinking of the speech of the hon. member for Port Arthur.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member should be straight about that matter.


Ernest James Broome: If the hon. member says he agrees that this co-operative agreement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. is a good thing, then I accept his statement. In that he is in good company because Mr. Davoud, the chairman of the air transport board, also suggested that the pooling of facilities and equipment in an effort to cut costs is a good thing, as quoted by the hon. member for Port Arthur from an article in the Montreal Gazette.
One of the final points I wish to make- and I think I made it a bit last night-is with regard to Bangkok, where the rights to stop at Bangkok were treated with levity and it was asked who wants to go from Lisbon to

Rome to Bangkok. As I pointed out last night to the hon. member, Bangkok is just a stopover on a world air route to be eventually flown by C.P.A. Of course if you take the context of the hon. member's words and say "Who wants to go to Bangkok" I suspect that Bangkok would not cause the origination of a great deal of traffic. But I say it is misleading for the hon. member to go out and make statements like this in order to try to show that is the sum and substance or the end of it all.
That was not the end of it all. That is simply a stage in the further development of Canadian air carriers into world air carriers. I do not think the hon. member would be averse to Canadian carriers or Canadian airlines travelling around the world. So when you analyse the criticisms that have been made by the hon. member on the three points he raised, I think they fall to pieces. I think the opposition must have been fairly hard up to devote one of their six supply motion debates to this particular item.
The final thing I should like to say is this. Because we have competition in air lines across Canada we will be able to give perhaps more consideration to low cost air traffic, more tourist service. We have it across the Atlantic. We have it across the Pacific. We have it wherever we are in competition with air lines of other countries. Across Canada we do not have cheap air transport to that degree, but I noticed that once we had the Canadian Pacific carrier in operation, tourist seats in and out of Toronto became much more readily available than they ever were previously. But we still do not have that cheap type of transportation on routes where at the present time there is not competition.
The growth of air passenger traffic and air cargo will, in my opinion, be greatly expanded by a reduction in rates. I believe these rates must come down with the jet age; and I agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur when he asks what it matters whether you can travel from Toronto to Vancouver two hours faster. But if you do not travel two hours faster I think there should be a reduction in the tariff that is charged, and that we are coming to the point where we should have on our transcontinental routes in Canada the same degree of flexibility in fare structure that we have in our international route.
I have laboured these points a little, Mr. Speaker. There is one point I have not mentioned, and that is with regard to Vancouver airport. I believe that matter is bound up with the question of Boundary bay, which is the logical light plane satellite airport. I believe the departmental and city officials

should arrange some sort of package deal whereby Boundary bay and the Vancouver airport can be tied in together in the manner I outlined when I first rose to speak.
With regard to transportation competition on international routes and the alleged giveaway, I am sure when the minister gets up to speak we will have the last word on that point also.
(Translation):


Mr. Augustin Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad of this opportunity to take part in this debate on civil aviation in Canada.
I think that Canadian civil aviation has done much for the expansion of our country and the development of our natural resources. We are also greatly indebted to private enterprise which, from the start, made great sacrifices to achieve practical results in that field.
We are also very much indebted to Canadian civil aviation because the federal Department of Transport made every effort in order to help private enterprise establish in Canada services which from the beginning greatly helped the development of our country.
Speaking of the Department of Transport, I should like-since we are talking about civil aviation-to praise all the efficient, capable and dedicated civil servants who through their advice helped private enterprise to make civil aviation what it is today.
I should like also, with all due deference to the members on the government side, to pay tribute to the Right Hon. C. D. Howe who contributed tremendously to the expansion of civil aviation in this country, besides devoting himself to the development of all sectors of Canadian economy.
I know that a few bigoted partisans do not like to hear the name of the Right Hon. C. D. Howe being mentioned. Just to show that I am not a bigot, I am prepared to admit that the Right Hon. C. D. Howe is a human being like anybody else, and that he possibly made some mistakes at the time he was sitting on the treasury benches; however, nobody can deny his immeasurable contribution to the development of our country in all fields of national economy.
Mr. Speaker, Canadian civil aviation plays a praiseworthy part in the country's development. It has made possible and considerably helped development in northern Canada. It has also helped our governments develop our natural resources. It has made possible and still makes possible faster communications between the remotest points in this country. It has rendered invaluable services to once inaccessible areas.
79951-0-1161
Civil Aviation
To come back to the Department of Transport's employees and before starting my remarks, I should like to give full support to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) when he said that we should give more assistance to department employees in this field. I think that the Department of Transport is now of such importance that the government should consider splitting up its various divisions. For all his devotion, his knowledge and his good faith, the minister now responsible for this department is not in a position, in my humble opinion, to carry out his duties adequately under present conditions.
To give only one example, civil aviation alone would require an associate minister. I trust that the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefen-baker), at the suggestion of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) no doubt, will fill in this gap before the next election, because afterwards I am afraid it will be too late; we shall see to it ourselves.
The field of civil aviation, Mr. Speaker, as I have just indicated, is so important that the people of Canada, and their representatives in the house, might well expect the government to have by now a well-defined policy, a wise, sound, intelligent and progressive policy, since the progress of civil aviation in Canada is closely bound up with that of our economy.
What do we find? An almost complete lack of any definite policy in our air program.
I will not say anything about our international agreements in the matter of air policy, since the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) has done so with a mastery that impressed the whole house.
Besides, this lack of policy on the part of the government in the field of civil aviation, began to take shape or to be felt at the time the government representatives were sitting on this side of the house.
I remember very well from the time I was with the Department of Transport, the statements and sharp criticisms made by the hon. member for York West (Mr. Hamilton) in the field of international and transcontinental competition.
The whole thing was rehashed at the time by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Hees), now Minister of Transport. And it was again emphasized later, during the 1957 campaign, when the Prime Minister, then leader of the opposition, stated in Toronto, on April 26, that:

Civil Aviation
Monopoly in the field of aviation would be over, provided people voted for him.
All those remarks made by the opposition, and during election campaigns, were followed up, and it was the Minister of Transport himself who decided to have a study or inquiry made, of the situation as it is said in the title of the report which I should like to quote. I have here an English copy where I read:
(Text):
Air line competition in Canada; a study of the desirability and the economic consequences of competition in Canadian transcontinental air services.
(Translation):
This report is dated May 1958. Mr. Stephen Wheatcroft, a citizen of Great Britain, was asked to come to this country and investigate the opportunities and possible results of competition in the field of civil aviation here.
I obviously have no objection, Mr. Speaker, to his being a British citizen any more than I would object to his being a French citizen coming over here under the same circumstances. But, I think it is somewhat of a reflection on the ability of various people here in Canada, who were quite able to carry out such investigations in this country. As I said, I would have expressed the same reservation if the man had come from France, because we have here competent people who are second to none in this field. I am certain the Minister of Transport knows highly qualified men in civil aviation, and if he wants me to supply him with the names of people who might have carried out a similar task, I shall do so, but I would prefer not to, because it would be a reflection on his familiarity with this field.


William Heward Grafftey: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Augustin Brassard: I shall permit the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey), to ask all the questions he wants as soon as I have finished my remarks.


William Heward Grafftey: Thank you.


Augustin Brassard: So Mr. Wheatcroft came to Canada to proceed with an investigation at the request of the Minister of Transport. However, I was somewhat astonished, when looking over the report, to see, in the preliminary remarks, a letter of the Minister of Transport telling Mr. Wheatcroft what the purpose of his enquiry was to be.
[Mr. Brassard (Lapointe) .1
I shall quote part of the minister's letter in order to show my fellow members to what extent the Minister of Transport gave veiled advice to the investigator, whom he had asked to make an objective study of the matter.
To prove that statement, I would like to quote two or three lines from the letter of the Minister of Transport. Now, this is what he wrote to Mr. Stephen F. Wheatcroft in May 1958:
(Text):
The terms ol reference of this study were embodied in a letter from the Minister of Transport, the Hon. George Hees, dated February 4, 1958. The minister wrote-
(Translation):
I would like to stress the following:
(Text):
Governmental policy for civil aviation in Canada has for a number of years been one of restrictive competition. This has been particularly true with respect to the transcontinental services where Trans-Canada Air Lines has been the only operator.
(Translation):
And a little farther on, the minister said this:
(Text):
I am of the view that the time has come for the introduction of some measure of competition on our transcontinental routes. The rapid growth in air line traffic would seem to indicate that competition can be introduced gradually without major detrimental effect to our operation, providing the changes are made with caution and on a gradual basis.
(Translation) :
I feel-and this is not meant to reflect on the authority and wisdom of the Minister of Transport-that he went a little too far when he gave the investigator his own personal views on the desirability of competition in the field of air transport in this country.
Anyway, after hearing various witnesses concerning applications to operate air lines in our country, the air transport board, in its conclusions, also mentioned the stand taken by the minister both in his speech at Timmins and in his letter to Mr. Wheatcroft.
What surprises me also-and I should like to bring that to the attention of the house-is that after a very careful study of all the applications submitted to it, the board made this statement, as reported on page 13 of the document entitled: "Report to the Minister of Transport, Transcontinental Air Services":
For the purpose of this report, the board does not consider it necessary, or indeed desirable, to attempt a precise assessment of the extent of T.C.A.'s deficit in the foreseeable future if C.P.A.'s

application, either in its original or amended form, should be granted. The board is persuaded that competition, to either extent applied for by C.P.A. on the transcontinental route, would result in an overall deficit on T.C.A.'s operations. Not only would T.C.A. sustain an appreciable loss in its transcontinental passenger revenues, but in addition it would sustain a further loss by having to share its cargo and airmail revenues.
The board has not attempted to deal with the possible added cost to the Post Office Department of dividing the carriage of mail between two carriers.
Mr. Speaker, may I mention here that we are certainly not against competition where necessary, but we are against it in fields where it causes overlapping which is apt to be harmful to Canada's carriers. The board's judgment is rather strange considering that C.P.A. did not have a thoroughly convincing case in this instance. So in view of the promises made by the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister, the air transport board therefore introduced into Canada what might be described as mitigated competition.
But I ask you, what is such a policy leading to? Has an attempt been made to look to the future, or was the matter merely decided at the time the application was submitted to the department and to the board?
I realize that in acting in this way, the government may have fulfilled one of its many promises, but what amazes me, is that the government makes it a point to carry out promises which are likely to harm Canada's economy and forgets about other things that it had most solemnly promised to do, at election time.
What is happening with respect to the building of air terminals? My friend, the hon. member for Laurier dealt with that point very effectively and I do not want to repeat the almost irrefutable arguments he put forward yesterday concerning the lack of policy and efficiency in the field of airport and air terminal construction.
I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Broome). He told us again that in 1957-58 the department's estimates in this respect amounted to $35 million pointing out a moment later that the 1958-59 estimates had jumped to $61,348,000. But is it necessary to remind the hon. member for Vancouver South that, in most cases, as the Minister of Transport pointed out himself, building plans for airports and air terminals are subject to changes over a period of three or four years before they are ready to be carried out. Which means that in the 1958-59 estimates,
Civil Aviation
it has merely been decided to carry out what the Department of Transport had been expecting for three or four years.
What was the next step? What concern did the hon. member for Vancouver South show for the ever rising costs of the land needed to expand or build new air strips across Canada? It is certainly not through a fresh burst of energy on the part of the Minister of Transport that the 1957-58 estimates rose from $35 million to $61 million in 1958-59.
The hon. member for Vancouver South spent all his time telling the hon. member for Laurier that the arguments he put forward do not hold water. Yet it took over 30 minutes of his speech to answer him. One need only read the comments in the morning papers to be convinced of the truth and completely factual nature of the remarks made by the hon. member for Laurier.
I should like to say a brief word on Dorval, despite the fact that the hon. member for Laurier made some points which the Minister of Transport will find extremely difficult to challenge. Oh, I know that the minister will rise and will talk with great animation, great emphasis and great eloquence, denouncing us for what we did or failed to do while we were in office.
It is rather amusing to hear Conservative members and ministers, day after day, week after week, month after month, repeating to us: "What did you do?" Since they keep plucking the same old string, I shall again give them the same reply. It is as if some smarty went to the owner of a near bankrupt store or business and told him something like this: "Listen, my good man, your business is going to the dogs; let me take over, and I promise you that in a year or two, things will be humming again and your business troubles will be over". However, suppose the merchant who is on the verge of bankruptcy agreed to accept this man's offer to put his business back on its feet and let him take it over then if a week, ten weeks, ten months or a year later, the self-styled business doctor came to the former owner and said: "My good man, I inherited a completely improvident administration, and I am unable to put your business back on its feet." What would you think of that? It is precisely what we have now. The Conservatives came before the people of Canada and said, though God knows this was not the case: Let us take over the management, because the business is going

Civil Aviation
to waste and will soon be bankrupt. We promise to give you sound administration, practically heaven on earth, if ever we are elected to office.
How can they come back before the people today and blame the Liberals for the way they had handled the situation? And, in making that comparison, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Conservatives that our country had been mismanaged. And even in admitting that argument, how can the Conservatives come back today and say:
(Text):
We have inherited this situation from the previous administration.
(Translation):


William Heward Grafftey: Because it is true.


Augustin Brassard: I still hear young members fresh from the 1957 election who have never known anything of what has been going on here say it is true. I suggest that they read the Hansards and the Journals of the House of Commons to see how the representatives of the loyal opposition of Her Majesty were doing in this house before June 10, 1957.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Augustin Brassard: Coming back to the subject of the Dorval airport, I recall, since I was with the department at the time, that the estimates of the cost of its construction was placed at close to $6 or $7 million. The minister at the time was the Hon. George Marler. But later, after the hon. member for Broadview took over as Minister of Transport, he issued a press release in which he said:
(Text):
It was expected to cost from $16 to $17 million. Cost estimates prior to 1956 and 1957 had been based upon incomplete plans, but the minister recalled that the estimate he had given after assuming office on the basis of reasonably complete plans had been from $15 to $16 million and that certain additions, such as air-conditioning, had been made since that time. These figures applied only to the main terminal unit and Mr. Hees pointed out that the cost of all associated facilities, including ramp paving, fingers and aeroquays, hydrant refuelling, etc., would bring the total to $30 million.
(Translation):
There is no need for me to recall the comments of the Montreal Star or La Presse. However, may I quote just a paragraph from the Gazette, a newspaper which is far from being sympathetic to the Liberals and which said on November 20, 1959:
(Text):
It may be true that in the meantime the public has had to come and go in a sort of shantytown. The Montreal tourist and convention bureau has called the conditions at Montreal airport "simply disgusting."

(Translation):
Besides the matter of Dorval, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a word about Mont Joli. Oh, I remember perfectly that in 1935, the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister and one of his very close friends, the Hon. Mark Drouin, had solemnly promised never to shut down the Mont Joli airport.
I admit they had reasons to make such promises. But what happened? What have they done to the Mont Joli airport, where there are now three landing strips, one 6,500 feet long, another 4,800 feet long and a third 4,400 feet long besides the wonderful air protection system? The location of the airport allows aircraft to land in all weather. The airport is close to the Halifax to Vancouver rail line and is also close to the seaports. Furthermore, due to the location of that land, it has expansion possibilities in all directions. It has, therefore, significant advantages compared to all other airports in eastern Canada.
To come back to what I was saying a moment ago, faced with those facts, the Minister of Transport, the Prime Minister and Hon. Mark Drouin had promised during the 1957 election campaign not to shut down Mont Joli airport. They told us they would not repeat what the Liberals had done. Mind you, the Liberals had not shut it down, but the Conservatives were anticipating what the Liberals could do.
What have they done with those solemn promises in order to get votes? They had no policy, rather, I am sorry, they had one, but it was a policy of shutdowns. They gradually removed air security measures from Mont Joli airport to make it almost impracticable. The control tower has been closed for a year now. On March 31, 1960, no doubt to mark an anniversary the second "anniversary of gloom", the meteorological station at Mont Joli airport will be closed. And the employees working there will be put out of work.
Is that the way to keep solemn vote-catching promises made to the population of the district?
I should like also to say a few words about Roberval airport. That airport was built thanks to the initiative of Dr. Adrien Plante, who was then mayor of Roberval, and to the co-operation of his colleagues and of the whole population of the area. The population of Roberval made the necessary sacrifices to take the first steps towards the fulfilment of that dream. And I remember,



I960

[Stage Direction]
when the council came to meet Hon. Mr. Marler, that the latter said at that time that it was very seldom in the history of Canada that a city had made so many sacrifices before asking help from the government.
In 1958 there was a general election. The present member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) went out of his way to promise that the airstrips would be paved. He even sent a telegram to the executive assistant of the minister which was published in the newspapers at the time.
In 1959, the hon. member made the same promises; the necessary estimates were to be included in the 1959-60 budget.
Therefore I ask the hon. member for Roberval: what were the results of his interventions, what steps did the Department of Transport take to recognize the sacrifices made by the people of Roberval?
Concerning airports and air terminals, I should like also to mention the airport at St. Honore. I remember having mentioned, during the 1958 election campaign, the question of a civil airport in the constituency of Lapointe. I am not so bigoted as to deny that I find today-as do several of my fellow citizens-that the government has spent millions of dollars for the construction of a military airfield at St. Honore, which had been abandoned since the war.
I remember, that last year, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Brassard) chided the government for selling the St. Honore airport to a private person, but I would like to know-
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: It is a scandal.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I hear the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) say: "It is a scandal."
I would like the hon. member from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm and the hon. member for Chicoutimi to tell us whether the crown assets disposal corporation has changed its methods, or rather whether it has stopped calling for public tenders when disposing of assets declared as surplus by the various government departments.
If I am told that it is so, I shall say that it is indeed a scandal; but if I am told "no, it is not so", I shall say: "Get some information before making unwarranted statements in such a respectable place as the Canadian House of Commons".
Civil Aviation


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I have the pleasure of asking the hon. member a question?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may have this pleasure and I shall have the pleasure of answering him, as soon as I finish my remarks.
Mr. Speaker, as far as St. Honore is concerned, I would ask the Minister of Transport-who, as a matter of fact, visited the town on the occasion of the opening of that Liberal project, that is the St. Felicien-Chibougamau railway-to take a more concrete attitude with regard to the establishment of a civil airport in our area.
My district has two or three clubs foi student pilots. I would like to see civil aviation given more encouragement, not only in the riding of Lapointe, but throughout our part of the country.
There are people in Chicoutimi who can hardly land on Bagotville airport, because it is a military airport.
I would like to see the Minister of Transport take concrete steps towards the building of a project at St. Honore. I pledge myself to have my electors understand the reasons why I supported the setting up of a civilian airport there, although it is not in my constituency, because I figure that a member of parliament must not discuss problems only with an eye to the next federal election.
As regards Trans-Canada Air Lines, I would ask the management of that company to try to set up in Canada a daily service between Saguenay and Montreal. That would no doubt boost their revenue.
Mr. Speaker, we often hear government members tell us that we spend our time criticizing.
When things go wrong, the Liberals are blamed; when things go well, the Conservatives take all the credit. When no one can be blamed the thing to do is to deny, to say that all goes well.
In the field of unemployment, they tell us that they inherited that problem from the Liberals.
In the field of credit restriction, the responsibility is put on the banks, and they say again that it is a bad legacy from the Liberals. To justify the lack of a well defined policy in the fiscal field, the governor of the Bank of Canada is blamed.
In the field of agriculture, we are told that it is again a Liberal legacy.

Civil Aviation
The slowing down of our trade is blamed on international factors.
In the field of shipping-and this is interesting-they have liquidated the few ships we had left when they sold the eight ships of the Canadian National.


Mr. Chambers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Augustin Brassard: One would think that this government-


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Are the remarks of the hon. member related to the amendment?


Lionel Chevrier: Definitely so.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, this government could be rightly described as the government of someone else's responsibilities.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What about the Jacques Cartier bridge affair?


Augustin Brassard: -but do they realize that they are in power today, that they are responsible for the administration of our country's business?
Last night I heard the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) complaining. He looked a little like a martyr, as in 1956 at the time of a famous debate, when they had been careful to keep the flag at hand. Again he is playing the martyr and this reminds me of a scene I have read in the bible, that of Christ driving the merchants from the temple. But if that scene reminded me of the merchants before the temple and of the whited sepulchres, everybody knows where in this house the whited sepulchres are seated.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The national printing bureau and the Jacques Cartier bridge scandal.


Augustin Brassard: The printing
bureau will count for little by the time we have looked into all that happened at Dorval, where the cost of construction rose from $6 to $30 million.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What about the Jacques Cartier bridge?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, I will wholeheartedly support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Laurier.


William Heward Grafftey: It is rather obvious.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, the Air Industry and Transport Association of Canada has sent a letter to the Prime Minister, and I would like to close my remarks by quoting the 3rd paragraph on page 2 of that letter:

(Text):
The association was and is deeply shocked to learn of the new policy of decontrol, particularly as it had received no warning and there had been no prior reference or consultation-
(Translation):


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


William Heward Grafftey: The hon. member-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I have the pleasure of asking a question of the hon. member?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I realize that some members may want to ask some questions of the hon. member for Lapointe. Unfortunately, his time has expired and I believe we can only do so with the unanimous consent of the house.
(Text):
Does the house give consent to the hon. members putting questions to the hon. member for Lapointe?
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Could the hon. member for Lapointe tell me whether the sale of St. Honore airport by the Liberal government was made in the public interest, and if it was a good deal on the part of the previous government? Would he not have been better to keep it in operation?


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker, the only answer I can give is this: all assets declared as surplus to the crown assets disposal corporation are sold to the highest bidder and, to my knowledge, the present administration has not changed the manner of disposal of assets declared as surplus.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are not answering my question.


William Heward Grafftey: Another question, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member mentioned that an investigation ordered by the Department of Transport has been conducted here in Canada by a gentleman from Great Britain and that, in his opinion, we had right here men who would have been able to conduct such an investigation.
I should like to put this question to him: Did we have in Canada men or firms qualified to operate the Queen Elizabeth hotel in Montreal when the Liberal government hired an American company for this purpose?


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the point at all.


Augustin Brassard: If the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi could name me a

firm that could have operated a hotel larger than any other in Canada, I shall gladly answer his question.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: If the job had been offered to Canadians, it would have been accepted.
(Text):


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I was sorry to miss the speech yesterday by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when he spoke on behalf of monopoly and the vested interests in the air transport industry. As he started speaking I was just boarding a plane in Toronto to continue my journey to London in order to speak at the University of Western Ontario. As soon as I heard that operations under the jurisdiction of my department were under attack I switched planes and, as a result of the usual good T.C.A. service, I found one leaving almost immediately for Ottawa and was in the house at a quarter to six. I am confident that the material I have here will completely refute everything the hon. member for Laurier said yesterday, and this material was also in my hands at eight o'clock last night. I would have been equally glad to have gone on at that time. But the debate that was taking place at that time made it impossible. However, I am happy to do so today.
The introduction of these amendments to motions to go into supply seems to be following a new technique which has been worked out by the opposition at this session. They sniff around and find out which minister is going to be away, then they introduce an amendment dealing with his department so he cannot be in his place to deal with and refute the various points that are brought up.


Mr. Hellyer:: If we went on that basis we would not be able to talk about anything.


George Harris Hees: Over the years that I have been here, that is some 10 years, it has been the accepted custom if an hon. member intends to attack another hon. member in this house he pays him the courtesy of notifying him ahead of time so that he can be here at the time.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a question of privilege: I am afraid the minister is not familiar with what took place in the house last week. The leader of the house, as is customary, announced several days in advance this motion to go into supply. This was done five days ago, and the minister should have known that an amendment to a motion of this kind was likely to come up on Monday and Tuesday. This is the second time it has happened, because when we moved to 79951-0-117
Civil Aviation
go into supply the last time the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Harkness) was not here.


Mr. Ricard:: What is your question of privilege?


Lionel Chevrier: The question of privilege is that I had a perfect right to go on with this matter without advising the minister in any way whatever, and what is annoying the minister is that he was caught with his pants down in connection with it.


George Harris Hees: No, Mr. Speaker; the hon. member had a perfect right. There are a number of things that hon. members have a perfect right to do but, through custom, they just do not do them. I find that university students, like other people in this country, are very much interested in the dynamic, imaginative policies that this government is putting into effect, and are very anxious to have speakers from the government side speak to them at the universities. I accepted this invitation some six weeks ago. Perhaps the members of my hon. friend's party do not get many of these invitations. I was very glad to accept this. If the hon. member had had the courtesy even to phone my office as late as 12 o'clock yesterday or perhaps half-past eleven, I could have arranged for another speaker to go up and I would have been in my place at 2.30 p.m. The hon. member did not have to advise me of his intention to attack my department, but there are some things you do and other things you do not do. It just depends upon how you look at your relationships with your fellow members in the house, that is all.
I should like to point out at the very beginning that the purpose of civil aviation is to make it as easy as possible for members of the travelling public to get from one point to another. This requires the provision of air services, not the protection of air lines to the detriment of the travelling public, which was always the policy of the former government. The hon. member, in his amendment, particularly attacked the traffic rights which Canada has given to other countries, claiming we have given more than we have received. These particular traffic rights are called fifth freedom rights and are rights granted to countries which enter into bilateral air agreements, allowing them to pick up passengers in one country and carry them on to other countries.
Since we formed the government some two and a half or three years ago, we have negotiated several bilateral air agreements, and the fifth freedom rights which we have granted to other countries have simply balanced the fifth freedom rights which we have received in turn. To claim, as the hon. member did, that the agreements we have entered into cost the country some $5 million last year is

Civil Aviation
simply irresponsible nonsense. The hon. member's comments are a little like those of an individual who sets out to read a corporation balance sheet, and stops after having read the expenditures column, without bothering to look at the revenues statement. Like all good businessmen the present government has seen to it that expenditures and revenues balance in the agreements that we have negotiated.
In dealing with these fifth freedom rights the hon. member indicated to the house that the previous government did not grant those rights to other countries. He said that prior to 1957 Canada had a well defined policy in the negotiation of bilateral air agreements. It held generally to the position of exchanging third and fourth freedoms only with other countries, because to go beyond that would be against the national interest. That is the end of what he had to say in this regard. I might explain that third and fourth freedom rights are the right to fly between two countries who have signed a bilateral air agreement.
The former government claims that it did not grant fifth freedom rights because, to quote the hon. member's words again, "they were against the national interest". In fact it granted the following fifth freedom rights:
1.	To the United States at Edmonton en route to the Orient.
2.	To the United States at Gander en route to Europe.
3.	To the United Kingdom at Gander en route to the United States.
4.	To the United Kingdom in northern Canada en route to the Orient.
5.	To the United Kingdom at Montreal en route to the West Indies.
6.	To Mexico at Montreal en route to Europe via United States points.
7.	To Mexico at Vancouver from United States points and on to the north Pacific.
8.	To Australia in Fiji to Honolulu and San Francisco and on to Vancouver.
9.	To Peru at Vancouver, from Ecuador, Panama, Cuba, Mexico and to points beyond Vancouver.
10.	To Peru at Montreal from intermediate points to be agreed.
11.	To New Zealand at Vancouver from intermediate points to be agreed.
12.	To Japan at Vancouver to the United States, and on to Mexico and South America.
This is the record of the former government that granted, as the hon. member said, no fifth freedom rights because to grant them, in his own words, would not have been in the national interest. The hon. member either has a very short memory of what went on in the government of which he was a member, or he tried to mislead the house yesterday.

The hon. member dealt with what he claimed the present government had not done in entering into bilateral air agreement to make it possible for more Canadians to fly to more overseas points throughout the world. I should like to mention here just what the present government has done in this regard. The present administration has concluded new agreements with Switzerland, Austria, Germany and Italy and has renegotiated with the United States, the United Kingdom and France. I should like to specify what we have done in each case.
1.	Switzerland: under the Swiss agreement, a Canadian air line is providing service between Canada and Switzerland but no Swiss air line is as yet operating to Canada, surely no detriment to Canada.
2.	Austria:	under the agreement with
Austria a Canadian air line is operating to Vienna although no Austrian air line is as yet operating to Canada, once again no detriment to Canada.
3.	Germany: The agreement with Germany confirming existing arrangements for both a Canadian and a German air line to operate between their two respective territories and Canada obtained fifth freedom rights between Dusseldorf and Vienna and another point in Europe to be determined by Canada, in return for which we gave fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago and either Boston or New York. In terms of traffic potential, this is a reasonable balance.
4.	Italy: Under the Italian agreement in addition to service between Canada and Italy, Canada obtained fifth freedom rights from Paris from Lisbon to Rome and from Rome onward to Bangkok. Italy obtained fifth freedom rights from Montreal to Mexico, Chicago and Los Angeles. Taken as a whole, in terms of population and mileages involved, these represent a reasonable balance. In fact, Canada is the only party exercising these fifth freedom rights between Lisbon and Rome, since the necessary permission of the third government has not been given in the case of the Italian rights. The establishment of Canadian service to Rome has not only provided direct access from Canada to one of the most visited countries in Europe, but has changed the whole character of the existing Canadian route to Lisbon and Madrid, and put it on a much sounder financial basis.
5.	United Kingdom: In renegotiating with the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom was granted access to Toronto in addition to Montreal which it had served previously, because Canada had access to the two largest traffic points in the United Kingdom, London and Prestwick, which had resulted in a traffic unbalance under the existing agreement. In

addition, however, Canada obtained substantial benefits-the right to originate direct nonstop flights in western Canada and certain fifth freedom rights from London to the continent of Europe. In fact, these are not small benefits, as suggested by the hon. member, but even though they may not be used immediately, are of substantial importance for the future. Moreover, out of the renegotiation with the United Kingdom has come also the major step forward in the form of a new pooling agreement between B.O.A.C. and T.C.A. on the north Atlantic, which will be of great benefit to both air lines and which is a direct consequence of the closer relations resulting from this renegotiation.
6.	United States: Renegotiation with the United States provided a direct transborder service to Calgary, which the residents of that city had for many years sought; and added a number of other new transborder routes for both countries which we believe will be of benefit to the public. The most important ones from Canada's point of view are direct access from Halifax to New York, and from Toronto to Buffalo. We are still anxious for even broader negotiations with the United States, but the whole pattern of our development of transborder routes has been one of slow but steady progress and periodic readjustment.
The renegotiation which this government has completed was in fact one for which the previous government had been pressing unsuccessfully for some years. Our whole objective is greater freedom in the transborder pattern combined with a willingness on our part to accept a greater degree of competition on transborder routes between United States and Canadian air lines, but the United States for its part must be willing to grant us a great measure of access to United States cities which we have not yet been able to serve. We will continue to press for this result.
7.	France: In our renegotiation with France we granted fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Chicago, and we obtained a full equivalent in return, namely fifth freedom rights between Paris and Rome. There can be no question but that the value of the one concession offsets the value of the other in terms of traffic potential, even though both may not be in use at present. Moreover, we have this same concession from Italy as well. On the matter of service between Montreal and Chicago, the fact that two foreign air lines are exercising this right will be of advantage in our next negotiations with the United States in dealing with the problem of direct service between these points for domestic air lines, and in fact supports our hand in this connection.
79951-0-117J
Civil Aviation
As far as the hon. member's comments about Air Union are concerned, I have noted this with great interest, but it is far too early to say that this constitutes any threat to our Canadian air services. If Air Union developed as suggested by the hon. member, it would, in fact, be necessary to renegotiate existing bilateral air agreements, and we would be in a position to protect our interests in this connection.
In his speech yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Laurier looked into his crystal ball and predicted that T.C.A. would show a deficit for the year 1959.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the hon. gentleman?


George Harris Hees: Yes.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say that the term I used was "Canadian carriers'' when I was dealing with loss of revenue.


George Harris Hees: I have here the exact words used by the hon. member. I will just read them in order to bring them to his attention. They are to be found at page 1798 of Hansard:
Here the minister tells us that T.C.A. will require for 1960 the sum of $97,500,000 made up of approximately $83 million for property and equipment, $4 million for refinancing of loans and $10 million for increased material and supplies. There follows this significant statement: "Source of funds: Net income, nil."
Therefore, while this is not a conclusive deduction, nevertheless it appears from this statement filed by the minister that T.C.A. will not have a net income for the year 1959 compared with previous years when it always did. We will not know this definitely, of course, until the minister tables the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines but if it follows what is indicated in this budget it will show a deficit for the year 1959. My contention is that if there is a deficit it is due to the policy of the government in opening up to competition in the international field air routes and air privileges to which this country normally would be entitled.
That is dealing strictly, Mr. Speaker, with T.C.A.


Lionel Chevrier: May I bring to the minister's attention what I said at page 1798 of Hansard in dealing with the loss of revenue. I stated:
-but I would put it in the realm of $5 million in gross revenues in 1959 for the Canadian carriers and in the realm of $7,500,000 in gross revenues in 1960, with that amount becoming progressively greater in the years to come.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is a little behind because I have already dealt with that statement, and I described it as utter and absolute nonsense. I stated the facts on which he based this assertion were absolutely without foundation. I am talking here not of the general air picture. I said that the hon. member predicted that T.C.A. would have a deficit in 1959. This is exactly what the hon. member said in the

Civil Aviation
house, and I have read the transcript of his remarks. So once again the hon. member's crystal ball is, as usual, clouded. T.C.A. is not in the red in 1959, I am glad to say. T.C.A. showed a profit, and once again the information on which the hon. member-


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I said clearly that we would not know till the minister tabled the annual report of T.C.A.


George Harris Hees: I think any hon. member listening to what the hon. member said yesterday would get the very distinct impression that he said it was very probable that the indications were that T.C.A. would have a deficit in 1959. Once again the hon. member is talking through the top of his head.
The hon. member also dealt with the opening up of the granting of B and C charter licences. First of all, I think it would be a good idea if I clarified in the minds of hon. members the different types of licences which the air transport board issues. The first is a class 1 scheduled operation, such as T.C.A., C.P.A., Maritime Central, P.W.A., TransAir and Quebecair operate.
Class 2 operation is also a scheduled type of operation in that it runs with some degree of regularity and operates in those areas where a regular service is required, but the routes do not have the first class navigational facilities provided for class 1 services.
Then there is the class 3 type of operation which is operated mostly in sparsely settled areas, giving the customer the opportunity to purchase his transportation for persons or goods on a unit toll basis. In other words, so much per person or per pound from one point to another.
The three types of operation which I have described have not been affected in any way by the change of policy of the present government.
The next class of service is the charter service, in which the customer charters an aircraft and pays for its exclusive use. There are three divisions in this charter service. The first is known as class A, operating large aircraft such as the DC-3 or DC-4 with a disposable load of 6,000 pounds or over. Operations under this classification have not been altered in any way by this government.
We now come to the class of service the licensing of which has been broadened by the present government's policy, namely class B operations which use medium type aircraft such as Beavers and Otters with a disposable load of between 1,100 pounds and 6,000 pounds. Then there is group C or light aircraft with a disposable load not exceeding 1,100 pounds. Whereas scheduled services are

of the nature of a public utility, the same case does not apply to charter services. The type of service provided by these charter operators is similar to that provided by the vast number of businesses which operate in Canada in providing services to their customers in the competitive field in which Canadian business operates.
For this reason the government some 18 months ago relaxed the licensing requirements as applied to C class operations, the fixed wing planes carrying up to 1,100 pounds and helicopters carrying up to 1,700 pounds. This new policy worked out very well indeed and resulted in no less than 128 new C class operators being licensed, 40 of which are at entirely new locations, thus bringing the benefits to a great many people who had hitherto not received this kind of service. In all the years previous to this only 75 operators of this class had been licensed by the previous government.
Because of the success of this policy with C class operators and the greatly expanded service provided to users, the government last fall decided similarly to relax the licensing of B class operators, and we believe that this policy will have equally good results. The government has made it very clear to the industry that only financially sound and technically competent operators who intend to carry on a year-round service will be considered under this new policy. In its notice sent to the air transport industry on January 26 last, the air transport board said the following:
Every applicant for a licence to operate charter or specialty commercial air services employing aircraft in groups B and C and helicopters is free to select any place in Canada as a base from which to operate. If the board is satisfied that the applicant has a bone fide intention to provide service at such base he will normally be granted a licence provided he can demonstrate financial stability and technical competence. Every licensee must own at least one aircraft in each group for which he is licensed. In addition, every licensee authorized to operate charter service must base aircraft in each licensed group at the designated base and must provide service therefrom on reasonable demand to all persons on the same basis.
The board will not grant a licence to applicants for short term charter services in the above groups, and must be satisfied that the applicant intends to provide year-round service on a permanent basis.
This government feels that it not only has an obligation to the air industry, but also to the public who will be serviced by the air industry. We believe that better service and lower prices are most readily achieved under the competitive system, and that this new freer licensing policy as applied to B and C operators will provide better and cheaper service to the public as well as a healthy stimulant to the industry itself. It is under this competitive system that our



[Stage Direction]
economy in Canada has prospered and has provided the high standard of living we enjoy today.
The hon. member next dealt with our air terminal construction policy. He would know better if he took the trouble to compare the record of the past administration with that of the present one.
The contruction of a terminal building is no easy matter and involves many months of economic and technical study in forecasting requirements in consulting interested parties such as the air lines and inspection services and in reconciling conflicting views. Moreover, large terminal building projects involve not just the construction of a building but a great many other related factors, such as planning to suit specialized air line requirements, installation of very complex mechanical and electronic equipment, ancillary construction of major heating plants, substantial independent power installations, construction of hydrant refueling systems, ramp paving, and planning of a whole host of other projects all of which go hand in hand with a new major terminal building.
The complexity of this program, quite apart from the difficulty of meeting design and operating requirements in the rapidly changing aspects of aviation, means that a terminal project of this magnitude is bound to take longer to complete than the construction of a straightforward office building even of very large size.
The records of the program which I will outline indicate, I believe, that we have been making good progress in meeting the need for terminal buildings across Canada. New terminal buildings have been completed at St. John's, Newfoundland, at a cost of $625,000; Gander, Newfoundland, $3,500,000; Stephenville, Newfoundland, $425,000; Quebec, $660,000; and Windsor, $1 million. New terminal buildings under construction and nearing completion are at Halifax, $4,500,000; Montreal, $23 million, including aeroquays; Ottawa, $5 million, and Regina, $1,100,000. Tenders have been called, and work has started or is about to start at Toronto at a cost of $32 million, and Winnipeg, $10 million. Plans have been completed or nearly completed for tenders to be called at Williams Lake, $140,000; at Edmonton, a tender was called this month for $10,500,000. Plans are in preparation for tenders to be called at Victoria, $1,100,000; Prince Rupert, $400,000; Port Hardy, $420,000; Sault Ste. Marie, $658,000; North Bay, $450,000. Plans are in preparation for major alterations and additions at the lakehead, $650,000; Moncton, $500,000; Stephenville, $65,000, and Seven Islands, $55,000. In addition to the foregoing,
Civil Aviation
alterations and additions were made at both Toronto and Montreal airports and financial and technical assistance was rendered in the construction of the terminal buildings at Calgary and Vancouver during the past three years.
I ask hon. members to compare this program with the record of the former government. No one knows these facts better than the hon. member for Laurier, because, as the former minister of transport he was in close touch with these operations.
John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister quoted the figure for Stephenville. Could he say precisely what that was, and when it was spent?


George Harris Hees: Stephenville was opened in 1957, in case the hon. member does not know.


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the former prime minister.


George Harris Hees: It was opened when this government was in office.
The foregoing program amounts to a total capital expenditure of $96,740,000. This figure speaks for itself, and makes it clear that an extensive program of construction of air terminal buildings in Canada is being implemented. This is the airport program which the hon. member for Laurier said did not exist.
To accomplish this we have had to make major expansions in the construction, engineering and architectural staff of my department, in order to speed up the program which was lagging so badly under the static policy of the previous government. Increases of up to 50 per cent in technical staff were needed. Our estimates of $61 million for air services construction in 1958-59, $63 million in 1959-60, and $52 million in 1960-61 will certainly stand comparison with the $14 million voted by the previous government in 1955-56 and the $15 million in 1956-57, the year when they were on their way out.
The hon. member also asked why it was taking so long to repair the broken glass at Uplands. If he kept abreast of the press, he would realize that the damage to that building was far more serious than broken glass when a military plane broke the sound barrier last year, and may well cost up to $500,000 to repair. However, I am happy to inform the house that the Uplands building should be open by July 1.
In direct contradiction to what the hon. member for Laurier said yesterday, the Dor-val terminal in Montreal will be opened this year. The rate of progress for the construction of this terminal has speeded up greatly since the present government took office, and both our timetable and our cost estimates have remained unchanged for many months now.

Civil Aviation
The hon. member lor Laurier stated yesterday, and I quote his words:
I go further and say that engineers who are familiar with the project state that it cannot possibly be completed before 1961. If that is the case, it will be eight years after the first announcement was made in this house.
That is the end of what he said. I have reviewed expenditures made on the Dorval airport for the eight years to which the hon. member has referred, and I find that whereas the previous government managed an expenditure of between two and three million dollars over the first five of those eight years, the present government has let contracts and completed work involving over $20 million, in approximately half the time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: You are reaping where you did not sow.


George Harris Hees: This was under our direction, and when we took over we found the most unholy mess you ever saw.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Would the minister permit a question?


George Harris Hees: I intend to carry on. The hon. member can ask questions later, and I will be very glad to answer them. For the information of the house, I would point out that contracts for the completion of the Dorval airport have been awarded, with the exception of a contract for paving of the aircraft apron in front of the terminal building which contract will be called during the present month, and a contract for landscaping which will be called and undertaken as early as weather permits.
When the present government took office in June, 1957 we found the Dorval terminal project in an almost unbelievable mess, due to the lack of decision of the former government. They could not seem to make up their minds about anything. We immediately went to work to clean up this mess, and the progress accomplished is evident by a comparison of the expenditures made on this work in the past two and one half years with the pitiable expenditure of $2 or $3 million made in five years by the former government.
The terminal will be opened this year, and it will be one of the finest anywhere in the world. Further, as I said earlier, I know that when it is open the sorriest person in the house will be the hon. member for Laurier, together with some of his colleagues because he and they will not have anything to complain about. It will be a source of great sorrow to him as it is to the hon. member for Essex East (Mr. Martin) when he learns that the unemployment figures go down steadily as they will be doing very soon.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister tell the house why it is there are only a handful of people working at the Dorval airport if everything is going ahead so well.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member would take the trouble to go down there and look around he would see that there are a great many men working there. I went to look at the operation last Friday myself. I am pleased with the progress that is being made and with the progress reports I am getting. Since the hon. member has shed so many crocodile tears about this project, I may say I was surprised that I did not find him with us when 1 went down there last fall and asked all hon. members who were interested to come. All the Conservative members came, and so did the odd Liberal member, but the hon. member for Laurier was not present because he was too busy with other things to take an interest in this airport with which he is apparently so much concerned. If the hon. member will visit the airport he will find that great progress is being made and I say again that it is going to be opened this year.


Lionel Chevrier: That is the third prediction the minister has made. Is he sure he is right this time?


George Harris Hees: It is the second prediction I have made. The first was made after we had been in office only about six weeks, and at that time I did not realize the extent of the mess the terminal was in. However, I soon found out.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could tell us with respect to the air terminals which have been opened in the last three years how many were commenced under his government?


George Harris Hees: I would say quite a considerable portion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Could the minister name one?


George Harris Hees: I will be glad to take the hon. member aside later and explain these things to him in words of one syllable.
We were dealing with airports. I know there are hon. members who are interested in Patricia Bay which was mentioned by the hon. member for Laurier yesterday. I am glad to report that planning for this is under way but the planning was held up for a special study of the extent to which helicopter service might affect the fixed wing services in the future. We expect to make a start on this project toward the end of the coming fiscal year and I can assure hon. members who are interested in it that we will push it along as rapidly as possible when we can get to it. I offer that assurance in

particular to the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. (Mr. McPhillips) who is keenly interested in it. He is a very commendable member of parliament who takes a marked interest in matters affecting his area.
The hon. member for Laurier when speaking yesterday also referred to delays in bringing about improvements in the airport facilities at Winnipeg. I should like to put this matter in its correct perspective once and for all. I wish to draw attention to a press report out of Winnipeg under date of February 5 last which was published in the Montreal Gazette of February 6 and from which I quote with great pleasure:
For more than 20 years-
Please note, Mr. Speaker, 20 years. I continue:
-Winnipegers have complained about inadequate airport facilities. In response, federal authorities have supplied a generous series of plans and programs, the opium of the air traveller.
In 1941, Winnipeg was promised a modest $60,000 terminal. The new terminal was delayed because of wartime shortages but by 1946 Ottawa had conceived another plan.
Of course, the hon. member for Laurier was the minister of transport at that time. I continue:
After another five years, former transport minister Lionel Chevrier arrived here to say the new terminal would be going up "perhaps before another five years."
From then on, progress was comparatively rapid. Only a year later, another plan for $1 million terminal appeared. It would be under construction by 1957, said federal authorities. In 1956, just before the deadline, Ottawa produced another plan and raised the ante to $2 million. A year later, Winnipeg learned that a $5 million terminal was "in the design stage."
Year after year, the invisible new terminal grew in size and splendor. As they crowded into the existing terminal, air travellers could look north to a magnificent vacant lot and contemplate its glories.
Notwithstanding the promises of the Liberal administration and more specifically the promise of the hon. member for Laurier when he was minister of transport nine years ago that a new terminal building would be going up in another five years, the first contract for this terminal building was called by this government on January 15 last. That contract has now been awarded and work will get under way just as rapidly as weather permits.
I might also mention that in the case of three terminals put up by the previous administration within the last ten years, Moncton, the lakehead, and Seven Islands, we now have to plan extensions which might have been avoided if a more imaginative approach had been taken in the first instance to requirements.
Civil Aviation
As for the contribution of the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the subamendment which he presented on behalf of his group, I should like to draw his attention to the fact that the licensing of a competitive transcontinental service on a limited basis was done following intensive investigation by and on the recommendation of the air transport board, surely an ample indication of the reliance that is being placed upon this board.
As for his suggestion that, there is lack of planning regarding international and domestic air services, I am glad to inform him that intensive reviews of domestic and international requirements are going forward constantly, but these are not based upon the premise which I felt was inherent in his subamendment, namely that the whole air transport industry should be socialized.
In reply to that suggestion I would simply say that private enterprise has built the Canadian economy and will continue to expand it. There is no place for the stultifying influence of socialist policies in this or any other industry in Canada, any more than there is for the Liberal party's policy of supporting monopolies or vested interests.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the remarks made by the minister. The first thing I would say is this and although it is altogether out of line with the subject at issue I believe it should be cleared up immediately so there will be no doubt in the minds of hon. members about the motives or sentiments of the person who moved the amendment to go into supply.
My hon. friend the minister took umbrage at the fact that this amendment came up while he was not in the house. To the minister I say there is no one for whom I have greater regard in the House of Commons than himself, and there is no one whom I would less readily advise of an amendment such as this. But I ask him this question: Can he point to any occasion when he and his colleagues were on this side of the house and they gave notice of an amendment to a motion to go into supply under similar circumstances? I think it will be very difficult for hon. members to find such an occasion particularly when I have reference to the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) had only six minutes the other evening to reply without the slightest notice to a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) on agriculture.
Over and above that I say that I did go to the minister's office and tried his door on my way from lunch as I indicated yesterday, although not in that language, and the door was locked.

Civil Aviation
The point I wish to make is this. It is quite clearly understood in this house, I hope, that there is no obligation on the opposition at any time either by courtesy or otherwise to give to the government notice of an amendment to go into supply. It is, of course, a courtesy matter on estimates and other occasions to advise the minister on the other side that a discussion of his department is likely to take place and I have done that from time to time but it is not required in this case particularly when a whole week prior to Monday the leader of the house had indicated in no uncertain terms what the business of the house would be on Monday and Tuesday.
I have been taken to task for the fact that I had indicated that when we were in office we always exchanged third and fourth freedoms for similar freedoms from other countries. It is a fact that I made that statement but I qualified it by saying we did that as a general rule and I also qualified it by a statement which the minister will find at page 1799 of yesterday's Hansard which reads:
I dealt with the air agreement with the United States and I said it was the practice of the former administration to exchange third and fourth freedom rights for similar rights in other countries. There are some exceptions to that but not many.
Then the minister proceeded to reply to what I had to say by putting on Hansard a list of-I have forgotten how many-10 or more-


George Harris Hees: Twelve.


Lionel Chevrier: Twelve fifth freedom rights which had been exchanged by the former government. My reply to that is that if those were fith freedoms, they were exchanged for similar fifth freedoms and they were not exchanged for a lesser freedom such as was the case in the bilaterals that were negotiated and amended by my hon. friend and his government since they have been in office.


George Harris Hees: An absolutely even deal.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not reply to the charges which I made of discrimination against Montreal. The minister made no attempt to reply to that abominable agreement, that terribly ridiculous one-sided agreement with Italy whereby in exchange for onward rights from Montreal to Rome the Italian government is given fifth freedom rights between Montreal and Mexico, Montreal and Los Angeles and Montreal and Chicago, when our own country did not possess the right to fly non-stop between Montreal and Chicago. This is where I say

there is a most inequitable situation in the agreement negotiated by the present government.


George Harris Hees: That is just your opinion. Our opinion is that you are completely wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend has not proved it. He has been speaking for the last 30 or 40 minutes; he had an opportunity to deal with those agreements; he has not dealt with them. What my hon. friend has done is to put on Hansard a list of fifth freedoms that were exchanged between the former government and other countries, but he did not deal with the fifth freedoms that were granted by the present administration in exchange for lesser rights.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I dealt with these matters in quite some detail. I dealt with all the agreements that this government has engaged in since we took office. If the hon. member had been listening he would have heard that I described them in some detail.


Lionel Chevrier: I listened very carefully to what the minister said but I fail to see where he has made any reply to the charge of discrimination that I have made and that I repeat now in so far as Montreal is concerned, when onward rights to those three large centres of population-


George Harris Hees: You just were not listening when I explained in words of one syllable what you are asking.


Lionel Chevrier: If my hon. friend wants to reply again to what I have said-


George Harris Hees: I do not have to; it is all on Hansard.


Lionel Chevrier: My contention is the statement which I put on Hansard-


George Harris Hees: Have been completely refuted.


Lionel Chevrier: -in the field of international aviation, in the field of domestic aviation and in the field of transport-


George Harris Hees: Have been completely refuted.


Lionel Chevrier: -has not been replied to.


George Harris Hees: Everything you said has been completely refuted.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The minister has just finished his speech and I think he ought to let the hon. member for Laurier complete his.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member then went on at some length also to talk about the Air Union, but he did not disagree at all with what I put on Hansard. On the contrary, he

said there was grave danger from this common market in the air. When it came to the question of opening up class B and class C in the non-scheduled service, again he did not disagree materially with what I had to say. What he did was to try to vindicate the position which he took, but he never replied to the statement that I made yesterday and that I repeat today, namely that the place in which a declaration of policy on a matter of this kind ought to be made is in the House of Commons and not in answer to a question by an hon. member or again by means of a press release.


George Harris Hees: What about the Abbott budget of November?


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know what my hon. friend has reference to now.


George Harris Hees: You know that Mr. Abbott gave out the budget in November.


Lionel Chevrier: I do know this, that the air industries and transport association-


George Harris Hees: That was legislation by radio.


Lionel Chevrier: Will the hon. member
allow me to proceed? I do know that the air industries and transport association of Canada, not only at their conference in Montreal but also at their meeting with the Prime Minister, took the Minister of Transport to task and complained to the government about the very thing which he was stating here this afternoon about the opening up competition in class B and class C to these non-scheduled commerical services. They complained about that policy. The minister did not deal with that.


George Harris Hees: The air transport industry is interested in maintaining a monopoly.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to have that on the record.


George Harris Hees: That is right.


Lionel Chevrier: I am glad to have on the record that the air industries and transport association is interested in maintaining a monopoly because I believe that is not the case. They are interested in fair competition, as they have stated here. They employ no fewer than 50,000 people, and they have said that their industry is in danger and is in jeopardy because of the program laid down by the minister in these fields.
There is one matter which the minister ignored entirely, namely the function of the air transport board. What is going to be the future function of the air transport board?


George Harris Hees: What did C. D. Howe think it was?
Civil Aviation


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that interruption. I put on Hansard yesterday what C. D. Howe thought it was. He said that in so far as its judicial powers were concerned the minister should not interfere.


George Harris Hees: C. D. Howe may have said that, but he ran the air transport board.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister has interfered with the air transport board; the minister has overruled the air transport board; the minister has dealt with the air transport board in such a fashion that it can no longer, it seems to me, and I may be mistaken in that respect, grant licences-


George Harris Hees: You are.


Lionel Chevrier: Wait until I finish-on
the basis of public convenience and necessity.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member is completely wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: If the minister does not want the air transport board to grant licences on a basis of public convenience and necessity, well, then, let the minister come forward in the house and amend the Aeronautics Act by the front door and not by the back door in granting licences by overruling the air transport board.
The minister said not a word about the case which I mentioned that had been disposed of by the air transport board. I ask the minister these questions, which he may answer at a later date: Does the minister think that he has the power to overrule the air transport board in judicial matters? Has the minister seen the resolution by the air industries and transport association protesting the practice of granting licences without regard to public convenience and necessity, and the complaint made against the minister of his actions in the case that I mentioned yesterday, the Autair case? Is it a fact that Autair Limited was flying on Quebec government work without a licence before it obtained its permit in 1958? What action was taken against that company for a breach of the Aeronautics Act, because it has already been stated in a news item in the Financial Post that, notwithstanding the fact that the minister had decontrolled class C of non-scheduled air services and before even a licence was granted to that company, it was flying on Quebec government work without a permit and without a licence? Is that so? If it is, has any action been taken against that company under the Aeronautics Act? Surely, the Aeronautics Act is there for a purpose. It is there to regulate the operations of the various air lines in this country.

Civil Aviation


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member would like, I can answer that question now.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not concede-


George Harris Hees: You are asking me a question.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not wish to yield the floor-


George Harris Hees: If they were flying without a licence, it was unknown to me.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not yield the floor.


George Harris Hees: Well I got that answer in.


Lionel Chevrier: I have the floor.


George Harris Hees: You had the floor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the hon. member for Laurier undoubtedly has the floor. I just wanted to assure him of that. I am not endeavouring to prevent the minister from replying, but he has had his opportunity to answer these questions and unless the hon. member for Laurier yields, I do suggest it is not in order to carry on a dialogue such as has been carried on.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I still have some further questions. I know the minister would like to answer these questions, not only after I sit down, but if the opportunity is not given him-I certainly will give him the opportunity-there will be other opportunities for him to answer.


George Harris Hees: I like to answer as we go along.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Laurier proceeds may I say that he is undoubtedly engaged in an unusual exercise now in speaking twice in the same debate, which he can do by reason of there having been an intervening amendment. However, this does not permit him to repeat everything he said before.


Lionel Chevrier: May I draw to your attention, sir, the fact that these are questions which were not asked yesterday and with the minister here I thought they should be asked of him so he could answer in due course.


George Harris Hees: I am answering as we go along.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister say whether tenders were called for recently for supplies to the D.E.W. line when the contract was awarded to Autair, although it was the highest of four tenders? I hope the minister will answer that.


George Harris Hees: That is the kind of question you could put on the order paper.


Lionel Chevrier: If I put it on the order paper I would never get an answer.


George Harris Hees: You forget this is 1960, not 1950.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister's colleague, who sits next to him, is very slow at answering questions.


George Harris Hees: I am very fast, though.


Lionel Chevrier: He has not been too fast on the trigger today, I must say. There was not much said by the minister in connection with the policy of the government, particularly with respect to the very serious reductions in airport construction during this fiscal year.


George Harris Hees: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is he referring to the reduction from our figure, which was more than three times the last figure that his government had and almost four times the last figure he put through; is that what he is asking?


Lionel Chevrier: No.


George Harris Hees: Then, what is he asking?


Lionel Chevrier: You know I am not asking that.


George Harris Hees: What in the world are you
asking?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not asking anything, I am making a statement.


George Harris Hees: You were asking me a question.


Lionel Chevrier: No, not there; you were
mistaken.


George Harris Hees: My straight man is letting me down.


Lionel Chevrier: The point is that there has been a reduction in the estimates of the minister in the fiscal year 1960-61 of some $11 million.


George Harris Hees: And an increase of nearly $50 million over what the hon. member's government did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order; the minister is going too far. Really, the hon. member is being very good natured about it, but I do have to ask the minister not to interrupt at everything that is said.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not mind the interruptions, Mr. Speaker, because really some of the interruptions are ridiculous.
However, I do not want to hold up the house any longer. I simply reiterate what was said earlier, that the minister has made no reply to a number of the charges which were made from this side of the house, and not having made a reply on this occasion I hope he will take the occasion to make it when another debate takes place.


George Harris Hees: I answered them all, if you had only been listening.


Lionel Chevrier: I do want to say one thing about the amendment to the amendment that has been moved by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). The amendment to the amendment poses some slight difficulties in so far as those of us who sit on this side of the house are concerned. We have not the slightest hesitation in supporting clauses 5 and 6 of the C.C.F. subamendment. In so far as clause 4 is concerned, which reads:
Unnecessary duplication of domestic transcontinental airlines services which has denied Trans-Canada Air Lines the opportunity to implement further reduction in fares;
I am able to say that we will support this clause also, and the amendment as a whole because we do not consider the privilege granted the Canadian Pacific Air Lines of one transcontinental flight per day to be unnecessary duplication. In making that statement, we are endorsed and confirmed in our view by the air transport board in its ruling on the case.
(Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, after the clear and concise report of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees), I do not find it necessary to deal with the matter, but I want to speak for a few minutes about the Dorval terminal, which is to be completed in 1960.
As the Minister of Transport mentioned, the centre block is now finished, the excavation and steel structure contracts for the jetties and aeroquay have been given. Tenders were called on November 30 for the awarding of a general contract for these projects. The precise date of completion for the whole project will depend on the way the work is carried out under the general contract and some additional contracts, for instance, for the installation of a feeding system for refuelling aircraft and paving the runways which will be done in spring. The fuelling system contract has already been awarded.
The first building contract of the project was given out a little more than four years ago. In the spring of 1957, the total amount of contracts was approximately $4 million. Contracts awarded since have reached $15 to $20 million. During 1959, a new runway has been paved, this being equal to paving 30 miles of road, 22 feet wide.
Though the lay-out of the jetties and the aeroquay was approved early in 1959, the
Civil Aviation
first estimate for the project seemed rather high, and several weeks were needed for the modification of plans so as to obtain the same basic lay-out at a reduced cost.
Plans for new passenger boarding facilities show twenty three aircraft stations on the landing area to which passengers will accede by following well lighted and ventilated underground corridors and passages. At each landing station, there will be rooms where air travellers will receive the necessary instructions and where they may wait for the time to board their aircraft. Air travellers will reach the gates of the landing stations by taking one or the other of two jetties starting from the terminal, or a tunnel leading to an aeroquay at the landing area.
One of the jetties with four landing stations will be used by planes for transborder flights. At the other end of the building are seven more landing stations for aircraft used for domestic flights. Parallel to the air terminal and 600 feet from it, is an aeroquay 1,200 feet long with twelve landing stations. It is connected with the terminal by two tunnels ending under the aircraft landing stations.
Aeroquay stations can be used by jet planes on international or domestic flights since an appropriate tunnel allows passengers to get to their own destination. All aircraft using the aeroquay, including those making international flights, could discharge or pick up passengers and refuel without changing stations, resulting in a saving of time and equipment for transportation companies.
The Minister of Transport referred to the charge that construction of the air terminal had been unduly delayed and he explained that the building of any air terminal of such proportions necessarily requires a lot of time.
This is due to the complexity of problems connected with the drawing of the plans, to the great number of interested parties to be consulted, and to the intricacies of construction and technical facilities. Two or three years are required to draw up complete blueprints and specifications and since construction itself will take at least four years, about seven years will elapse between the drawing up of plans and the completion of the project.
This delay in completion has been confirmed by the experience in other countries as well as in Canada. For instance, one of the largest cities of the United States has spent four years on planning but has not yet

Civil Aviation
started construction. In another case, it took three years to draw the plans and four years to build an airport. Here is another example: a large United States centre had completed 75 per cent of the construction of an air terminal when it was found necessary to demolish all its front part to rebuild it later in order to expand. It took six years to draw the plans of one of the largest overseas airports and six more years to build only the first part of that airport and at this time some changes to the building are being considered. The project will not be completed for a few years yet.
In Montreal, construction work coincides with the development of jet aircraft. This has raised some new and difficult problems of a technical and operational nature, as the construction of the airport was progressing. During construction work of important airports, it is normal for the air companies and all concerned parties (they number about 40) to submit new ideas and propose changes as air technique progresses and new airports are completed in other countries, and as new experience is acquired.
Thus, the plans and the construction works must be constantly revised and altered, with the result that the airport will more adequately meet the needs of modern aviation than if all the plans had been definitely drawn several years before construction started.
The Minister of Transport has further announced that no important changes had been made to the estimates he had already given of the cost of completing the new air terminal itself, not including the installations and related services, as well as piers and aeroquays. Construction work was to cost between $16 to $17 million. The estimated cost figured before 1956 and 1957 was based on incomplete plans, but the minister mentioned that, after he took office, he quoted figures of between $15 and $16 million, based on reasonably completed plans, and that certain additions, such as air conditioning have been made since. Let me say here that, in my view, the comparison made by the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) with the printing bureau is not fair. The printing bureau affair was a scandal which contributed to shake the very foundation of our democratic system. And, talking about the printing bureau, work that had to be done over or corrected cost about $850,000. The comparison made by the hon. member for Laurier with the Dorval airport was unfair, because at

Dorval, the Department of Transport added extra items. Thus no provision had been made, in the original plans prepared under the former administration, for an air conditioning system. The present Minister of Transport had the plans amended so that the Montreal air terminal would have air conditioning just like other airports in Canada.
As a result, the Dorval air terminal will be able to compete with any airport in the world.


Augustin Brassard: Mr. Speaker,
would the hon. member allow me a question?
Is the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm aware that at least two contractors submitted bids to repair the air conditioning system at the printing bureau, and that one of them who offered to do the work at a cost of over $800,000 was a close friend of the government? The other offered to repair the building for approximately $50,000. Could the hon. member tell me what came out of all this? I know, but I would like him to tell it to the house.


Mr. Johnson:: That has nothing to do with air terminals.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to go to the printing bureau while repairs to the air conditioning system were under way. I noticed that openings were being made in the walls. I am satisfied that the repairs that were made were necessary. Furthermore, that was proved by experts who testified before the committee. The fact of the matter- and I know this is known to every member in this house-the original air conditioning system in the printing bureau caused a terrific scandal that shook the very foundations of our democratic system.


Augustin Brassard: That does not answer my question at all.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the Minister of Transport had changes made in the plans for the Dorval air terminal so as to include a modern air conditioning system which, unfortunately, had not been planned for by the former administration. Therefore, if the present Minister of Transport had not included an air conditioning system, in the plans, the Montreal terminal would have been below the standard of other Canadian airports.
Mr. Speaker, thanks to changes made in the plans by the present government, the Montreal air terminal will be the most modern in the world. It will be second to
none.

With regard to T.C.A., I would like to make a suggestion. I think T.C.A. should do more advertising. I notice that private European companies advertise their services better than do the T.C.A.
The hon. member for Lapointe referred earlier to the St. Honore airport. I believe that the sale by auction by the former government, of the St. Honore airport, in the Chicoutimi constituency, was a colossal blunder. The former government should never have auctioned off that airport for an amount of $20,000 to $22,000, if I recall correctly.
Mr. Speaker, I made those few remarks because I wanted to congratulate the present Minister of Transport who made some changes in the plans of the Montreal airport so that it will not be surpassed either by other Canadian airports or those of foreign countries.
(Text):


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, one could easily describe the twentieth century as the age of exaggeration or the day of the superlative. More often than not such exaggeration stems from habit.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote it?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. member across the way asked who wrote it. I do not know who wrote it but I do know who read it, and that was the Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees).	Certainly again this afternoon he
has indulged in another one of his brilliant performances in the superlative in the realm of exaggeration of fact and flights into fancy.
I am one of those old-fashioned people who believe that competition is the life of trade.	When I support a policy which
restricts competition in any way there must be some very good reason for such a course. The air industry is one which meets this test. The air industry, unlike most other industries, has a special factor, and that is the factor of safety. It is true that ground vehicles have problems of safety, but they are of a different order from those which apply to aircraft. When it comes to the flying of airplanes and the carrying of cargoes and passengers, whether on scheduled or chartered flights, it is absolutely essential that there be no compromise whatsoever on absolute safety requirements.
We in Canada have a proud record in the field of safety. Trans-Canada Air Lines, I believe, is without peer in the field of taking no chances and of making sure that it gets
Civil Aviation
its customers safely from the point of their departure to their destination. So it has been with the air transport policy of this country, in years gone by at least, that in the field of chartered aircraft, too, no compromise was made in making sure that the industry would have a firm foundation which would not prevent it from being able to afford those things which are required to operate aircraft in accordance with the strictest safety rules.
This is just a matter of human nature. I do not think any person would deliberately reduce his efforts or slacken off in any way which would affect the safety of an aircraft. But on the other hand it is almost inevitable that if an industry is in trouble, if operators are continually losing money and if there is no other firm base on which they can build, there is a temptation to leave undone on occasion some things which should be done to ensure the safe operation of those aircraft.
That is the test which must apply. Here we have had a policy which only insisted that a person seeking a licence show public necessity, convenience or interest. In other words, all that was necessary for licensing was to demonstrate a requirement and then to show that the person making application had the capacity to finance and operate successfully the franchise for which he had applied.
This is a special category. It is something which is too important to trifle with. It is an area where, in my opinion, public safety supersedes the ordinary rule of unlimited and unfettered competition. Indeed, unfettered competition can, I think, mitigate against the service which would be expected and which would normally accrue from a more competitive situation.
It is for this reason that those of us on this side of the house have decided that the course of the present government in allowing unlimited licensing of class C and class B carriers is not in the public interest. We do not feel it contributes anything substantial to the service of the Canadian people. We do not believe it contributes anything in the realm of reliability; and we are concerned for fear it might detract in some way from a safe and sound operation of these aircraft carriers.
There is in addition the necessity, which always occurs in business, of making sufficient profit to allow for depreciation. The equipment which is required in the air transport industry is very expensive; unless it

Civil Aviation
can be depreciated it cannot be replaced. The funds are not available for replacement. Aircraft are not only expensive but usually the aircraft with which they are replaced are more up to date, more modern, more comfortable, but at the same time more expensive. Therefore the capital has to be accumulated from somewhere to take care of this replacement program, and only by having an industry which allows at least an adequate rate of return on investment can you build up the reservoir of capital necessary to replace out-worn equipment and to buy the latest aircraft available, and the best suited for the job.
This, of course, affects our aircraft industry too, because, as you know, it has suffered grievously in the last two years under the present government. It is all but wiped from the books, and any policy which will make it possible for domestic carriers to buy and from time to time re-equip their fleets with domestically produced aircraft is one which is of benefit to the Canadian aviation industry and which will provide continuous employment in that much-maligned industry.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the new policy which has been embarked upon by the Minister of Transport is a retrograde step; that it is not in the public interest; and that those recommendations which were put forward by the air transport industry are worthy of serious consideration and in fact deserve our support. Very simply, they were, first, that the federal government be urged to promulgate, without undue delay, a sound and well defined air transportation policy for Canada; second, that this policy should be of a long term nature and not be subject to fluctuation based on the exigencies of individual situations; and, finally, that with promulgation of such a policy full responsibility for its administration be placed in the hands of the air transport board. This final recommendation is also one of great importance. We feel that the administration should be lodged with and remain in the hands of the air transport board and not be taken over by the minister in a unilateral fashion.
On the subject of airport development the minister made some grandiose claims which just do not stand up to the facts. In his usual flamboyant manner he has managed to take credit for many things in which he was only really, I was going to say, an innocent participant. But he has taken all the credit and accepted little of the responsibility. All of

this great amount of expenditure, which was talked about by the minister this afternoon has been only possible because of plans which were well and truly laid by the previous Liberal administration. The tens of millions of dollars which the minister said he had been pleased and proud to spend were spent on air terminals the plans and specifications of which had been prepared and passed on to him gratis by his predecessor.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


George Harris Hees: A very small proportion.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A lot of nonsense? Let the hon. member stand up and give one example of an air terminal which has been completed since the government which he supports has taken office which was commenced after his government took office. There is not one. This is the type of interruption which adds nothing. The minister himself told us the other day on another occasion that it takes six or seven years at a minimum to plan and build an air terminal.


George Harris Hees: That is a big one, not a small one.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Has your department finished any small ones?


George Harris Hees: A few.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All the money was spent on the big ones, and those are the ones for which credit is being taken.


George Harris Hees: No; we shared it fairly and equitably across the country.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All these terminal facilities were planned long before the minister came into office. He called this an unholy mess and, of course, saying it is an unholy mess is casting reflections on those able and trustworthy civil servants who are carrying out this work.


George Harris Hees: No, I blame it completely on the government of that day, and not on the members of my department.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are the same people who were there before, the same people who prepared the plans and specifications. What is the situation which would make it any more holy now than in the days of the Liberal administration?


George Harris Hees: They find it easier to prepare the plans and get ahead today.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: During the election campaign it was stated by hon. members opposite that there was no shelf of public works for them

to carry out. They complained that the Liberals had not left sufficient concrete plans for them to carry out. This, of course, was just as great nonsense then as it is today. This particular item is an example of one of the great plans for Canadian development which was left for those people who came into office completely bankrupt of ideas of their own. Plans had been so well prepared that for the past three years they have been able to coast along and increase expenditure, pouring the money out and getting themselves re-elected, providing a certain amount of employment and taking a lot of credit for projects for whose inception they were not responsible.
In these days, expenditures are falling off, and the reason is that the government is running out of initiative. They are having to scrape the bottom of the barrel. They started out not only with a surplus of $500 million to spend and help them coast along, but with plans and specifications for roads, schools, air terminal buildings and all sorts of projects. Now they have to begin doing some thinking of their own, and the going is getting difficult. Let me give one or two examples. The minister was complaining about the airport terminal at Winnipeg. Is that correct?


George Harris Hees: That is correct.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He also mentioned, if I heard him correctly, that some years ago there had been an intention to build a $5 million air terminal in that great city.


George Harris Hees: There is no complaint in Winnipeg today. There was plenty while the party to which the hon. member belongs was in office.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister says there is no complaint today.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was in Winnipeg not long ago, and they were complaining then.


George Harris Hees: Things are getting along fine since the hon. member left.


Lionel Chevrier: They say that the new hazard is the Minister of Transport.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member tried that joke the other day but he did not get a laugh then.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Speaking in the committee of the whole, the Minister of Transport, explaining some of the items in his estimates said that $3 million had been provided for the air terminal at Winnipeg. That was on June 12 of last year. What has been done in the meantime?
Civil Aviation


George Harris Hees: We have let a lot of contracts and got the job going.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How many?


George Harris Hees: I would say about four.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: How many contracts, and to what value, have been let since the date I mentioned?


George Harris Hees: I would say about four. I do not have the figures handy at the moment.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, because the minister says these things right off the top of his head.


George Harris Hees: If the hon. member will come into my office I will explain them.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The hon. gentleman would have to get one of his civil servants to do it.


George Harris Hees: Even I could explain it to the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: That is only because I have greater than normal capacity for comprehension.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member had better get together with the hon. member for Laurier. What a team.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It seems that the minister has finally got around to calling for some tenders. He is calling for tenders for excavation and caisson work.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Is it not usual to start with the foundations?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We start with the foundations-


George Harris Hees: The former government did not have any foundations. Think of the printing bureau.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We start with the foundations, but this is the second time this government has started with the foundations. In the fall of 1958 they called for tenders for the same foundation work. How many times is it necessary to call for tenders for the same foundations? Tenders have been called, it appears, but the minister has given us no reliable information; merely a few statements off the cuff. The minister should be more careful of his facts. He is a cheerful and delightful, but somewhat careless person. The minister told us the other day that the plans and specifications for this terminal building were complete. I do not believe he would fall into the mucky sins of his predecessors by starting a building for which the plans and specifications are not complete. This is a very sound policy, coming from the Minister of Transport, but when we ask for the plans and specifications the minister says he will have to get them. He really means that

Civil Aviation
he will have to get his draughtsmen to work nights, Sundays, holidays, overtime, doubletime and triple-time in order to get them ready for presentation to the house.


George Harris Hees: Plans and specifications for Winnipeg have been ready for some time.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then let us look at them.


George Harris Hees: Why should I show them to the hon. member?


An hon. Member:: Because of a parliamentary return in my name.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We want to take a look at them and see if they are the right way up.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member would only get confused.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We could get the Minister of Transport to explain them to us. He might be like Alice in Wonderland, and this might only be a glass house that he intends to build out there.
This is one typical example of how the minister, far from improving the policies of his predecessors is in fact failing to follow the good example left for him. The impetus which was contained in the program inherited from the previous government is giving way to inertia, and at long last the government is having to do some thinking of its own.


George Harris Hees: You mean our $52 million program compared with yours?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister's interjections are sometimes quite brilliant but at other times they are altogether meaningless. Anybody can spend money if somebody else has done the work and laid the plans. Let me ask another question: where would this government get the money to spend if it had not been left so much by a government which had managed the affairs of this country properly? The present government, on the other hand, has got itself into such a mess that it has not yet been able to extricate itself. The government is still trying to get its head above water.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question. If the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member had done so well, how did it happen that the Liberal party lost 120 seats in the course of nine months?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The answer to that is very simple. We lost them the same way we are going to win them back.


George Harris Hees: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: At the rate the minister is going with respect to this Winnipeg air terminal it will be left for his grandchildren to officiate at the opening.


George Harris Hees: That is a statement.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister just has to get out of the foundation sometime and commence some actual construction work. I am sure the people of Winnipeg will be delighted when they see the first steel rising and the first brick, glass or whatever is used going into place. I hope this will transpire while air travel is still as popular as it is today.
I wish now to discuss Malton air terminal. Here again the minister has painted a bright picture about what a wonderful structure it is going to be and I agree with him that it should be quite fabulous when it is finished. Actually I cannot tell which of these air terminals is going to be the greatest because when I read the speech delivered by the minister in Montreal-


George Harris Hees: They are going to be equally great.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They are going to be equally great?


George Harris Hees: Two of the finest in the world.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I thank the minister for the explanation. I hope this will apply to all the places where the minister has made the same speech and that it will not be limited to Montreal and Toronto.


George Harris Hees: They will all be fine terminals. We do not build any other kind.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I suppose that is true, and especially those in respect of which the plans and specifications were worked out by a good administration.


George Harris Hees: Oh, no, we had to re-do all the plans and specifications.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Malton airport has for many years been inadequate to handle the increased volume of traffic that passes through it. The minister waxed very eloquent about the inadequacy of the facilities at Malton when he sat on this side of the house. He and I used to meet out there occasionally. Sometimes we could find a place to sit down and on other occasions we had to stand up and shake hands because there was no place to be seated. But in respect of this airport the minister again told us that the length of the runway will be great, and that there will be capacity for the finest intercontinental-


George Harris Hees: Ballistic missiles?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -jet aircraft. He said the facilities of the building will be equal to those anywhere in this country. He went further, in fact, and said this airport will be without equal in the whole world. It will have underground parking in three or four

layers. You will come in by tunnel and there will be sufficient ice making capacity to freeze the Ottawa river, and all sorts of incredible things.


George Harris Hees: The hon. member is getting silly now.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister is probably close to being factual in the bright picture he paints of the future Toronto air terminal. The disappointing part of it is that the whole program has been moved back about two years because of the change in government.


George Harris Hees: It has not been moved back at all. Progress has moved ahead considerably.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The snail's pace at which it is progressing is a matter of regret and disappointment to all of us.


George Harris Hees: It has moved ahead very rapidly.


Mr. Pallell:: The hon. member must admit that it is more comfortable now than it was when his party was in power. I urge the hon. gentleman to stick to the facts about Malton.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We were hoping, Mr. Speaker, that when the new Minister of Transport took office he would accelerate and speed up the very important work of providing improvements to airport facilities.


George Harris Hees: And were you not pleased when you found it was all true?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I wish it were true.


George Harris Hees: Your wish is granted.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: If the hon. member would spend less time duplicating effort and appraisals on land deals and get some of his decisions made and some problems cleaned up that would pave the way to getting on with the job. We know that many air travellers would be extremely pleased.


George Harris Hees: The mess was started by the government of which the hon. gentleman was a member.


Lionel Chevrier: No, you messed it up.


George Harris Hees: On the contrary, we straightened it out.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was, as I said, a matter of regret that this program was moved back. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Pallett) is quite right in saying that there has been some improvement in the facilities at Malton airport. As a matter of fact every week when you go there you find some change. One week they are changing the men's washroom and the next week they are changing the ladies' washroom.
Civil Aviation


George Harris Hees: How would the hon. member know about that? For shame.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Snooper.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The following week they are painting the windows so you cannot see.


George Harris Hees: What a heartbreak. So that is what you have been doing? For shame.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Hon. members opposite know it was the aircraft I was referring to.


George Harris Hees: Does the hon. member know that he arrived with blue all over his nose yesterday?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: And then they put a bunch of posts out in front to show you where you are going.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Those were to direct the hon. member.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then they built a fence so you could not go that way. The changes and modifications take place so quickly that one grows dizzy. The list of modifications is so long and extensive that time would not permit me to refer to it in detail. I must reverse myself in this regard at least, and say, the changes are made with such rapidity that it is almost impossible to keep up with them. I am sure that even the minister must be aware of this. As a matter of fact, I was told that one time the minister went to the airport and attempted to check in but could not find the check-in desk.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister started out for London yesterday and arrived in Ottawa.


George Harris Hees: You had better get the hon. member for Trinity to sit down; he is doing you no good.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is certainly confusing to go out there now and see all the modifications that are taking place. One sometimes wonders why so much money is being spent on such extensive alterations which, I am sure the minister would agree, are of a temporary nature.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Part of it is being spent to stop the peeping Toms.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I missed that interjection.


Donald MacInnis: Part of it is being spent to stop the peeping Toms.


Mr. Henderson:: Now, get out of that one, old boy.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I did not know that any of my Conservative friends had been visiting up there recently but I am glad to hear that they pay visits to our fair city from time to time.
It is disappointing that so much of the taxpayers' money is being spent on modifications

Civil Aviation
to an old inadequate building. These expenditures could have been avoided if the minister had moved a little more expeditiously and brought to his work some of the sprinting speed of which he is capable and which he has demonstrated so well as an athlete. The minister is a quick-footed person whether athletically or politically.


Lionel Chevrier: But not administratively.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: No, I do not think he moves as quickly administratively.


Lionel Chevrier: That is true. He is very slow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: We look forward with great interest to the development of the new terminal building because it is of unique design and we think it will be a wonderful addition to the Queen city. We only regret that the minister is not pushing it with greater energy and with-


Lionel Chevrier: With the same speed as at Dorval.


George Harris Hees: That is right, give him some words.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -enthusiasm. However, I may be unfair to the minister. It may well be that he would like to push the development of that airport and its terminal facilities more quickly but perhaps he is not receiving the whole-hearted support of the other members of the cabinet from the city of Toronto.


George Harris Hees: One hundred per cent.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are certain developments which if not cancelled have been delayed for thorough examination by treasury board. There is nothing wrong with thorough examination, mind you, but there is a limit to holding up these worthwhile urgent projects. We would hope that the minister would have a long chat with his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) and impress upon him that there are some projects which simply should not be pigeon-holed, delayed or held back even though his interest in balancing the national budget is a most important one.
The airport at Malton, Mr. Speaker, is no exception. We hope it will develop as rapidly as possible. There are others all across the country which should be proceeded with with equal dispatch.
The minister made another statement which I am sure he would not want to go uncorrected. It had to do with the opening of the airport at Stephenville. The minister said that the airport at Stephenville was opened by his government.


George Harris Hees: I said it was opened in 1957.
IMr. Hellyer.]


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister said it was opened in 1957, but he placed it in the total of his accomplishments in the air transport field.


George Harris Hees: It was marginal.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister feels it was a marginal case. I am told it was opened by Mr. St. Laurent and was completed in the first part of 1957. By the first part I mean the important part before the end of June. If that is not correct I hope the minister will take the opportunity to give us the facts as he sees them. There were some other-


Walter Clarence Henderson: You will have to do better than that, big boy, or you will never be premier.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that I thank my hon. friend from the bottom of my heart for this tremendous compliment, but I can assure him that it is completely undeserved.


Mr. Hamilton (Notre Dame de Grace):: You
had better do better than that or you will not even get re-elected.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that if I have as many Tories in the riding helping me as I had the last time I should be a shoo-in.
The minister criticized the previous administration for its lack of foresight in the design of three airport facilities where additions will be necessary. I think they were Moncton, Sept Isles, and-what was the other one?


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Who is making the speech?


George Harris Hees: I cannot help the hon. member in everything; he objects to interjections.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The minister has not his notes, but I am sure he will be happy to give me that information later. In any event, I think the minister will agree that no one could anticipate the phenomenal development in air traffic which has taken place in the last decade. Oh, he looks startled and amazed. I do not think he is startled and amazed because if he will look back at his own record of speeches in this house I think he will find that not even he in his wisdom was able to see just what the order of magnitude would be in this tremendous explosion in air travel.
Admittedly, air terminals were built which were quite adequate for the time being, and which are very nice; at least the ones I have knowledge of, particularly the one at Moncton. I stopped in at Moncton over the weekend. It is a first-class facility. I am

sure the people there are very proud and very happy to have it. It it needs extending, all I can say is that it is due to the commercial base and the potential for growth and development of this great country which were so well laid during the decades of Liberal administration. I can well understand why it would be difficult to comprehend just what the growth would be. Even the population statistics are more promising than anyone would have guessed a few years ago.
I should like to touch on one other air terminal just briefly before I sit down. I refer to the Uplands airport terminal building. I get a real thrill out of that one because I see it so often as we taxi past. As we go by I say to my friends on the aircraft, "That is a new terminal building".


George Harris Hees: What do they say?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: They say, "Lovely".


George Harris Hees: They must think you are a very smart fellow.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Then, the next question they ask is-


George Harris Hees: This fellow is a whiz.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: -"What new kind of glass is that yellow glass they have in ever so many squares?"


George Harris Hees: What do you say to that?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: My reply to that, Mr. Speaker, is that it is a little difficult to tell from the distance just what it is, whether it is coloured glass, but it looks very much like cardboard or masonite. This could, however, be part of the architect's conception of what an interesting looking building could be, or it may be just part of the damage and that we are trying to keep jack frost out. I do not know who is paying for the extra heat to keep the building warm this winter, whether it is the Minister of Transport or the Minister of National Defence; this has been a very rugged winter in these parts and it is necessary-


George Harris Hees: We can all agree on that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is necessary to keep the wind out and the heat in.


George Harris Hees: The boy has got something; he knows when it is cold and when it is hot.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It is quite an accomplishment and one I am very proud of; this air terminal at Uplands, as we have been told by the minister, should have been opened last year. The reason it was not is also very interesting. They brought up an F-104 aircraft from the United States and they flew it over Uplands, and when it went past at
Civil Aviation
low-level a sonic boom broke the windows and wrecked some of the superstructure, and so on. What did it prove? It proved that the F-104 could smash windows, but as far as we in this house are concerned, we never said that it could not.


George Harris Hees: I think you have got something there.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The F-104 was brought up to reassure the cabinet, which was having second thoughts, as to whether this was the proper aircraft for our air division overseas. It is too bad it happened to put the sonic boom in this general direction.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock
I was speaking about the air terminal building at Uplands airport, Ottawa, and expressing disappointment over the fact that it had been damaged as the result of a flight of a FE-104 aircraft last summer. I, personally, believe that it is only a government with unequalled capacity for mismanagement, such as the present government has, that could arrange to wreck an air terminal building which was nearly completed and to set back the date of completion by many months. I think, particularly, it is a matter of disappointment because of the many visitors from the United States who come into our capital city by way of Uplands airport. I know that those who have been at the terminal when visitors have come in there have blushed with shame at having to admit that this was the gateway to Canada's capital for visitors coming here from the United States and other countries.
The existing terminal at Uplands is one of the worst still in existence. I sincerely hope the minister will make every effort to accelerate the work and pick up some time so that not too many months more will pass before we will be able to bring our visitors into the capital city through a structure which does some credit to this young and developing nation.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I return to the point of departure with respect to air transport policy. Until approximately 1945 the air industry in Canada had been unregulated. During that period growth had been sporadic and not on the soundest of financial bases. After the air transport board was set up and the Aeronautics Act was established a degree of continuity began to emerge. It was some years later when the fruits of these efforts began to be felt-

Civil Aviation


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Egan Chambers: Mr. Speaker, I only have time, and I just wish to say a few words on the subject of the two amendments before the house tonight. I should like to take as my text, if I may, the words used by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer) this afternoon when he said that all the accomplishments of this government were based on plans well and truly laid by the previous government. I should like to examine just for a moment, the planning of the previous government. Criticism will be made, because they say that the shortcomings of today we always blame on the previous government, but surely if ever there was an area that required long term planning, that is the area of airport development and air policy generally.
Now, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) yesterday-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We have a motion before us, an amendment and a subamendment, which relate exclusively to the policies of the present government. It seems to me that the hon. member is entering upon a course of debate which is entirely irrelevant to the subject before the house and is, therefore, out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was replying to the previous speaker. If he is, I can hardly rule him out of order.


Egan Chambers: I undertake not to follow the course of the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Brassard) in discussing unemployment and other subjects of that sort.


Augustin Brassard: I was not discussing that, I was making comparisons only.


Egan Chambers: The hon. member for
Laurier said yesterday, as reported at page 1806 of Hansard, "I have no hesitation in saying that it was in 1953 that I announced the building of the airport at Dorval." In the first place, what were they doing before 1953? Back in the 40's? The government of that day was paying out the taxpayers' money for the development of a jet plane in Canada. They knew that the age of jet transport was coming. They knew that the airports in Canada at that time were inadequate to handle these developments, yet it was not until 1953 that any announcement was made.
I have to credit the hon. member for foresight in making that announcement in

February, 1953, but I am not sure whether his foresight was due to his realization of the coming of the jet age or due to his realization of the coming election in 1953. Nothing further was heard until November 4, 1954, when the next minister of transport announced that, so far as Montreal was concerned, there would be a $30 million expansion and modernization program for the Dorval airport. It is interesting to note that the Montreal Star of that date reports tenders for the work would be called that spring and the over-all project would take about two years to complete. That would bring it to about 1956.
In 1956, as every hon. member knows, very little work had taken place. In fact, when this government took over in 1957 the entire planning had to be reworked because there was in fact only a hit-and-miss plan for the airport at Dorval. There was, perhaps a reason for the announcement in November, 1954. Perhaps the announcement was made before the plans were well and truly laid, but it so happened that the minister of transport who made that announcement on November 4 was running in a by-election on November 8.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Egan Chambers: Again I think we have an example of foresight on the part of that hon. minister. I do not want to say anything more about the Dorval terminal. The present Minister of Transport (Mr. Hees) has taken it in hand. The opening is scheduled for this year and finally, much too late I will admit, the airport will be opened. However, if there had been any foresight in the organization and planning of the previous government we might have had it opened many years ago.
Now on this question of air transport in Canada and the licensing of carriers, there is no country in the world in which it is more important that aggressive operators should be licensed than it is in this country. It can truly be said, I think, that more than any other country in the world we depend on the air carriers to open up our country, to open up the north and many of our areas of wealth which can only be reached by air. Yet the previous government for years followed a plan of restriction, a plan of monopoly, a plan of holding down individual initiative to keep Canadians from developing their country by opening up air routes and going into the parts of Canada that are difficult to reach by other means of transportation.
It was only when the present government came into power, as the minister said this afternoon, that a new policy was instituted.

The licensing of air carriers was opened up. Competition was introduced and the profit to the travelling public, the shipping public and those who want to open up our mineral resources and so on in the north has already been considerable. A country of this size requires a little vision. Hon. members opposite are apt to scoff at people who assert they have a vision for this country; but they do that because they themselves fail to have a conception of the possibilities of our country. That is why their policies were restricted. Their policies were policies of those who were afraid to look into the future. Their policies were: be safe and be sorry. Too little too late was their policy in airports, air carriers and in fact in much of their whole public thinking.
I therefore do not think that any member in this house need think twice before voting down these amendments and in effect voting for a policy that is long range in scope and has the future of Canada in it and voting against the old-line, old-time policies of do nothing now and only hope for the future.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for the amendment and the subamendment and to say that I will be quite brief and to the point, according to the clock, and will try to avoid exposing any ignorance. If no one spoke in this house unless as an expert on any question, this house would be filled with a profound silence on many occasions.
I must say this on behalf of this group. I want to protest the fact that I have not been allowed time to speak and to give the house my thoughts and wisdom, as I had intended to do, on this question. This group has had three speakers waiting all day to speak. Surely at least one of them should have been allowed 15 minutes. I protest the somewhat discourteous action of some of the other speakers who prevented at least one member of this group from expressing the point of view of this group on this extremely important matter today.


Mr. Speaker:: It being 8.15 o'clock p.m., it is my duty pursuant to section 4 (d) of standing order 56 to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on any matter before the house.



HARMFUL EFFECT OF POLLUTION ON SEA BIRDS

Mr. C. W. Carter (Burin-Burgeo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take advantage of the opportunity provided at this time to bring
Simpson
Skoreyko
Slogan
Small
Smallwood
Smith (Calgary South)
Smith (Simcoe North)
Smith (Winnipeg North)
Southam
Speakman
Spencer
Stanton
Starr
Stearns
Stefanson
Stinson
Tasse
Taylor
Thomas
Thompson
Tremblay
Villeneuve
Walker
Webb
Weichel
Winkler
Woolliams
Wratten-165.

to the attention of the house a problem which is causing great concern to the people of my province and, in particular, to my own constituents. The problem to which I refer is the mass destruction of sea birds in our coastal waters by oil which is jettisoned from ships on the high seas and which drifts in and pollutes our coastal waters.
This is not a new problem. It became quite acute during the years of world war I and II when many ships were being torpedoed and a great deal of oil was being released on the high seas. In recent years the problem seems to have become much worse. At the present time it is much worse than at any time during the war years and has now reached proportions where some of the sea birds upon which many of our fishermen depend for food are threatened with extinction.
I realize that at first glance this appears to be an international problem originating outside our territorial waters, one that depends on international agreements and cooperation, and therefore one about which we seemingly may not be able to do very much. But taking a closer look I think we will find we are not quite as helpless as we may appear in this regard.
I should like to take a few minutes to suggest to the government and the house three avenues of approach by which I believe some progress could be made toward solving this problem. The first avenue of approach I would suggest is detection. There must be some reason why this problem has become so much worse in recent years. The ocean is a big place but it does not mean that the whole ocean has to be patrolled. It is well known that ships travel fairly well recognized sea lanes which constitute a narrow strip of ocean not more than 100 miles in width. Since this oil is brought to our shores by ocean currents it is only necessary to discover where these currents intercept the sea lanes to pinpoint the areas that would have to be patrolled.
We may have to carry out some investigation to learn a little more about the movements of these currents but if that knowledge is not already available to our hydrographic surveys branch I would suggest that we take steps to acquire it as quickly as possible. Once this is done I suggest we co-ordinate our patrol services, our planes, air services and ships at sea to try and detect ships that are unnecessarily jettisoning oil on the high seas. If we can do no more than find out and name the ships that are to blame I think we will in time build up a body of world opinion against this practice.
The second avenue of approach I would like to suggest is the scientific approach. It
Television Repair Practices should be possible to find some chemical with which this oil could be treated before being dumped overboard and, having been treated chemically, would sink to the bottom and not stay on the surface to drift around with the current. That might necessitate some international agreement so that the oil will not be dumped in depths of water that will interfere with our fishing grounds.
The third avenue of approach I would like to suggest is that our national research council might undertake, not only to try and discover some chemical that would be effective in making the oil sink to the bottom but also try to discover some mechanichal device which could be fitted to the ship's machinery and which could utilize this chemical so that the oil would be automatically treated as it is pumped out of the ship and thus not cause any further harm. If such a method could be found it would afford Canada some means of controlling this problem. We could then amend our Canada Shipping Act to require ships using our harbours and waterways to be fitted with this device.
If the government could follow these suggestions and develop some specific proposals to make in this regard then I think our chances of securing international agreement would be greatly enhanced.



TELEVISION REPAIR PRACTICES

Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with another scourge which unfortunately we find in too many places across the country and particularly one which we face in this city. I am speaking about the unscrupulous television repair shops that by any device they can use will go into homes, obtain television sets, take them to their shops and then literally hold them for ransom. Apparently in spite of efforts made we have been unable to deal with this problem to date. I would suggest that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) look into the matter and see if the Criminal Code can be used to stop the practice.
The shop with which I intend to deal in particular is operated by a man who informs me that he services the television sets right here in the House of Commons.
In referring to the methods employed by these people I think the best example I can give is that just as communists use every facet of democracy in order to undermine democracy these callous, crafty beasts of prey use every facet of the law in order to flout the law of this country. They crawl like reptiles around the shadow of the law at all times; they never come out in the bright sunlight.

Television Repair Practices


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder whether the hon. member is raising as a grievance a matter which is simply a question of law enforcement. It seems to me from what he has said so far that there are people whom he alleges are not observing the law. It seems to me that this is a matter of provincial responsibility and law enforcement. I raise the question, not to prevent the hon. member from raising a legitimate grievance but to have him justify his course before he continues.


Murdo William Martin: Mr. Speaker, in the evidence I propose to present to the house I am sure it can be shown that under the present laws we are unable to deal with this situation. There are many people who have tried to deal with it but under the present laws apparently it is impossible to deal with these people.
1 should like to go on and illustrate just what I mean by this. Possibly the most reprehensible thing about this practice, is that these people prey upon the aged and the sick, upon the weak and the helpless. Television has been quite a boon to this country and particularly to people who are ill and who are aged and shut in but, unfortunately, television sets do not last forever and when some possibly minor thing goes wrong with them they have to be taken in and repaired. Quite often the class of people to whom I refer are working in the shops ready to pounce on the unsuspecting.
I should like to demonstrate a few of those facts. All we have to do is to take the telephone book of the city of Ottawa and we find this, and this is what I intend to deal with. At page 282 we find this man advertised as Addison Television, 791 Somerset street west. At page 283 this firm is advertised as CBS Television, at the same address. We also have Capital City TV Limited, same address. Then we have Capital City TV Limited again, and Cappy Television, same address. Then, on page 284 we have Crosley Television, same address; and Fleetwood Television, same address. Then, on page 285, we have Capital City TV again; and on page 286 we have Pye Television, same address. On page 287 we have Capital City TV Service only, and Capital City TV Limited; and then, so there will be no discrimination, again on page 288 we have for our French-Canadian friends the advertisement completely in the French language.
Last but far from least we have on the cover of the telephone book, which is conveniently passed out to most of the households in the country, the same form of advertising. This is an advertising device which is put out by the Dominion Merchandising Company,

Scarborough, Ontario. This cover goes to each community and carries an advertisement from one shop in each particular line. Television is advertised on the front cover of this book. The cover fits on the telephone book of the community you are in and it is distributed by this company to the householder. There are 12 traps set for the unwary. One further practice that I have seen in this particular shop is to use the advertising of the better business bureau after it has been kicked out of the better business bureau of Ottawa. Now what happens when these traps are sprung?
I had occasion to have some personal experience in this shop. Last week I discovered a situation where two government employees who were sharing a flat had some trouble with their television set. Unfortunately they got into the hands of this company to which 1 have referred. What they told me I could not believe; therefore, I took the opportunity to go with them to the shop when they went to have a look at their set. This is what happened. They called one of those numbers that I have listed, I do not know which one. A man came down and examined their set and changed one tube. He took off the back cover and said, "There must be some loose wire". He said he would take it back to the shop. He was instructed that it was a second-hand set and if the bill should come to a certain amount that he should return the set and not proceed with the repair of it. A week went by. They phoned two or three times. He did not itemize the bill and they were finally told that the bill was $47.80. They proceeded to get into an argument over it and he said, "If that is the way you feel the bill is $57.80, not $47.80". They asked for a detailed statement. He said, "You will get your statement when you pay your bill".
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I found this rather hard to believe so I took the opportunity to go with them when they went to see about it. I got a copy of the detailed statement, and when I started to read it the fellow made a lurch for it and tried to snatch it out of my hand; so I promptly put it in my pocket. He threatened to call the police; he threatened to attack me and the moment my back was turned his wife proceeded to do so in order to recover this price list.
I know it seems quite amusing to hon. members to picture some poor woman attacking a man of my size, but I should like to point out, that it would not be very amusing to an old age pensioner standing in my place. Such abuse and intimidation are the usual practice with these people. I have evidence here to prove that this is a general practice

and not one reserved for a particular occasion. I took this matter up with the better business bureau and I found that this practice has gone on for some time. The bureau was kind enough to give me a file which dealt with this one business alone. I should like to take this opportunity, to read just one or two of the complaints. This letter is dated March 1, 1960, and reads as follows:
Dear Sirs:
Saturday, February 27, 1960, I called Capital City Television Repair to pick up my T.V. which was out of order. The man came, looked at some tubes and took the set with him. Then several people told me that it was the worst place that I could have sent it to. It would cost me $50 or more to get it back. So I went down to pick it up again, when I got there the set had not been worked on it yet, I asked the lady if I could have it back by paying the service charge. They told me to wait till the man who had the record of it came back. I left for 30 minutes and when I came back they had the set torn apart. I complained to the manager of the store. He told me it cost me $15 to get it back, he wanted to throw me out of the store and even had a notion to hit me. I let him know he could not frighten me and I would stay till I had the set. Finally, they put the set back together and I paid $15 and left. I know now there are many complaints against this outfit and I hope my complaint will help to drive Capital City T V Repair out of business.
Yours truly,
The second letter reads as follows:
Cappy's T V were called in, after seeing their ad in the paper; they replaced a fuse and got the set working and charged a reasonable amount.
As the set was rather old, Mrs. H. asked them if they could tell her what it would cost to put the set in really good condition, as she wanted to know whether this would be worth while or whether they should get a new set. The repairman said they would give her an estimate and took the set into the shop.
When she did not get a call to give her the promised estimate, Mrs. H. called the shop. She was told the work was under way and the set would be delivered when ready. Mrs. H. protested that she had only wanted an estimate, but they replied that they could not do that sort of thing.
When the set was not delivered when promised, Mrs. H. again telephoned and they sent a man to get the chassis. He was to put the works in it and return it. Mrs. H. let him take it.
Mrs. H. then telephoned again to have the set delivered and was told that it was a cash deal and she should have $50.20 on hand.
Mrs. H. is rather young and inexperienced; it was her mother-in-law who came in and registered this complaint.
I might add, Mr. Speaker, that in the case to which I referred a moment ago and of which I have some rather fond memories, an attempt was made at that time to take the cabinet that went with the set. Fortunately, they would not give it up. I have just referred to two of the letters, but there are many more here. I am not going to take the time of the house to read them because 79951-0-118
Television Repair Practices I believe these two are indicative. Here we have a summary of eight different cases which range up to $120.
I have talked with other reputable dealers in town and they are all familiar with this particular case to which I refer. There is one thing I could say and that is in many respects these people are similar to rattlesnakes. Fortunately, there are two things missing. The first is that there is no rattle to warn people and the second is that, fortunately, they are not like the rattlesnake, immune to their own poison. The way to cure this is to have a fully informed public. There are two groups of our society that are involved here, the general public who are being victimized and the reputable dealers who are trying to do an honest job but who are being smeared along with the rest of the dealers.
I would suggest, that the general public should be advised that if they do not know a dealer they should check with the better business bureau. Second, if they are caught by one of these unscrupulous dealers they should immediately write to their better business bureau and complain or write to their member of parliament so that the complaint can be dealt with in some way. I would suggest also that the dealers themselves should try to clean their own house. They should try to set up some kind of ethical standards for dealers. I would suggest that the better business bureaus and chambers of commerce look into methods to put a stop to this practice either through municipal bylaws, provincial laws or, if necessary, urge the federal governmnet to amend the Criminal Code. I believe that the public should be protected, especially those who are least able to protect themselves. I would suggest that the Minister of Justice endeavour to see if there is something that could be done through the Criminal Code to deal with people of this kind.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean (Mr. Bourque) rising to speak on the same matter?


Mr. Romuald Bourque (Outremont-St. Jean):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in entire accord with all that the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin) has said. I believe that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Fulton) will take these remarks in good part because I know he is anxious to protect the public against schemers and racketeers. During the summer he spoke to the better business bureau, and I believe he made an excellent speech along that line.
The hon. member for Timmins has cited one case. During 1958-the figures are not out yet for 1959-the nine better business bureaus

Business of the House
across Canada performed 225,755 acts of service to business people and to the public; 187,913 of those were inquiries and 37,842 were complaints similar to the ones the hon. member has just brought to our attention. If there are 37,842 such complaints, the bureau is very anxious to investigate those complaints. However, with the law as it stands now, it is very difficult for the bureau to prosecute because these racketeers always stick to the borderline. It would be very expensive to make a case against them. If there are 37,842 complaints, you can imagine what the cost would be to prosecute all these people.
I think the point the hon. member raised was well taken, and I should like it brought to the attention of the Minister of Justice. I hope that he will take the necessary measures to see if these cases can be prosecuted.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Flynn in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:



DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
46. General administration, $324,266.

[Stage Direction]
265. Departmental administration, $986,595.

[Stage Direction]
454. Administration, $153,133.
Proceedings reported.

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we could proceed now with the resolution in the name of the Minister of Transport dealing with the Railway Act which was first introduced to the house on February 3. We have not had a chance to continue with it since that date.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Should we not go on with the order of business as indicated by the minister last evening?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I just suggested that if it was agreeable to the house we could perhaps deal with this matter. I had expected to start tomorrow with the three items which deal with Indian affairs, and I think they would make a good day's debate. This subject has already been before the house and it is a continuation of the resolution in the committee stage.



RAILWAY ACT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, February 3, consideration in committee of the following resolution-Mr. Hees

Mr. Flynn in the chair:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to amend an act to amend the Railway Act, chapter 40 of the statutes of 1958, to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund for a further period of three years beyond January 31, 1961.
Mr. Regier:: I recall some years ago when this principle was established whereby the federal government assumed a large proportion of the cost of eliminating dangerous railroad crossings. At some later stage the federal government agreed to increase its contribution to the expense of eliminating dangerous railroad crossings. However, I should like to contend that even at the present time the burden that is left upon the municipal governments is in many cases beyond their ability to look after. We are planning the elimination of one of these intersections in my riding at the present time. While we appreciate that Ottawa is prepared to pay 80 per cent of the cost, the railroad company-in this case the Canadian Pacific Railway-is only prepared to pay 5 per cent of the cost. This leaves the municipal government with the responsibility of finding 15 per cent of the cost.
I feel that the government ought to undertake measures whereby the railroad companies are not left with an option to pay an indefinite amount. Rather I feel that the railroad companies should be obligated to assume a definite responsibility. If the government is unwilling to do that, this government will have to begin to assume an even greater share of the expense than the 80 per cent that now they are willing to share.
I think of one municipality alone, namely the municipality of Burnaby, which has a population in excess of 100,000. It has an urban area. Yet it has a main Great Northern railway line running through the heart of the municipality which incidentally is also used by the Canadian National Railways. There are six main roads across that railroad. There is Boundary road, Willingdon road, Douglas road, Sperling road, Cariboo road and North road and only at North road have we been able to eliminate, by means of an overhead pass, the very dangerous railroad crossing that exists.
There you have a municipality with five railroad crossings that need elimination. I understand that the average expense of eliminating one of these crossings runs in the

neighbourhood of three quarters of a million dollars. If you multiply three-quarters of a million dollars by five and then take 20 per cent of that figure, the committee will easily realize that the taxpayers of Burnaby would be obliged to raise over half a million dollars to eliminate only the worst of the crossings on only one of the several railroads that traverse that municipality. I contend that this is beyond the ability of real estate in the municipality to bear by way of added taxation.
I should therefore like to offer to the government the proposal that either it raise its own contribution from 80 per cent to at least 90 per cent or that it adopt legislation- amendments to the Railway Act or amendments to other legislation-whereby the railway companies would be obliged to assume 10 per cent or 15 per cent of the cost, thereby leaving municipal governments with responsibility for raising only 5 per cent or 10 per cent of the cost. Our municipalities are not asking to be completely relieved of responsibility in this matter. However, they contend that as conditions now exist they are unable to eliminate many of these railroad crossings that ought to be eliminated having due regard for the welfare and the safety of the people concerned.


Mr. Small:: Railway Act
program which they thought would meet the situation and they said it would need $30 million a year, the government to assume all the cost and to continue for 25 or 30 years. It would take $750 million to tackle that program, and they ended up by saying that this sum would only scratch the surface. The whole problem has to be studied and brought down to a size where it can be controlled, and would require $750 million a year to do a thorough job. This would take one eighth of the annual budget.
Therefore, we are now back to the old problem that the municipalities and the railways are unable to pay their share, and if the problem is to be solved the government will have to re-assess it as the cost is to be shared with the provinces. In this connection the winter works program would be ideal, but there is so much preliminary work to be done. For example, there is the expropriation and property damage cost which takes some years to consummate, but cannot negotiate unless money is supplied to buy the property. Therefore I ask, how will we solve it? All you have is taxes, and the welfare costs must get priority, and grade level crossings separations of necessity second consideration.
I would suggest that hon. members should make some propositions in order to deal with this matter, but the way taxes mount week after week, year after year, means you cannot be complacent about this act. Something will have to be done about it. It will end up with the government having to supply the money, and it is not within their capacity to do so without increasing taxes.


Mr. Stanton:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about this railway grade crossing situation. We had a problem in Brockville in the county of Leeds, and it has been a problem down through the years. I remember when I was first elected in 1953 that my maiden speech concerned itself with a problem which had existed for many years. I would like to repeat a portion of my speech which is to be found on page 5182 of Hansard for May 27, 1954. I said:
At times the traffic is halted for long intervals. On one occasion a car was rushing a patient to hospital when it was forced to halt until the train pulled away from the station, and the delay was for some time, but I am glad to say that the mother and child are doing nicely.
This matter regarding grade crossings was brought to the attention of the former government on several occasions. It was first raised in the middle thirties, in 1936 or 1937, but apparently the government of that time thought that Leeds county was entrenched so solidly with Liberalism that they did not consider they had to give the county town of Brockville anything to retain that support.

In 1953 when I came along as the representative of that county, I pursued every means possible to bring to the attention of the government and the board of transport commissioners the situation which existed at that time, but to no avail. Then in May 1957 I was never so humiliated in all my life as when the present Prime Minister visited Brockville in his private car. He pulled up into the station at Brockville and both he and his good wife, were forced to walk a block and a half over the rough railroad ties, in order to get to the railway station where a group of cars were waiting to transport them to the hotel for the evening speeches which were to follow. First of all we pulled around into William street and the gates were down. Then we pulled back to another street and the gates were down there. Then we went back again to William street and even then the gates were not raised. In all we had to wait for ten or fifteen minutes before we were able to proceed.
That situation had existed in Brockville for years and years; now it is even worse. There are three highways passing through, highway 401, No. 29 and No. 42, and it is necessary to come in through William street over the railway crossing which consists of 11 tracks. You may well imagine that when the gates are down the traffic is held up for 15, 20 and sometimes as much as 30 minutes, with all the inconvenience which results. Not only that, but we have schools there where children have to pass over the tracks, which is a very dangerous situation.
After the 1957 election I was again happy to bring this situation to the attention of our present Minister of Transport and to the board of transport commissioners, and I am glad to report to the house tonight that through the untiring efforts of our Minister of Transport and also the efforts of the mayor of Brockville we now have tenders let for an overhead pass, the work has begun, and it is anticipated it will be completed next July. I suppose that if we had had a Liberal government for the next 50 years nothing would have been done about it; but the present Minister of Transport is a sound, sane-thinking man and he realized the position which exists there at the present time. Not only that, but many of the hon. members who come from the west have come to Brockville and know the situation there. The Prime Minister has seen it for himself, much to my embarrassment, and I would like to state in this house tonight that the people of Brockville are delighted to know not only that they are receiving that overhead pass but are

receiving it from a good, considerate, Conservative Minister of Transport and Conservative government.


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I would like to add some comments to the remarks made by the hon. members who have spoken on this resolution, which resolution is intended to extend the act for a further period of three years beyond January 1961 in order that the government of Canada can assist in great measure in bringing about throughout our country greater safety at railroad crossings.
This has developed into quite an item, and no doubt there are many reasons for it. In reviewing some of the reasons why this problem has increased so greatly, we could possibly find a rebuttal to the remarks of the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Danforth and possibly the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. At some length they expressed how in recent years the expenditure to meet this problem in Canada has greatly increased.
With the growth and expansion which has taken place in Canada during the years of the Liberal administration, it is not surprising that the numbers of motor vehicles should have increased and that the dangerous aspect of the railroad crossing should have increased correspondingly. I have made inquiries of the provincial police in Ontario, and I have read certain reports of inquests, and it would seem that the danger has increased not only because of the increase in the number of vehicles but because the speed limit at which motor vehicles are entitled to travel has been increased, in some cases to 60 miles an hour. This makes it easier for a motorist to fail to observe the signal, of whatever nature, displayed at the crossing itself. In addition, we are told by specialists in this matter that people have, for some years, become accustomed to rely on the flashers at the crossings, and perhaps for this reason they do not take the amount of care which they should in approaching unprotected crossings. This is understandable, because we all tend to become used to a practice with which we are familiar.
I know that the railway companies have given a great deal of attention to finding ways and means by which the possibility of accidents at crossings can be diminished. One matter which arises from time to time in the consideration of those who have to sit on inquests following crossings accidents is the effectiveness of the air horns on diesel locomotives. It is said that there is a great difference in the warning capacity of these instruments as compared with the old steam whistle. Possibly some railway employees are reluctant
Railway Act
to give testimony as fully as they could in this connection. In any event, I believe that some of the funds at the minister's disposal, along with the money spent by the railroads, could be used to study methods by which the warning note of the air horn could be improved.
We have in my riding and, I would say, in northern Ontario generally, a doubly difficult problem with regard to railroad crossings. Our highways and, in consequence, our centres of population, are built in mountainous areas where both highways and railroads have to take advantage of the gulleys which cross the natural landscape. It follows that on a number of occasions there is only one course to be taken by both the railroad and the highway. When the track and the road intersect in the middle of a centre of population, such as Sudbury, a particularly difficult problem arises because neither can be removed without extensive tunnelling, or excavation. Whatever method is adopted, it is bound to be expensive, even if it were practical from an engineering point of view.
Important to my area, in the city of Sudbury, where the road and the railway both run east and west, this problem arises in particular at a crossing known as Riverside crossing. The railway company has been approached by the municipality, and the government has also been consulted. The file on this question is not yet complete, but I trust that a study will shortly be made in order to bring about a remedy to a dangerous situation and enable the workers of the entire area travelling to their work to enjoy the benefit of an underpass which is definitely desirable. In addition, we have a traverse which is known to be a difficult one, the Suez crossing, some three miles south of Capreol. Although this is not the busiest of crossings, there are two curves within 150 yards from the crossing itself, which make visibility difficult.
It has been said that the first consideration governing remedial action at crossings is that of the amount of traffic flowing at the particular point. I realize that this must have its effect when a decision is being made, but other considerations apply, and it is my belief that possibly greater emphasis should be placed upon the potential danger at the crossing than on the amount of traffic using it. The fact that a greater amount of traffic may be using a particular crossing does not necessarily mean that it should have priority; attention should also be given to the serious danger that might arise.
For example, there is a crossing in my riding known as the Coniston crossing in

Railway Act
the village of Coniston. This is not a crossing which carries a great deal of traffic compared with some others, but it is definitely one where visibility is hidden by buildings, and for that reason it becomes a dangerous crossing and one for which notification, or warning signals, should be provided. The Levack station crossing is another example. Within a short distance of the station itself a driver is confronted with a railway crossing, much of the traffic being hidden by the landscape, so that there is little visibility either from the highway or from the track.
Reports disclose that people have become accustomed to proper lights on some of the more difficult crossings and therefore I believe the department, along with the railway company, should seek to bring about more lucid notification of crossings at which it has been decided that flashing lights should not be installed.
In this country snow covers the ground for several months. Where a white cross indicates a railway crossing that is just a few inches above a snow bank there is not sufficient warning given to a motorist. Another method of cautioning motorists should be found which would not necessarily cost more than the installation of the present warning signs.
I am happy that the government is extending these grants. Recommendations should be made to the railroads about their continuing their investigations to render the airhorn whistle of the diesel engines more effective. They should also be urged to pay greater attention to the installation of proper warning signals at smaller crossings. Although it is important to have proper warning devices at all crossings the loss of life at a small crossing is no less serious a matter than at a major railway crossing.


Mr. Soulham:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to commend the government for introducing this measure to increase the grants for the grade crossing fund. I agree with the remarks made by previous speakers this evening in connection with the importance of this matter.
All hon. members realize the accelerated rate at which the Canadian population is growing and the consequent increase of the use of passenger cars.
Perhaps I may be permitted to refer to an illustration in my own constituency which benefitted from this fund. The city of Este-van is the only city in my constituency. Hon. members may be aware from press reports that as a result of the oil developments in Saskatchewan during the past several years Estevan has grown rapidly and is

now becoming the centre of the oil industry in that province. Last year, in October, there were approximately 4,000 wells in production in Saskatchewan, 3,000 of which are in the riding of Moose Mountain. This industry developed very rapidly and centred around Estevan as a consequence of which the city witnessed an unprecedented growth in population. In the space of about three and a half years Estevan's population increased from approximately 3,500 to approximately 9,000. As a result, the municipal officials of that city were called upon to provide immediately many vital services such as new schools, additions to public buildings, extensions of sidewalks and water and sewage facilities to such an extent that municipal funds were quickly exhausted and other essential services including the provision for public safety became a matter of grave concern.
The terrain to the south of Estevan includes a large valley. This necessitated the city having to grow in the opposite direction. Estevan grew to the north with resultant construction on the opposite side of the Canadian Pacific railway track which passes through that city. There was a consequent danger to the safety of the public.
Fortunately the government had substantially increased the grade crossing fund. Estevan was successful in its application to the government for a grant as a result of which construction will be undertaken of a modern underpass beneath the C.P.R. track. This will remove the danger which had existed in forms of traffic hazards in this city and alleviate the burden which would otherwise fall on the municipal officials.
There is another hazard at the eastern end of the city where the Soo line branches down toward the United States border. With the increased traffic resulting from the rapid growth of the city it will be necessary to ins-tal warning signals there as well.
In passing I might mention a thought which occurs to me as representing a hazard in Canadian transportation. I have noticed on several occasions at level crossings, especially in foggy weather, that trains made up of aluminum and stainless steel cars are almost invisible because they blend into the fog. I believe the government in co-operation with the railways should take cognizance of this potential hazard which has come about in the last several years since the introduction of stainless steel and aluminum passenger cars on Canadian trains. I believe there has been a greater incidence of accidents, especially in foggy weather, since these cars were first introduced. I recall that a serious accident occurred in Alberta last autumn in which this factor may have played a part.

I heartily commend the government on the introduction of this measure to increase the grade crossing fund. I believe the fund makes a vital contribution to the speedy elimination of many of the hazards that now confront Canadian motorists and pedestrians.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I intend to be brief. I do not intend to make a Cook's tour of my constituency. I rise to bring to the attention of the committee a matter brought to my attention by a number of people in my constituency and one which was dealt with to some extent by the hon. member for Nickel Belt.
I am sure the principle and purpose of this measure receives the unanimous support of all hon. members of this committee and I suppose the only criticism would be that it is unfortunate we cannot spend more on the construction of railway crossings than we do at the present time. While there has been a great improvement since the increased funds were voted as a result of this legislation some years ago there is a great deal more required to be done to reduce accidents with their consequent loss of life and damage to property. Any hon. member who has read the papers will realize that even since coming to Ottawa a number of tragic accidents as a result of vehicles colliding with trains and vice versa have taken place within a few hundred miles of this city.
While we know it is usually considered that the greatest hazard exists in the populous centres I suggest that in some cases it does not because the people in populous centres are prepared for the crossings they encounter to an extent that is not found in the smaller communities and in the country. I appreciate that the ideal solution is the building of underpasses or overpasses but they are extremely costly in many cases. I believe consideration should be given to the increased installation of signals, bells and flashing lights at crossings.
Even in the constituency I have the honour to represent which is covered with mountain roads that are being rebuilt according to modern standards, owing to an influx of tourists in the summer there are great hazards at a number of railroad crossings. In my constituency we have what you might call country roads which cross a railroad three or four times in a distance of a few miles. My point is this. Local people know where those crossings are. Because of the paving of the roads and standardization tourists coming into the districts at high speeds can come on to those crossings without much notice.
The hon. member mentioned one serious accident which occurred this winter. It is not sufficient just to have white posts and a
Railway Act
cross stuck some distance from a railroad crossing. In constituencies such as I have the honour to represent we have five or six feet of snow and it is very difficult for a person driving a car or other vehicle, and particularly strangers to the district, to see that sign and be prepared for a railroad crossing. The same thing exists during the summer months.
This difficulty has been brought to my attention by a number of people, chambers of commerce and persons interested in tourist resorts, in the tourist business and so on. It has been suggested that without a great deal of expense-we all know the enormous expenses involved in those underpasses and overpasses-a great deal more could be done to protect the travelling public by the erection of, shall I say, some sort of dramatic sign. In that respect, I would suggest that the minister could follow the example of our minister of highways in British Columbia. There we have those large signs on the highway where construction is going on reading, "Sorry for the inconvenience because of this construction. Your minister of highways, Phil Gaglardi". I know this is a cheap form of advertising, but the signs, because of their colour and size, are easily noticed. Everybody notices these signs before he comes to the construction job and, to that extent, they serve a very useful purpose while at the same time advertising our minister of highways.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Would the hon. member suggest that such a sign containing the Minister of Transport's name should be on our highways at railroad crossings?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I would be quite willing for the signs to have the minister's name on them if by the erection of one sign we saved one life in Canada at a railroad crossing. I make this suggestion in all seriousness. I think a great deal more could be done at relatively little expense, particularly on rural highways, by erecting some dramatic sign attracting people's attention. We live in a society where, even in this house, people practise gimmicks and so on to get their names in the paper. I am not suggesting that the Minister of Transport has carried on that particular practice, but as in the case of advertising on the highway signs, we must have some dramatic, easily recognized sign at some distance from the railway crossing.
In conclusion, I make the suggestion that a great deal can be done in that respect and I urge the minister and his officials to give some consideration to it, pending the time when this country is rich enough and can afford to have underpasses or overpasses at all the railway crossings across our main highways in Canada.

Railway Act


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Chairman, I can assure you I am not going to hold up the passage of this legislation. However, I am very pleased to see this measure introduced to amend the Railway Act to permit certain grants to be made from the railway grade crossing fund for a further period of three years.
I am also interested in this legislation, since it concerns some people in my constituency. I am referring to the village of Lac Vert. The residents of this village, the ones who live on the west side of the railroad crossing, must travel about a mile to get to the station, or depot, which is only a few yards away, and naturally it is a hardship for those people. The residents of the village and the municipality have applied to the. board of transport commissioners to see whether there is a possibility of building a crossing across the tracks. I brought this to the attention of the Minister of Transport, and he was good enough to bring it to the attention of the board of transport commissioners. However, I must say they are very slow in getting these things built. I do not know the reason why. If it is because of a lack of funds, then this legislation should provide the necessary funds. I would also like to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport again so that he can bring his influence to bear and have this crossing built as soon as possible.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The minister ought to reply to these things.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Chairman, I am very happy to rise and say a few words in support of this resolution of the Minister of Transport under which the railway fund will be increased for another three years to the extent of $15 million, and also to compliment our hard-working, energetic minister, on having back in 1958, increased this fund from $5 million to $15 million. At that time he saw the great value of this fund and no doubt during the period that it has been increased it has been responsible for saving many lives throughout Canada.
At this time I should like to say how valuable it has been in my own riding. Just recently the city council approved an expenditure, or an undertaking there that will widen and heighten the subway that has
been there since 1835. The cost of this is going to be $124,500 and the share of the city of Guelph will be $37,000. A job costing practically a quarter of a million dollars is going to cost our city only $37,000. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, and the minister that the people of my riding are very happy to know that such a fund is available and that they are able to make such good use of it.
With respect to the safety-


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Is it not carried?


Jacques Flynn: I understand the hon. member for Timiskaming wants to say something on it.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Paul Joseph James Martin: What is the
business for tomorrow?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, last night I announced six items of business. I would like to make a slight change. The resolution standing in the name of the Minister of Public Works will come up into fourth place and will follow directly after the three items which deal with Indian affairs.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Will the minister give an indication of the business on Thursday and Friday? Perhaps the minister could give some consideration to announcing the program away ahead so that we could really make some progress in regard to legislation.


Donald Methuen Fleming: If you were here last night you would know he did that.


George Harris Hees: What a comedian.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This unexpected interest in making progress is very pleasing to me. I cannot go beyond what I have said tonight with regard to the order of business.


Paul Joseph James Martin: You cannot say anything about Thursday or Friday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I said something about that last evening.


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

[Stage Direction]
The following answers, deposited with the Clerk of the house, are printed in the official report of debates pursuant to standing order 39:

Mr. Fisher: 1.	Has the government received any communications in any form from the American institute of marine underwriters or any other organization of marine underwriters regarding accidents in the St. Lawrence seaway, great lakes, during the shipping season of 1959?
2.	If so, what information and suggestions were purveyed?
Answer by: Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):
Questions
1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


HORACE B. TRITES, MONCTON, N.B.  LEGAL FEES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 259
Mr. McWilliam:: 1.	Was any amount paid to Mr. Horace B. Trites, Moncton, New Brunswick, for legal services in connection with the purchase of the Stratton property, Sackville, New Brunswick? If so, what
amount?
2.	What was the amount paid by the government for the Stratton property?
Answer by: Hon. G. R. Pearkes (Minister of National Defence):
1.	No account has been received to date by the Department of National Defence for the legal services rendered in connection with the purchase of this property.
2.	$28,500.
79951-0-119

Wednesday, March 9, 1960