1961-06-08

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House
Ottawa, June 8, 1961
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Patrick Kerwin, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th June, at 5.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
Esmond Butler
Secretary to the Governor General



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1961-62

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1962, was presented by Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Deputy Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to extend the greetings of this house and the members thereof to two distinguished visitors from the newest member of the commonwealth, Sierra Leone. In the Speaker's gallery is Hon. M. S. Mustapha, deputy prime minister and minister of finance, and with him is Hon. Albert M. Margai, minister of national resources. I am sure the house will wish to join in asking them to convey the sincere good wishes and admiration of the Canadian parliament to the parliament of Sierra Leone and to the people of that great country.


Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the house would like to join with the Prime Minister in welcoming the representatives of this new nation, Sierra Leone, to Canada. We trust that their sojourn here will be a most happy one.
90205-6-380}


Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to associate the members of this group with the words of the Prime Minister and those of the hon. member for Laurier. We too welcome these distinguished guests to the parliament of Canada. Their presence here today is another indication of the vitality of the commonwealth of nations, an assembly of free nations through which self governing countries are emerging from time to time. We hope that in the days ahead our association with Sierra Leone will continue to be close and friendly and of mutual benefit.



APPOINTMENT OF DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES OF THE WHOLE

John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know that the house will learn with deep regret of the serious illness of the hon. member for Spa-dina OMr. Rea), who for a considerable period of time has occupied the position of deputy chairman of committees of the whole house. In view of his inability to discharge the responsibilities of his position his wife, speaking for him, has asked that some hon. member be appointed in his place. I am sure that hon. members generally join with me in a tribute to his ability and the fairness with which he discharged his duties, coupled with the hope that in the not too distant future he may return to the house again.
In order to carry on the business of the house a successor must be appointed, and I suggest the name of Gordon Chown, the member for Winnipeg South. From time to time he has occupied the chair as chairman of the committee of the whole, and the reaction of hon. members generally is indicative of the fact that in the discharge of that position he has acted with ability and fairness. Since coming to the house in 1957 he has made a careful study of the rules and has also become imbued with the traditions of parliament. I believe that if the house agrees to his appointment he will fill the position with dignity and restraint.
I therefore move, seconded by the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Churchill): That Gordon Campbell Chown, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Winnipeg South, be appointed deputy chairman of committees of the whole house in the place of Charles Edward Rea, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Spadina, who is unable to carry on his duties because of illness.

House of Commons


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is approved I should like to join with the Prime Minister in expressing the grief that we on this side of the house feel because of the fact that the hon. member for Spadina is unable to carry on his duties as deputy chairman of committees of the whole house. I should like to say on our behalf that we have admired the manner in which he has implemented and put into effect the rules of the house. We have found him to be extremely fair, and we will regret his absence from the post which he held. We trust that his illness will be temporary, and that he will be able to resume his duties in the not too distant future.
I should also like to join with the Prime Minister in supporting to the fullest extent the motion he has just made for the appointment of the hon. member for Winnipeg South. We have seen the hon. member for Winnipeg South in action on more than one occasion, and I am sure I express the views of members on this side of the house when I say that he is moved by one object and one object alone, to see that the rules of the house are applied with fairness and with equity. There is no doubt in our minds that he attempts at all times to be objective in his interpretation of the rules of the house, and that is why we are happy to support this motion.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, it was with regret that we learned that the Prime Minister had found it necessary to move the motion now before the house. Ted Rea is very much in our minds at this time. I am sure I speak for the members of this group when I say that he has been a real friend to us. Perhaps because we sit in this part of the house it has been easier for us to become acquainted with him. We have enjoyed our association with him very much over the years. We sincerely hope that he will have a speedy recovery and return to this house at an early date. I have never known a deputy chairman of committees to conduct the business of the house in any more impartial and fairer way than did the hon. member for Spadina. We wish him a very speedy recovery.
Then also, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this group may I say that we are pleased to associate ourselves with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Laurier, and to support the motion that the hon. member for Winnipeg South shall assume these duties. We are certain that in the best traditions of this office he will continue to administer the rules in a fair and impartial manner.
[Mr. Diefenbaker.l


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime
Minister): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I told the house of the action which the government was taking to ensure that grain shipments to mainland China would not be interrupted or delayed by the problem which had arisen over United States unloading equipment. At that time I indicated that in addition to the urgent steps which were being taken to investigate or develop alternative sources of supply, the Canadian ambassador in Washington was discussing the matter at senior levels of the United States administration. I explained that while the decision was within the jurisdiction of the United States government, the government of Canada was urging a review of the earlier ruling which had abruptly cut off delivery of these necessary pieces of equipment.
As a result of the prompt and careful attention which this problem received in Washington yesterday, the United States treasury department is now prepared, as an exceptional measure, to license United States corporations, if they apply, to export grain unloading equipment already on order for installation on ships delivering grain from Canadian ports under charter to communist China.
Although this relaxation is limited to equipment which has already been ordered, I understand that the orders so far placed are likely to take care of the immediate requirements and enable full scale loading to proceed without difficulty over at least the next few weeks while deliveries of pumps from other sources are being arranged by those operators whose ships will arrive later and whose requirements may not be already covered by orders.
The United States authorities took this decision at the request of the Canadian government. I am sure that hon. members generally would want to say how much we appreciate the good sense which the United States administration has shown in reconsidering this matter of concern to Canada. The adjustments which they have made have not been easy for them in the light of the long established policies in their country and the strong feelings regarding any United States participation in trade with communist China. This is a further evidence of the relations between our countries whereby each

country, without in any way derogating from its own sovereignty or independence, endeavours by diplomatic means to accommodate the other. Such co-operation is an example to all the world.
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join, and join wholeheartedly, with the Prime Minister in what he has just said about this example of the kind of co-operation which is the result of a long history of good neighbourliness between Canada and the United States, a good neighbourliness that is fostered by attempts always to understand, always to deal with the facts and always to avoid exacerbating differences which from time to time obviously will arise.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased with the announcement the Prime Minister has been able to make this morning. We think the initial action that was taken was in error and was a mistake. We are pleased that this has now been corrected and that the pumps in question will be made available for the speedy shipment of this grain to China.
I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for having taken prompt and resolute action on this particular occasion.
On the orders of the day:


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce and ask him whether he has seen the statement appearing in the Globe and Mail of this morning quoting one of the trade commissioners of his department, namely Mr. C. M. Forsyth-Smith, in Hong Kong who states:
China does not need U.S.-made suction equipment to unload Canadian grain, the chief Canadian trade commissioner in Hong Kong, C. M. Forsyth-Smith, said today on his return from an extensive tour through many Chinese provinces.
Has the minister any comment to make on that statement?


Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I saw the statement in this morning's press. I think the hon. member will have noted that Mr. Forsyth-Smith referred to tankers only needing this particular type of equipment, and I believe that was made clear in the house yesterday by the right hon. Prime Minister. I have sent a message to Mr. Forsyth-Smith asking for further clarification of his statement. When I receive a reply I will be glad to inform the house further.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a
supplementary question having to do with the
Inquiries of the Ministry answer given by the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The article goes on to say, quoting Mr. Forsyth-Smith:
He added that the Chinese have some modern suction-type unloaders which are used only when they unload grain from tankers.
Would the minister care to comment on that statement?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, that could easily be so. I do not know whether or not the Chinese have this kind of suction unloading equipment. I mentioned a moment ago that the suction unloading equipment is only required when tankers are carrying the grain. As I have said, I am communicating with Mr. Forsyth-Smith, and when I receive an answer I will inform the house further.



PENITENTIARIES


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-105, respecting penitentiaries.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Defence Production. Would the minister care to make any comment on the report in this morning's Globe and Mail that a United States firm has in its possession 15 Mustang fighter aircraft which it purchased for $500 and which it hopes to sell for between $6,000 and $50,000?
Were tenders called in this case, and were the planes in flying condition when they were sold?


Hon. Raymond O'Hurley (Minister of Defence Production):: Mr. Speaker, I saw the article, but have not received a report from the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation. If my memory serves me correctly they were reported to be in flyable condition when they were sold. They were put up for tender, transferred to the United States to be repaired and ameliorated, and sold to private individuals. When I receive a report in this regard I will make a statement to the house.


Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is the minister able to say at this time whether the sale price was $500 each?


Mr. O'Hurley:: As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I shall have to get a report in this regard.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. J. P. Deschalelels (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister be kind enough to say whether these 11 CF-lOO's sold as scrap were still equipped with motors?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the engines were in those planes; but I should like the hon. member to know that for years we have been selling the engines of the CF-100 as scrap, and we saw no reason whatever why the engines should have been taken out of these planes before they were sold. As I have said, we have been selling these engines as scrap for years when new engines were put into the planes.



CRESTON, B.C.-INQUIRY AS TO ASSISTANCE BY ARMY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. M. L. McFarlane (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. I understand the flooding situation in the Creston-Wynndel area in the east Kootenay district of British Columbia is considered to be more serious this morning. I should like the minister to advise us whether any further action is being taken by his department in regard to this emergency?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a report this morning as to the situation yesterday, but I have not a report as yet as to what the situation is at this time. The flooding conditions have increased considerably. The water has reached a point an inch above the critical level of 25 feet, and has been spilling over the dikes in some places. The army has sent a further two officers and 82 or 84 other ranks from the Queen's Own Rifles battalion at Calgary to assist in fighting the flood in the Creston area.



CUBA-STATEMENT ON SEIZURE OF EXPORTS BY CANADIAN CUSTOMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres asked me a question concerning action taken by customs officials with respect to a quantity of goods destined for Cuba.
In reply I wish to state that under the Export and Import Permits Act, an export permit is required in connection with the

re-export of goods originating outside Canada. I should like to refer to my statement in this house on December 16, 1960, which may be found on page 867 of Hansard for that date. I concluded that statement by saying:
As the Prime Minister has also stated, there is no intention of permitting what, in effect, would amount to bootlegging of goods of United States origin to Cuba. To implement this policy, no permits will be issued for the re-export of United States origin goods to Cuba.
In the present case it appeared to the customs officials that the shipment in question included goods originating outside Canada. It also appeared to these officials that no export permit had been issued in connection with the goods. Furthermore, the export entry form indicated that the goods were not of foreign origin. As a result of the possibility that there was a violation of the Export and Import Permits Act or the Customs Act, or both, the goods were held for further investigation.
The shipment in question involves 165 cases of a variety of industrial equipment. At this time detailed information regarding the individual products cannot be disclosed.


Mr. Lucien Cardin (Richelieu-Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Is it not a fact that among the items that were seized by the Canadian customs some were made and produced in Canada?


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, this whole matter is under investigation by the customs department at the present time.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Does the minister intend to make a report in this regard when that investigation is completed?


George Harris Hees: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to, as I see no objection involved.



EUROPEAN COMMON MARKET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of continuing reports in the press that Britain is likely to join the common market, has the minister anything he might wish to report to the house about negotiations between Canada and the United Kingdom directed toward protecting our United Kingdom markets in this eventuality?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the house is well aware, from statements made by ministers in the past, of the keen interest taken in this question by the Canadian government. It has been

discussed at various commonwealth meetings and naturally will be followed with very close interest by the government.


Hazen Robert Argue: A supplementary question. Can the minister tell the house whether the government has given any active consideration to the possibility of Canada joining the common market?


Donald Methuen Fleming: The government is naturally viewing all aspects of the situation and following such clarifications as may arise from time to time in the positions of other countries.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. Mcllrailh (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Agriculture based on a newspaper report which appeared in the Edmonton Journal of June 3, 1961. That report appears under the heading "Says Wheat Deal Gives Time to Push Wheat Acreage Cut". The portion of this article about which I should like to ask reports that the minister said: The red Chinese have a good business reputation and have honoured all transactions since they took over in that country

Does that statement accurately reflect what the minister said and, if not, would the minister advise the house exactly what he did say?


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first part of the statement made by the hon. member, I should like to state that government policy is to help western farmers find new opportunities for their land in the form of the growing of grass, rapeseed and any other activities which will give them a higher return.
In regard to the portion of his question about the Chinese, I think that reputation has been established by dealings the British have had with them, and also is reflected by the reports which we have received from officials in Hong Kong.



TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED SECOND HIGHWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['Mr. Speaker, the position of the unemployment insurance fund is well known to the government and the situation is being considered at this time. However, I am unable to say as yet what the decision of the government will be.']
Mr. H. Pit Lessard (St. Henry):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister seen the press report appearing in today's Gazette to the effect that discussions took place recently among the premiers of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia in connection with plans
Inquiries of the Ministry for a second trans-Canada highway, and has the minister any comment to make regarding that matter?


Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is no, and the answer to the second part of the question is no.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I regret not having sent him notice, but the dispatch to which I intend to refer has just come into my hands. Has the Prime Minister heard of an announcement made in Washington this morning to the effect that President Kennedy injured his back while planting a tree with the Prime Minister in Ottawa last month?


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: I should like to address a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the minister any further comment to make on the situation in Laos, with reference to the protests which have been made by the United States and the United Kingdom regarding irregularities concerning the cease fire in that country?


Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I presume the hon. member is referring to a dispatch in one of the morning papers which referred to a so-called boycott by the United States and the United Kingdom. That word is quite inaccurate, as a matter of fact. The situation is that the meeting planned for yesterday did not take place, and no decision was taken as to when the next meeting would be held. This state of temporary recess could continue for a day or two, or even longer, until the difficulties which arose out of the incident at Ban Padong, which I described to the house yesterday, have been overcome. There is, however, as yet no reason to believe that the conference will not resume in due course.
As far as the United States is concerned, I understand it was made clear yesterday by the state department spokesman that the United States had no intention of disrupting the conference. Certainly the United Kingdom has no such intention.

Inquiries of the Ministry BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour, in view of the alarming state of the unemployment insurance fund as revealed by an answer to a question given yesterday, whether the minister hopes or expects to introduce amendments to the act during the month of June.


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the position of the unemployment insurance fund is well known to the government and the situation is being considered at this time. However, I am unable to say as yet what the decision of the government will be.



DEFENCE PRODUCTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production arising out of a statement made by the minister on June 6, to the effect that the Canadian government will undertake the development of a snow vehicle for the United States army. Can the minister inform this house whether the government has any particular manufacturer in mind, and if it would consider the Canadian Car plant at Fort William as the manufacturer of this vehicle?


Donat Raymond: Mr. Speaker, I had several plants in mind, but the United States government had one particular plant in mind only. I think perhaps I should give the following statement to the house.
After exhaustive examination of the proposals from Canadian industry, the United States army selected the Canadair vehicle as the one which came closest to meeting its requirements. Contract negotiations are now under way with the department and the United States army, and it is expected that we shall put forward a recommendation concerning this contract within the next three weeks. It is expected that if this contract goes well there could be large production quantities ordered.
The CL 91 is a small amphibious articulated tracked vehicle with high off-road mobility, and is capable of carrying a one ton payload or a light infantry section. The front unit or utility carrier portion of the CL 91 can

be easily and quickly detached from the trailer unit and used as a conventional utility tracked carrier with 1,000 pound payload capacity. The United States army regards this vehicle as one of the future family of high mobility vehicles to replace the Weasel, the "mechanical mule" and the one quarter ton truck for combat operations in areas of difficult terrain.
The recommendation of the United States army is to negotiate the development project with Canadair.



INQUIRY AS TO PRIORITY FOR CANADIAN MADE PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Defence Production. Will the minister tell the house whether any definite instructions have been given his department to give priority when purchasing to goods made in Canada versus goods made outside Canada if prices are competitive, or if the difference is very slight?


Donat Raymond: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.


John Richard Garland: May I ask a supplementary question. Does the minister believe that a price difference of less than two thirds of one per cent is a justifiable reason to refuse a Canadian-made product and award a contract as recently as yesterday to a firm selling goods made in England?


Raymond Joseph Michael O'Hurley: Probably I should ask the hon. member a question. Would he like to have a preference as between Canada and the United Kingdom?



FINAL PAYMENT ON 1959-60 POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy
River): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Could the minister inform the house whether the 1959-60 wheat pool accounts have been closed out and, if so, when an announcement will be available as to the final payments and when the cheques are likely to go forward?
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I had a conference with the chairman of the Canadian wheat board yesterday, at which time he informed me that he expects the accounts will be closed out some time about the third week of June. There will be a supplementary report prepared for me at that time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I, too, should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. Does the minister think it possible that this very complex and difficult question of compensation for the potato growers of Prince Edward Island can be settled by the government during the month of June?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: It is my sincere hope that that will be so, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jack Wratten (Brantford):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to compensation to potato growers of Prince Edward Island, there are growers in Ontario who bought certified seed in that province and when it arrived they found it had rotted. Are they going to be compensated as well?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This is a matter between the distributors of potatoes in Prince Edward Island and the buyers in Ontario.



CAPE BRETON-INQUIRY AS TO PROJECT TO ASSIST MINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether I may put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Can the minister inform us whether the government has yet decided on any project on which any of the $1,500,000 to be spent in Cape Breton to relieve the miners is to be spent?


Hon. Paul Comiois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: A project is actually under study, Mr. Speaker.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the very interesting answer given yesterday regarding redistribution. Is the government giving consideration to the establishment at any time of a floor under the present representation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, as the days go by this question of redistribution will, of course, loom larger and larger and assume greater and greater importance.
Supply-Transport


Hazen Robert Argue: You have had experience.


John George Diefenbaker: Naturally, as a member from Saskatchewan, I notice that it would lose some four members; one or two other provinces would lose one. This is a question that must receive very full consideration. When it does, as with all matters connected with redistribution, the house will be advised.

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


The Deputy Chairman:: If I could have the momentary indulgence of the committee I should like to thank the right hon. Prime Minister, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Assiniboia for the generous welcome they accorded to me on taking this high office of responsibility in the committee.
I should say I recognize the supreme importance of impartiality and my duty to protect the rights and privileges of all members on all sides of the house at all times. In particular, I know I must serve as an instrument to protect the rights of the opposition, those who sit to the left of Mr. Speaker, in applying fairly and impartially the rules of the house in committee.
I join with those who have made reference to my distinguished predecessor. I wish him a speedy and complete recovery. I hope that in the course of my duties in this committee I will live up to the high standard he has set for me.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
402. Departmental administration, $3,395,700.
Gordon Campbell Chown: This item will be found on page 75 of the blue book and the details on page 520.


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Chairman, it is a unique privilege for me to make the first remarks while you preside over our destinies as deputy chairman of the committee of the whole house. We who heard your words a few moments ago know that you will indeed bring to this exacting position all the qualities of heart and mind that will enable you to successfully follow the distinguished pattern set by your predecessor, the hon. member for Spadina.
Sir, one of the disadvantages in speaking in a debate which in effect has been trifurcated and been before the house on at least three different occasions-this is perhaps the fourth or even fifth-is that sometimes the trails grow cold and one does not have the opportunity for some weeks really to reply to some contentious remarks.
I refer to a remark made by the hon. member for Port Arthur concerning winter navigation on the St. Lawrence river. I should like

Supply-Transport
to deal with what he said later. First, sir, I should like to turn to a rather prosaic and humble matter, yet one that is of some importance to me. It concerns the working hours of cooks on Department of Transport vessels on the east coast. As found on page 5918 of Hansard there is a rather lengthy reply, filed by the minister, to questions of mine concerning the working conditions and wages of cooks, stewards and other crew on departmental ships on both the east and west coasts. I may say that I have also had replies on the same subject from the Department of Mines and Technical Survey and the Department of Fisheries, and respecting civilian manned auxiliary vessels of the Department of National Defence.
In each and every instance cooks and stewards on the east coast work 48 hours per week, while the working week for everybody else, other crew on the east coast and cooks, stewards and other crew on the west coast, is only 40 hours. This was not always so. I understand that until a few years ago cooks and stewards had the same hours of work as other crew, but that the Department of Labour, in making a prevailing rate survey, found that on smaller non-governmental vessels cooks did work these longer hours and so the government cooks were bounced back to the 48-hour week.
I suggest to the Minister of Transport and to the other ministers concerned that this is most unjust. In the first place, I do not think you can have a happy ship when the arrangements respecting working hours are divided in this way so that one group has to work longer than other members of the ship's crew. I suggest further that the prevailing rate formula needs thorough investigation and re-examination in this instance, for it seems to me that there are probably more cooks and stewards employed on the vessels of the four departments I have mentioned than are employed on non-governmental ships operating on the east coast. Perhaps I am wrong in that view, but if I am right then in effect the working conditions for these cooks and stewards are being fashioned in much the same way as if the working conditions of a man in a very large restaurant were determined by what was applicable in the case of the short order cook in the hot dog stand right next door.
As I say, this seems to me a very unjust situation, and I ask not only the Minister of Transport but also his colleagues the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Fisheries to correct it.
May I turn next to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier, who on May 20 was good enough to devote some of his comments to

the Canadian institute of communications. We in the institute would like to say to him how very much we appreciate this first mention in the House of Commons of this brand new baby on the Canadian communication scene. The hon. member for Laurier suggested that the Department of Transport make a contribution to our institute under the item in the estimates dealing with membership in international organizations. We welcome his suggestion and his interest, but I have talked this matter over with some of my fellow directors, and while no final decision has been reached as yet we would ask that the request or the suggestion be held in abeyance until we have had an opportunity to discuss it further.
I would, however, ask the Minister of Transport on behalf of the other directors of the Canadian institute of communications if he would encourage senior officials of his department to become members of our institute. Our reluctance to come forward at this time is simply that we wish to retain as much independence for our institute as we possibly can. I do not wish to appear to be speaking in a fashion derogatory of parliament or of the government, but at the same time some of us have doubts about the wisdom of encouraging a large government contribution. However, we shall be presenting our views to the minister and, since the hon. member for Laurier was good enough to raise the matter, we shall keep him in touch with the picture as well.
A third matter is this. For some years it has been very difficult in the Atlantic coast area of the maritimes to obtain accurate weather forecasts. Perhaps the most famous instance in recent years arose, I think it was, on New Year's eve when the forecast had predicted a few snow flurries and all of a sudden we were whacked in the Halifax area with over 20 inches of snow. One can conjure up in one's mind the riotous picture of what a sudden 20 inch snowfall can do to driving conditions on a New Year's eve, when even under the best possible weather conditions driving is apt to be tricky.
There is a reason why the weather forecasters in Halifax have experienced these difficulties. It is not because of any lack of ability or training on the part of the staff. I can assure the minister of that; they are fine people. The difficulty is that much of our maritime weather comes from off the Atlantic ocean. It is true that many weather masses move across the continent to the maritimes, and these can be accurately charted all the way. The difficulty we have experienced arises out of unexpected weather developments coming from the gulf stream or over parts of the Atlantic ocean.

I am happy to see from the estimates that between $140,000 and $150,000 has been provided by the department to set up what is known as a weather radar station. Perhaps I may explain what that is in simple and non-technical terms. An ordinary radar station screens out the weather factors in front of it and picks out objects. The weather radar station for which, I understand, tenders will shortly be called, eliminates solid objects in front of the screen and picks out the weather factors. One could almost visualize it in terms of the positive and negative of a photograph, although that is not an exact parallel. In any event, the system should do much to improve our weather forecasting and, maybe, even our chance of getting home safely on New Year's eve.
The final point I should like to make has reference to some remarks by the hon. member for Port Arthur when he took part in this debate on May 13. Perhaps I can quote the paragraph with which I intend to take issue. As reported at the bottom of the second column of page 4773 of Hansard, the hon. member said:
We know that there are now icebreakers and mechanical devices which can keep the port of Montreal open for almost the whole of the year. We also know that this is a delicate political problem because it is going to have its repercussions and its effects upon Halifax and Saint John. Yet I had a figure given to me by a man who is very prominent in shipping. He pointed out to me that the average saving per ton on freight coming through Halifax and Saint John in the winter as against that coming through Montreal is $12 a ton in favour of Montreal. One only has to look at the amount of freight coming through the two maritime ports in order to realize that we are in effect subsidizing the Atlantic ports by not pushing very strongly a policy to open up Montreal to winter shipping.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has made a fundamental error in stating the problem so simply. If there were to be shipping to Montreal throughout the winter an extra cost would be involved, a cost which I do not think the hon. member has taken into his calculations. This would be the cost of providing extra special icebreaking services up the St. Lawrence river to Montreal; and no one who has seen that river frozen over in winter fails to realize that it would be a herculean task to clear that ice aside. The cost of such an operation would, I suggest, be fabulous and out of this world.
On the other hand, the ports of Halifax and Saint John are free of ice the year round. If the hon. member for Port Arthur had said that it would be legitimate to heap on the cost of this special icebreaking service, or if he had taken that into account when discussing this matter with his friend who gave him that advice, I think he would have found
Supply-Transport
that the competitive advantages would more than favour Halifax and Saint John.
I am personally not one who stands against progress of the kind that is argued here, but if we are going to need extra services provided by icebreakers-and these would be more costly icebreakers than the ones we have in operation now-it would be only fair to add the cost of the service to the shipping charges. Then we would see who is competitive and who is non-competitive, or who is being subsidized and who is not being subsidized.
May I present, very briefly, the point of view on this tricky question which was expressed by the port of Halifax commission. There are six points made concerning this matter and I shall list them quickly. They are taken from a brief presented to the minister on winter navigation in the St. Lawrence river.
In our opinion, therefore, icebreaker activity in the St. Lawrence river and gulf should be limited to:
(a)	Anti-flooding operations;
(b)	Assisting Canadian coastal shipping and ferries;
(c)	Assisting any kind of vessel in the gulf;
(d)	Assisting, but not beyond Quebec city on the upriver voyage, nor before Quebec city on the downriver voyage, vessels engaged in international trade which are shown in Lloyds register of shipping as "ice reinforced";
(e)	Ice reinforced vessels should pay for icebreaker service at a price which would be reasonable for such service on a commercial basis;
(f)	However, if the above are not to produce situations contrary to government policy as outlined above, and most harmful to Canadian Atlantic ports, the river must be closed between certain specific dates during the winter season to all vessels engaged in international trade other than those mentioned at (d) above.
Perhaps with regard to that last recommendation I do not go as far as some of my maritime colleagues. I think the present policy of the government is satisfactory, namely that the icebreaking service should be provided to vessels which are reinforced against ice. In other words, it helps vessels which have a proper reason for being in the river when ice conditions are difficult or when, for unexpected reasons, the ice may get out of hand. On the other hand it does not give carte blanche to any tramp steamer or freighter not adequately equipped to deal with ice to be in areas where severe ice conditions are expected. I think that is a reasonable policy, but in order to ensure that the maritime view is fully presented I thought I might quote from the brief which, I understand, has already been sent to the Minister of Transport.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I shall refer later to the icebreaking situation in the St. Lawrence river, but I wish first of all to draw attention to a question which I know is puzzling members

Supply-Transport
of this house, and that is the complete inability of the Minister of Transport to give us any indication when a properly constituted committee of this house is going to meet and have before it the officials of the Canadian National Railways.
We know that the president of the C.N.R. and his officials cannot be completely at the disposal of the whims of any House of Commons committee. We know that the minister is our means of liaison with the railway company, and that it is through the minister the arrangements will be made. The committee has not yet met. No chairman has been selected. We are not under way. But the very failure to go ahead and bring Mr. Gordon before the committee or to see that he comes before the committee is leading to speculation of a kind which I think is regrettable.
I know it is being argued that one of the reasons Mr. Gordon is not before the committee is that he has said he will not come until his position as chairman of the board has been cleared up. I dismiss this story, but it is the kind of thing we shall be hearing until we know more definitely when the affairs of the C.N.R. are to be examined. I think it is time the minister let us know definitely and concretely when Mr. Gordon is to appear, because the committee cannot decide until it hears through its pipe line to the president, and the minister is that pipe line. I think it is time he let us know when this meeting is going to take place.
We hear all kinds of speculation about when this session is going to adjourn or when it is going to end. We are chivvied in certain places and told we must rush to get out committee reports because this session is going to adjourn at the end of June, and perhaps it is going to end on that date.
All I know is that it is now the 8th day of June. There is not very much time left and we have this important committee coming up. It was agreed that this year the affairs of the C.N.R. and the T.C.A. would be separated, that there would be time for reflection and consideration. The minister is aware that there is unusual interest in the C.N.R. this year and that the study of its affairs is going to take more time, one would judge, than in previous years. I think it is most unfortunate and unfair that we have not been given a date for the meeting of that committee.
One of the arguments which is always put before us when Mr. Gordon comes here is that we cannot tie up the C.N.R. for too long, and it is therefore necessary to meet at 10 in the morning and sit right through until late at night, sometimes 10 o'clock. This procedure certainly has some advantages in enabling us to hasten through the report of the C.N.R., 
but it has marked disadvantages for the members of the committee who are trying to marshall the kind of thorough analysis they wish to make.
I wish to draw to the attention of the minister in this regard the fact that the committee on broadcasting has had before it another government corporation, the C.B.C., for weeks on end. For at least two days and sometimes three days a week we have had the president and the senior officials of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation before us and somehow, although, I am sure at a great disadvantage, the C.B.C. has managed to keep functioning.
I just want the minister to note the difference between treatment we give to the executives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the treatment we give to the head of the Canadian National Railways. The committee on broadcasting has Mr. Ouimet before it in the morning or perhaps in morning and afternoon sittings. Then there is a break for several days. Mr. Gordon has never had that kind of treatment, nor have other presidents of the Canadian National Railways. Yet I suggest there is not that much difference in the role of the corporation in terms of public interest and in terms of the interest of members of parliament.
I would hope that this year we could make some arrangement whereby the committee before which the C.N.R. appears is more slowly paced so that, when it meets, we can do a decent and thorough job. I would not go so far as to suggest that we should use the C.B.C. treatment as a model, but I do suggest that something more on that line would be better than this tremendous emphasis we have in the sessional committee on railways and shipping to drive through and get it all over with.
I think the minister is aware of the fact that a committee can sometimes operate much better if it has a bit of opportunity to consider the evidence rather than have it come before it in something of a staccato fashion. If you take an analogy in sports, it seems to me that it is much easier to watch a football game or a baseball game than it is to watch a hockey game, because you have more pauses and more chance to reflect on what is going on. It is one straight hockey game when Donald Gordon appears before us, with no periods called and really no offsides. I hope the minister will give consideration to that matter and let us know where we stand on the Donald Gordon situation. When is he coming?
The next point I wanted to bring to the attention of the minister is something I touched on last year, namely the rather unusual growth in the Department of Transport. At that time I pointed out to hon. members

who represent free enterprise in this chamber that one of the consequences of some of the peculiar actions in the non-free enterprise sphere of this government is that more and more responsibilities are being put upon the Department of Transport and that it is growing in size. Even someone like myself who is not a forthright free enterpriser cannot help but be concerned about the growth in size of the Department of Transport.
I would ask the minister this question. Can he give us a projection in respect of air services, which seems to represent the fastest growing part of his deparment? Can he give us a projection for the next five years with regard to the numbers of people who are going to be employed? We have had prefigured for us on a number of occasions an astounding line of expenditures for air services in all aspects. It seems to me that we should get some idea of how big the growth is going to be in terms of personnel. It seems to me that this would be fair information.
The other thing that I wanted to ask in relation to personnel is this. Will the minister explain why, in reducing the amount of information provided in the annual report, it has been decided to dispense with the information on employees and the relative places of their employment? This seems to me to be among the useful information that was in the report. If any hon. members feel that I am carping at what may have been done to save money, I should like them to compare the report we get in relation to penitentiaries and the one we get in relation to the Department of Transport. In the one report we are just blown over with figures and details, even about the meals in one small reform institution. Here we have the fastest growing department in the government and its report gets smaller, less detailed and less informative every year.
Before I sit down I should like to touch on the point raised by the hon. member for Halifax, who indicated that I had made one fundamental error in my remarks on the icebreaking possibilities in the St. Lawrence in connection with the advantages that Montreal had in terms of $12 a ton over freight costs vis-a-vis Halifax and Saint John. I did not raise that matter in order to suggest that Saint John or Halifax should be forgotten. I quite agree that the cost of the icebreaking service should be taken into consideration. However, if we wish to move toward a stage where our transportation services in this country are based upon a service principle and the lowest possible cost to the shipper-and this seems to me to be the ideal, whether it is a public service providing them or whether it is a private service
Supply-Transport
providing them-we need to know more about the relative costs of shipping and of using various ports and various alternatives.
Despite what the hon. member for Halifax read from the brief of the Halifax people expressing their views, I think the hon. member is also aware of the fact that along the Gulf of St. Lawrence and in Montreal there are groups that have contradictory views. I am not suggesting that one group should be heard and another should not be heard. I am suggesting that the job of the Department of Transport is to determine what will give us the most efficient, and the cheapest and the best service, and that somehow we should have a resolution of this problem. Since it will continue to be a political problem in resolving the naturally selfish interests of Montreal and its shippers against the naturally selfish interests in those terms of the cities of Halifax and Saint John, it is not going to be an easy one to solve. However, it seems to me that some attempt should be gotten under way to tackle problems such as this.
The hon. member for Peterborough is going to make some suggestions in this regard as to how we should work toward solving some of these fundamental problems in transportation where we have a choice and where, whatever choice is made, someone is going to get hurt. However, the point is that if we do not make the choice or turn toward the principle of efficient and fair service, we are going to continue to carry the extra burden in transportation costs about which we all complain and which was the subject of so much repetition before the royal commission on transportation.
As I close my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say that I am very pleased that you have attained your post. When I heard that you were going to have a permanent senior position I of course immediately thought back to last Thursday, I think it was, when you were acting chairman and I was ruled out of order. At the time I had a fairly good case. However, I recognize the fact that there was nothing personal or partisan about your decision. I just hope that you will have as good a time in the post as your predecessor had. I also hope-and I am not saying this as any reflection on you-that you will gain the affection that your predecessor had with almost everyone I have encountered in the House of Commons. I would say without reservation that I personally have never encountered in this House of Commons a more popular member or better liked person than your predecessor in the post. In this sense it seems to me both our sympathy and

Supply-Transport
our co-operation must go out to you, because you have a real job before you in filling that role.


Lionel Chevrier: I am prompted to rise at this time, Mr. Chairman, because of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur. But prior to dealing with them may I say that I think the minister should clarify the position created by a statement made in the other place by the president of the national Progressive Conservative association, when he suggested that the management and the administration of the Canadian National Railways should be split into two divisions, or in other words that there should be an administrative head and a chairman of the board.
I think the committee is entitled to know here and now, before this item goes through, what is the position of the government in respect to this matter. After all, this is of considerable importance to the house and to the country. Here is what the Ottawa Journal, whose sympathies toward the government are well known, had to say in an editorial which appeared on June 5 entitled: Mr. Gordon and the C.N.R.
I should just like to quote a portion of it:
The Senate has heard a suggestion from one of its members that Mr. Donald Gordon be relieved of his duties as chairman of the board of the C.N.R. so that he, Mr. Gordon, might concentrate on the running of the railroad, either as president or general manager.
This suggestion lacks not only wisdom but decision.
It presumably wants to remove Mr. Gordon from the control of the C.N.R. but doesn't say so in so many words. It fiddles about with the titles but is not forthright. Thus it lacks decision.
It assumes that this is a time when our national railway can be put under a kind of two-headed leadership, one of whom would perhaps be receptive to suggestions from Ottawa and the other (Mr. Gordon) would be receptive to nothing but his own judgment of the merits of any given case. Thus it lacks wisdom.
Because of the last paragraph of this editorial I am going to put the whole of it on the record. It goes on to say:
The Journal is not so naive as to imagine that the life of a government is easy when it is trying to deal with a man like Donald Gordon, whether in wartime price controls or peacetime running of a railroad. Mr. Gordon is a large and independent man, messenger for no one. Such a man may not always be right, may not suffer politicians gladly. But such a man is more likely to be a successful head of a national railroad in these strenuous and revolutionary times than some chairman of the board with smooth manners and soft convictions.
That is an editorial which the minister might well ponder before he and his colleagues in the government make a decision on this matter. However, in view of what has been said by the hon. member for Port

Arthur I say to the minister that it would be absolutely wrong and a serious mistake to call the president of the Canadian National Railways here as a witness before the committee on railways, air lines and shipping owned and operated by the government until his position is clarified by the government.
Not only do I think it is unfair, but I think it is immoral on the part of the government to continue the present situation as it has been since September of last year. Here is the president of a great national railway who, together with three of his co-directors, does not know what his position is. Not only is it ungrateful; it is disgraceful on the part of the government to hold up a matter of this importance in the manner in which it has been held up.
The legislation dealing with the directors of the Canadian National Railways passed through this house and I understand it has now passed the other place, or is about to be reported upon if it has not already gone through the other place. If that is the case there should be no further hesitation on the part of the government in making known its position.
I do not think it would be fair to those who are responsible for the administration of this great railway, particularly the president, to call Mr. Gordon before the committee unless and until his position is made clear and he knows whether or not he is going to be carrying on as president of the railway.


Mr. Smiih (Calgary South):: Mr. Chairman, may I join other hon. members who have congratulated you on what is really the confirmation of your appointment. We have already seen the manner in which you conduct the committees of this house. We know you will live up to the standard set by your predecessor who, as the hon. member for Port Arthur stated, is a very respected and greatly loved member of this house. I would only say, sir, that in the course of the business we have already conducted in the present session you have certainly given every indication that the committees of the house will be conducted in accordance with the highest traditions of parliament.
May I say to the Minister of Transport, in the same respect, how much we appreciate the co-operation which he has shown, in particular to private members, in dealing with matters related to his department.
I want to make one or two what may appear to be slightly disjointed comments because of the relatively large area of administration which comes under the supervision or within the purview of the minister. I do not intend to enlarge on these matters because they are problems which are well known to the minister. However, I suggest that in his

reply the minister might make some reference to the points I raise, because I know it is not necessary to take up the time of the committee in providing the background, much of which has already been introduced into this debate.
We have had several royal commissions examining the problems of various aspects of transportation. The one currently sitting, dealing with railway transportation, has already recognized the various factors involved, such as competition with other forms of transportation in Canada. I think it is safe to say that the competition of air transportation with the railways will increase to such a point that the day may well come when, because of the progress in air transportation, we will find we have literally relegated the railways to being low grade haulers. I say this because quite obviously the competition which has been experienced in other areas of the world both in air freight and air passenger services has had a similar effect on railway companies in the countries concerned. I think this is generally recognized.
I have listened with some interest to the many criticisms of the president of the C.N.R. I think it is perhaps fair to say that some of these criticisms are based on fact, but I hope no hon. member of this committee will assume that because there is a substantial deficit in the C.N.R. the responsibility should, in effect, be borne solely by the president of the railway. I need not defend this gentleman, because he is well able to defend himself. However, I would point out that there seems to be an inclination on the part of some hon. members to hold the president of the railway entirely responsible for the difficulty in which this railway finds itself.
This brings me to the point that I want to make very clear. I think the minister has perhaps one of the greatest responsibilities of any member of the cabinet. We are already well aware of the advances made in aviation in Canada, and the history and tradition we have in this respect are second to none in the world. However, it is not enough just to sit back and assume that we have done enough in the field of aviation because we have been successful in developing efficient air line services and, to some degree, freight services; because we were successful in developing a commonwealth flying program during the emergency years, the first 2i years of the war, or because we have successfully pioneered much of the north country through aviation.
I feel that some people in Canada-and I am not speaking specifically of those in government-have been inclined to sit back and say that we can let matters take their course; that we can share in the progress of aviation
Supply-Transport
in the future without putting in all our imagination and all our effort to see that we continue to advance in this field.
Therefore I say to the minister that I think his responsibility within the department is greater in this field than that of any other person in Canada, and he has a duty to see that Canada is kept ahead in every aspect of aviation. His responsibility is not limited to the providing of assistance through a crown company, or private industry. I suggest that his responsibility includes the carrying out of regular surveys in regard to the possibility of increasing our air freight and passenger transportation through the negotiation of bilateral agreements with other countries so as to provide a greater opportunity for our air carriers to compete in the international field.
I think there is an additional responsibility on the part of the minister in respect to the equipment which Canadian carriers are using today both in air freight and air passenger services. There exist in Canada two very competent manufacturers of aircraft equipment. I think hon. members of this house will remember at least some of the history in this regard, which shows that at one time it was possible to provide one of our air lines with Canadian made aircraft. I suggest to the minister that, in co-operation with the two principal carriers, he should consider the possibility of determining whether these carriers could be provided with Canadian aircraft built in Canada, to be utilized in their passenger and air freight services. I suggest that one of the two aircraft manufacturers has already developed suitable aircraft for exactly this purpose, and I believe the other company is equally capable of doing so. If this were accomplished we should not have to depend on any other source for these aircraft.
In terms of aviation, I suggest we cannot neglect the civilian side of air development, nor can we overlook the contribution which it makes. I refer specifically to the royal Canadian flying clubs. I think it is an historical fact that these clubs contributed, perhaps more than any other element of aviation, to the success of the commonwealth training program to which I have already referred. It is equally true that some two years ago the Department of National Defence withdrew its financial support of those flying clubs. I presume this withdrawal can be justified by the fact that the air force is, to a large degree, training its own pilots. However, I suggest it is equally important that we consider the difficulties with which the flying clubs are currently attempting to cope in order to continue their operations.
These problems fall roughly into two categories. The first category involves excessive

Supply-Transport
ground rate rentals which are being charged by the Department of Transport. The second category arises from the fact that many of the clubs have had to face increased costs for their facilities. These were previously provided at a rather nominal rental rate. Following the war, however, crown assets corporation was asked to dispose of them, with priority, of course, given to the flying clubs, but at considerable cost.
These non-profit organizations have little hope of survival in many instances because of the two factors I have referred to. I think we can also add to those two factors the knowledge that high municipal assessments and tax rates have, in part, created the financial burden of these clubs. Many of them are now in very serious financial difficulties. Quite obviously the department cannot be expected to assume the entire responsibility for the success of civil aviation in this field. Nevertheless, I suggest that the minister and his colleagues should review the situation very carefully regarding the future of civil aviation in Canada, in terms of what might still be expected in the way of providing pilots, because we dare not underestimate the part that civil aviation will continue to play in the whole aviation picture. I think it is fair to say that in certain areas this element of aviation will provide service to commercial air lines, and to some degree to the air force in Canada. I think it is important that it be remembered that a great many young men are being trained by those flying clubs and, therefore, the government has a major responsibility.
So, I should like to ask the minister to comment in regard to my observations, and to perhaps review very carefully the financial contributions which the government makes in an attempt to maintain the position of the royal Canadian flying clubs.
In this respect I have a second suggestion to make to the minister. There exists in the United States a body known as the civil air patrol, which is to a very large extent a military organization. It also involves civil pilots, and as a result is a rather unique organization. Today in Canada we are concerned with civil defence to perhaps a greater degree than at any other time in our history. I suggest that the minister, in co-operation with his colleague the Minister of National Defence, should make a close examination of the part that civil aviation can again play in the development of a more effective civil air patrol in Canada. Such a body does exist now. I suggest we could utilize a vast armada of aircraft, in the event of an emergency, to supplement the civil defence activity within this country. I suggest this is a broad field

in which, largely through organizational responsibility, the minister, together with his colleague the Minister of National Defence, could again make a very important contribution.
Another aspect of the subject of civil aviation involves the location of the fields which are in current use. I think it is a fact that many of us are concerned because the municipal fields, and those fields operated by the department, are becoming somewhat overcrowded. I feel the experience the United States has had in the past few years clearly indicates the necessity of a major change by wherever possible removing civil aviation operation from those areas of commercial operation. This necessity is borne out by the fact that where there is an active air field used by civil, domestic and international air lines, the risk of accident is extreme. Almost every year a number of R.C.A.F. air fields are declared surplus because of the decrease in activity at those particular fields. I suggest to the minister, therefore, that he might give us his own view, and the views of his department, regarding the development of auxiliary fields for the use of private aviation in Canada. I suggest that would first of all provide a greater safety factor to air passengers, and, second, would provide much more orderly development of civil aviation in Canada.
My final comment deals with the important question of international and domestic competition between the Canadian air carriers. I think this subject has been adequately covered by a number of hon. members who have spoken before me, but I should like to say to the minister that he will soon have to face that problem or one of our air carriers, because of the restrictions imposed on it, will perhaps fall into the same position as our railway company.
The minister's predecessor indicated his belief that competition could gradually be injected into international and domestic air services. I suggest to the minister that the restrictions imposed on the Canadian Pacific Air Lines have made it almost impossible for that carrier to continue operations. I suggest the time is now opportune for introducing a greater element of competition. This can be supported by statistics compiled by the government-owned air carrier, Trans-Canada Air Lines, which indicate that while it has shown a deficit largely attributable to the replacement of its air fleet, it was able to fly more air miles at a greater rate of occupancy than at any other time. I suggest that the future of aviation must be protected, and that this can be done by the introduction of a greater element of competition at this

stage by removing or relaxing those impositions placed upon the second major carrier in this country.
It is perhaps in the field of international aviation that we could hope for greater opportunity for the second major carrier because, of course, much of the traffic that they would be competing for would be drawn from United States carriers rather than in Canadian. Nevertheless, I believe that in Canada we can also provide C.P.A. with a number of runs and a greater opportunity to compete for both freight and domestic traffic at the same time.
I would like to say a little more on this subject, Mr. Chairman, but I realize it is currently under study. I hope that in the near future we shall learn the intentions of the government in this respect. As I said at the beginning, I hope he will also indicate that the department is doing everything within its power to encourage all aspects of aviation within Canada.


Mr. Pitman:: Mr. Chairman, may I express to you, sir, the congratulations of this group. We realize that in the future there may be conflicts. However, I am sure you will realize that those conflicts will not reflect upon our admiration and respect for you personally. We hope we shall not make your task any more difficult than that of your predecessor.
May I also express the thanks of this group to the minister for the extent to which he has attempted to bring to the floor of the house answers to the many questions we have asked over the last few months. We have appreciated the amount of detail and the accuracy of those answers and the spirit of co-operation we receive whenever we call on his good offices.
We recognize that this is one of the most important portfolios of the government. Across this nation there is a tremendous amount of questioning going on in the people's minds with respect to this whole area of transportation. We are searching for a pattern; we are searching for some direction as to where we should be going. We see the situation of two railroads competing with each other, one owned by the people of Canada and the other owned by private enterprise. Both are being subsidized, yet each is competing with the other. We want to know what will be the position of the small air line companies which have been formed in relation to T.C.A. as a government entity. We want to know where the trucking industry will fit in, especially when we have one of the railroad companies going into this form of transportation which is not receiving the subsidies that the railway transportation services are getting.
Supply-Transport
We want to know where the crown companies fit into this pattern. Unfortunately no one seems to be able to find out what this pattern is. We appeal to the minister to take this into consideration. Perhaps what we actually need is a full scale review of our transportation policy. Perhaps the minister could take a page out of the book of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Perhaps we should have a huge meeting like the resources for tomorrow conference and bring in not only the transportation people, the railway people and the air companies, but industry, representatives of agriculture and indeed some so-called "eggheads" from our universities. Let us have some economists, and perhaps even more important of all, let us have some sociologists, because more and more people in this nation are becoming more and more concerned about the fact that our population is beginning to concentrate in a few major centres, and what might be called the geographic and climatic focus is becoming even more pronounced as a result of this concentration of people within a small area.
I think we should bring in some university economists to decide just how much it is costing to put a great many people in a small area in terms of the goods and services which must be provided. What are we losing as a result of building traffic arteries in the cities so that people can drive their automobiles and spend hours of valuable time in them? Could we put that money into low cost housing? In other words, we need to make more serious value judgments in this whole area of transportation. I think the people of Canada would want leadership from the Minister of Transport in this very area.
I realize that we have a royal commission on transportation which is carrying on its work right now. We have already received the first volume of its report, but surely the minister will recognize that it is really a royal commission on railways; it is not really focused on transportation. Indeed, it is completely railway oriented. What they are suggesting is a transportation system, as it would appear to be necessary, so the railways could operate in what could reasonably be called a rational and intelligent way. But I think we should get a full scale review of transportation.
I understand there has not been such a conference since 1917. Well, let us have one now. Let us take maybe two, three years to allow industry and agriculture to prepare briefs, as the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources has done. Bring these people together. Give the conference lots of publicity and give the Canadian people some feeling that a pattern has been developed in transportation for this nation.

Supply-Transport
Over the last number of months we have seen in the newspapers signs of consternation -some among government supporters-over the situation which has developed within our railway system and within T.C.A. versus the smaller or, at least, the private air carriers. This is one of the problems we must solve. Also I feel that one of the difficulties about this royal commission on transportation is its suggested continuation of the very phases that I am rather concerned about. The Mac-Pherson report suggests that we need to cut down on the number of branch lines and our unprofitable passenger service; that we create a huge trunk line going across Canada, and possibly trucking will come into that trunk line. But still there is no clear indication of just how this is to be organized. I am wondering whether we are creating even more concentrations of people in metropolitan areas, and the smaller municipalities of Canada are going to be left more and more behind. I think this is not what the people of Canada want; I think this is not what sociologists, penologists and various experts in the field are seeking to bring about. What they are seeking to produce is the kind of society that will produce the greatest fulfilment for the people of this nation. We have to be very careful in our emphasis, and that is why I think there should be a full review of the whole transportation scheme to find a pattern. A conference would be a helpful thing at this particular time.
Since the estimates were last discussed on the floor of this house we have been quite happy to hear that the minister has announced that regional air carriers are going to be allowed to compete with T.C.A., especially in eastern Canada. Nordair and Quebecair will be able to set up transportation lines to smaller cities such as Oshawa and Kingston. The people of my riding are hopeful that Peterborough will be able to move into this area as well, because we are beginning to realize more and more that today industries need air service. Their executives must be able to move quickly from one part of this nation or this continent to another. It is a serious disadvantage for a smaller community not to have an airport which will handle at least smaller aircraft which those lesser companies -lesser in sense of size in comparison with T.C.A. and C.P.A.-will be using.
For that reason I hope the minister will make every attempt to encourage and give every bit of advice and help possible to those smaller cities that will be trying to improve their air services and their airports, runways and conveniences over the next number of months. I think this is a step in the right direction, because it will help to stop the concentration which we find is taking place in Canada and which I do not think is helpful,

even from the point of view of the Minister of National Defence in terms of the necessary needs of the foreseeable future.
Another matter about which I was a little concerned was the attitude taken by at least one member in the house with regard to some of the crown corporations which have been operating in Canada, especially in the north country. I refer particularly to Eldorado Aviation and the Northern Transportation Company. I am afraid these companies received a rather bad going over on one occasion during the debate in the house. I think it is foolish to look at either of these companies in the sense of their involving simply a transportation problem. Both these companies are inexplicably related to the uranium industry. The problem there, of course, is to service the uranium mines and to transport uranium at the cheapest cost to those who are buying it. This is what these companies are attempting to do.
I have been rather surprised at the line of argument that has been taken. These companies have been criticized because they do not seem to be making enough money, and T.C.A. has also been criticized because it is not making enough money, while on the other hand Polymer has been criticized because it has been making too much money. One really wonders what is meant by free enterprise, and the current definition would seem to be that it is enterprise for free by the people of Canada to be handed over free of charge to other entrepreneurs. I do not think this is a definition of free enterprise which a great many people would accept, certainly not in this department, and I am sure the minister will be very careful before any changes are made in relation to these crown companies which have provided such an admirable service to the uranium industry of the north country and have opened up a great many areas.
The final matter about which I should like to speak for a moment concerns my own constituency, and I am sure the minister will recognize what I have in mind. It is the problem of the Trent canal. We are very concerned about the suggestion that there may be some changes in the Trent canal system, because it is of such tremendous importance to the area I happen to represent. I should like to refer to a brief prepared by Mr. James P. McGrath, who worked on the Trent canal system for 34 years as canal superintendent for Peterborough county. I am not going to repeat the excellent summation of the importance of the Trent canal which was made by the hon. member for Simcoe East on the second or third day of the debate on item 1

of these estimates, but I should like to indicate just how important this canal system is.
It is important first as a reservoir to hold back water and thus prevent flood conditions developing throughout the entire valley. The maintenance of navigation levels in the canal itself is an extremely important matter. We have had a serious unemployment situation in this area, and we are hoping that over the next number of years we are going to be able to further develop the tourist industry, which has been unprecedented over the last quarter of a century. We are hoping that we will be able to carry out the views expressed by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources and make the tourist industry not just the second major industry in our area but perhaps even the first. Navigation levels in the canal are absolutely imperative if we are going to attract the increasing number of people from the northern United States and southern Ontario who have become interested in boating.
In addition, of course, we have in operation on the Trent canal 27 power stations, some of which are privately owned. The Canadian General Electric Company, the Quaker Oats Company and other companies have such stations, and the availability of cheap power in the area is imperative if we are to maintain a growth economy and try to provide greater prosperity for these communities. I realize that there are some who feel that the changing of levels is a very serious problem in relation to the upper reservoir lakes; nevertheless I think the minister will appreciate that any serious change in the status quo will have a most deleterious effect upon a large number of people living in the lower areas.
I do not think any community wants to be one up on any other community. I do not think the system of providing air services by giving one route to one company and taking one away from somebody else and replacing that route with another is in our best interests. I think this juggling of air services that has been going on, especially on the west coast, shows a lack of foresight in a field which is probably the most important in a country as large as Canada, with its population as spread out as it is. That is why I come back to the point that there should be some kind of conference held or some kind of method devised to take a look from every direction at the whole field of transportation in 1961, 1962 or 1963, so we will know where we are going for the next 40 years. There should be such an examination at this time when there is such questioning, when there seems to be a crisis coming in the whole transportation situation and when we are at
Supply-Transport
the crossroads in so many areas, in relation to the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., in relation to private and public enterprise in air travel, with respect to where the trucking industry fits into the picture, and so on.
That is why when I refer to the Trent canal system I am not asking for any special privileges in this area. What we are asking for is an attempt to fit canal services into some pattern in relation to the other areas of transportation. I should like to read one statement by Mr. McGrath who, as I said, has had wide experience. He said:
Any deliberate man-made changes, such as the lowering of levels, might affect the navigable waters act and also the whole buoying system, rendering the navigation aids useless. The system could not be handled by groups as they could not possibly know the over-all picture.
He goes on to say what the results might be.
Since confederation the problem of transportation has always been foremost in the minds of Canadian statesmen, and I hope the minister will take into consideration some of the things I have suggested. They may involve wrenches and serious surgery in some areas of transportation, but I think we must come to grips with the matter and not be dissuaded by such slogans as free enterprise or private enterprise versus socialism, which are completely irrelevant to the situation in Canada today. What I think we need is a national policy. As it is one o'clock I will conclude my remarks.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Rynard:: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate you on your appointment. I hope that in the days that lie ahead you will have the wisdom of a Solomon, and you have already shown that you possess such qualities.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the inadequacy of the methods employed in the Trent valley system, referring particularly to the opening and closing of the locks. Men are forced to open these locks by going round and round on a turnstile. This is very heavy work. I have known some of these men to take sick and be laid up for long periods as a result of the stress and strain involved in opening these locks. This waterway is being used more and more each year as the popularity of boating increases. I do not think it is fair to these employees to subject them to the drudgery of opening these locks in the same manner as they were opened over 40 years ago. As a matter of

Supp ly-Transp ort
fact, this system of opening the locks reminds me somewhat of the treadmills that were used in the early days of the first century.
I have a letter here from one of my constituents which I should like to read. He says this:
Sure, it is wonderful to go down to the United States where they have electrically operated locks and where the men have every facility to work with, and where they have a place where you can go round behind the lock at night if you are caught; but when a fellow has to walk around on the end of the treadmill like our lock keepers have to do, I don't know how you can expect them to be in uniform with a tie on. Over there, there is electricity at every lock; and from an economy standpoint, and for service to the public, every lock should be electrified, but I am afraid I will never see the day when they are.
Now, Mr. Chairman, this system has been neglected far too long, both from the standpoint of the people who are operating the locks and from the standpoint of the people who are operating the boats.
I wanted to make some reference as well to the low level bridges which are found on the Trent system. Surely it is about time, in this day and age, that we eliminated these places where boats have to stop in order that bridges may be turned. There is no place for such things in Canadian tourism today. Both the boats and the highway traffic are held up while these bridges are being turned.
One particular case is the low level bridge at the first narrows at Atherley. This is the place to which Champlain travelled over 300 years ago. Not only are the boats held up while the bridge is being turned, but motor traffic is held up as well. I have seen traffic held up there for a long period of time. This is a particularly important bridge. It is difficult to manipulate and the work is very hard on the employees. One would think we were still in the horse and buggy days when one sees such a system in operation. This condition is extremely annoying, in view of the fact the bridge forms part of the trans-Canada highway.
Let us get rid of these obstacles so we can invite boatmen from the United States, who are used to the electrification of locks in their canal systems, to come up here. The prospects are that many more boatmen from the United States will be using this water highway than have ever used it before. Let us do a good job so they will be proud to travel on our waterways and we will be proud to have them use these waterways.
(Translation):


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, I shall deal only briefly with the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport, but there is a matter that I feel strongly about and that
[Mr. Rynard.l
I shall submit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer). It has to do with the T.C.A. services in my riding.
The minister will agree that his department is already in possession of almost all the information required to look fully into the request submitted by the Kapuskasing chamber of commerce, which represents the town as well as the district of Kapuskasing with regard to the service provided by T.C.A.
From 1937 or 1938 to 1957, that district was served by T.C.A., first as part of a service between Toronto and Winnipeg, since Kapuskasing was located along the route between Toronto and Winnipeg. Later on, in 1945, that city was served by a direct flight from Toronto to Kapuskasing.
When the directors of Trans-Canada Air Lines decided to use Viscount aircraft, in October 1957, the service between Toronto and Kapuskasing was dropped.
I know that surveys were made by the Toronto office and that the department was led to believe that the cost of extending the runways to accommodate Viscounts would run extremely high.
However, engineers who are currently employed by the Spruce Falls Company, which operates a paper mill in Kapuskasing, and who must certainly know their business have made a thorough study of the situation. They claim that the estimate made by the Toronto office is much higher than the actual cost.
Mr. Chairman, it is an acknowledged fact that the construction of the Kapuskasing airport was a costly project since all buildings and facilities required for the operation of an airport, like a weather station, etc., were provided. Now, however, these buildings are almost left uncared for, except perhaps for what is needed by those who use what is commonly known as the private air service.
The airport is being used widely enough. As a matter of fact, I understand five or ten planes may be seen every day either landing or taking off. But that is not the important point. The important point is the service to which the population of the district has been used.
When the Kapuskasing airport was used by Trans-Canada Air Lines, it welcomed many distinguished visitors, for instance, Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh during their visit in Canada in 1951; Her Majesty was then, of course, Princess Elizabeth.
In 1941, I think there was the visit of the late Duke of Kent, a few weeks only before his accidental death.

We had also the visit of Field Marshal Montgomery and of several other personalities. These historical events are proof enough that the Kapuskasing airport was a suitable airport and that it should have been maintained in good operating condition so that the service could be continued.
Our district is about 560 miles from Toronto and 600 miles from Montreal, maybe a little more. Moreover, our railway service is quite inadequate, and the need for a T.C.A. air service has become urgent.
If I chose not to mention this matter during the previous sessions, it is because I had promised the chamber of commerce officials that politics would not interfere with the efforts being made to induce the Department of Transport to restore the service we had enjoyed for some ten years. I did not mention the subject in the house, but I did keep in touch with the minister, and especially with his predecessor. I would not want to blame the present minister for what happened, but I would ask him to kindly reconsider the situation and to carefully look his files over concerning Kapuskasing airport. Then he will certainly realize how reasonable is the request we make in the name of people living in that outlying region where fast transportation is needed in case of emergency.
At the present time, for instance, to go to Toronto you have to ride on a bus from Kapuskasing to Cochrane in order to get a train connection, around 2.30 p.m. That train reaches Toronto around 8.30 the next morning. You have to admit that it is quite a long run, particularly when you consider that there is no sleeping car between Kapuskasing and North Bay. A serious study of that problem is a must and the request of the chamber of commerce should be considered so that the problem can be solved in keeping with the needs of the region.
The Spruce Falls Power and Paper Company of Kapuskasing provides the Canadian National with a yearly income of over $10 million, just for the shipping of paper and other materials that the mills require. So, it seems to me, considering all that, the department could have new surveys carried out and the situation studied, in order that an area which now numbers more than 35,000 is provided with a service like the one we are asking for, and which would fill a long felt need.
Supply-Transport
Furthermore, the minister will no doubt be interested to know that in the same district the Ontario hydro is carrying out at least two large developments and that, in addition, three other projects are on the way. Which means that for five to ten years an average of two or three thousand additional men will find work in the Kapuskasing and Cochrane districts, and they, of course, would find it most useful to have an adequate service for a population which should not be neglected any longer.
I hope the minister-I must say, by the way, that he found means to give his home town an airport, and I do not blame him for that-


Mr. Balcer:: It was not me but my predecessor.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The minister says it was not him-


Léon Balcer: It was my predecessor.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am quite willing to grant him that, and even though he was not responsible for that to any great extent, I am sure that he will take credit all the same. I do not want to reproach him, to blame him for that but, as we know, Three Rivers is 80 miles away from both Montreal and Quebec city, so that if an airport is justified there, the minister will admit that it would be even more justified in an area like ours where the people have the same right to live as those of any other part of the country.
Therefore, our area should have a better service, if not through the railway, then at least through T.C.A. in order that we may feel a little more like the rest of the Canadian people, not as a forgotten area, but rather as an area where one and all benefit from equal opportunities.
(Text):


Mr. More:: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to associate myself with the remarks made by previous speakers in this debate about your appointment as chairman of committees. I am sure you will carry on and do the job equally as well as and perhaps better than you have while filling in without the official appointment. I am sorry, sir, that your appointment has been made necessary because of the absence through illness of Ted Rea, and I associate myself with those hon. members who wish him an early and speedy recovery.

Supply-Transport
This is the first opportunity I have had to congratulate the minister since his appointment. I was privileged to take part in the ceremonies at the opening of the new airport terminal in Regina on September 12, which I think was the day following his official appointment as Minister of Transport. We were privileged at that time to have the former minister participate in those ceremonies.
The people of Regina are very proud of the fine terminal which now stands at that airport. It is certainly one that is well constructed, well laid out and well planned, and it will serve its purposes in a very efficient manner. Since the opening of that terminal, after many, many years of effort, Saskatchewan now boasts a direct north-south air service link. That link was opened on May 4 from Regina to Minot, North Central Air Lines having the franchise. It has been operating for something over a month now and its passenger, freight and express services are developing. They are operating at present in temporary accommodation in this new terminal for customs and immigration purposes. I venture to say that within a period of six months we will need to add to that terminal to take care of this traffic. We will need to provide suitable and proper facilities for this purpose. I hope the minister will keep this development in mind when the time comes, as it seems clear it will, when the service is established and the needs are there. I hope the minister will at that time give a sympathetic hearing to me when I present him with the problem and ask for action.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary South in regard to civil aviation. I am somewhat concerned about the position of flying clubs in Canada. I think there is justification for the policy that was adopted in regard to this matter, just purely from the point of view of training pilots. However, it seems to me from my experience and association with the flying club at home and what it is doing that there are considerations other than the mere training of pilots.
We see lads of the district join the flying club at an early age. They graduate as pilots. It is true that they do not go on to fly and use that training commercially, but it has stimulated in them an interest in other aspects of air service and they go on to college and take technical and meteorological training, and so on. From the initial impetus given by the operation of the flying club in the community I am sure many of the personnel we
[Mr. More.l
will need for our expanding development in air services could be found.
It is certainly a future that looks bright. With the ever increasing need for trained personnel it seems to me that these flying clubs should be kept on a sound operating basis, and reconsideration should be given to this program so that not only will the clubs initially train these young people to fly, but they will stimulate in them an interest in education in the other avenues of air service and so provide us with very necessary personnel for the future.
I should like to make a few remarks at this time on another matter, because I do not know where else to make them. It is a problem I want to bring before the government and the committee. I refer to developing an interest in soaring in Canada. There are now a number of very active soaring clubs in Canada. They have a national organization. I would hazard the guess that they are composed mainly of former R.C.A.F. officers and personnel, men who have served their country well.
While some people may look upon this as a sport purely and simply, and perhaps a rich man's sport, I think it goes far beyond that. We all know that the treaty of Versailles was circumvented by the Germans through the use of gliders to train the youth of Germany, so that when they broke the treaty finally and openly and started to train an air force these boys had the advantage of the background and experience they had gained in soaring.
1 would also refer to the many scientific and aviation journals that have been concerned with trying to find a reason why so many air accidents take place in the mountains. These accidents usually end up in an inquiry and a report that it was due to the pilot's error, but in many cases the pilots concerned were men with years and years of experience. From these inquiries has been brought forth information about the hazards of mountain waves. It seems that mountains set up these waves and air currents, and even today we do not have enough information about them. Through the use of motorless planes, or soaring, much information could be gained and it would provide a source of research into this problem. The soaring clubs as I know them are carried on at the expense of the members themselves. They do not have any subsidies, grants or aid.
Canada has been represented in the soaring events at the Olympics for many years. These events occur every two years. It was rather ironic and something about which I think we should be concerned that in 1960, for the first time, Canada's flag did not fly at the soaring Olympics at Cologne, Germany.

This was simply due to a lack of funds, the price of gliders and the time off from work which was necessary to participate in these events. The price of gliders has risen over the years. In spite of all the effort put forward, the Canadian soaring association found itself in a position where it could not transport even the pilots to Cologne for this contest. It was a matter perhaps of some $800.
My research and information indicate that in other countries of the world-and there were many countries represented at this competition-grants are made and help is provided. I have talked with these soaring enthusiasts and with the president of the soaring association of Canada. They do not seek grants to maintain their clubs as such. They are quite able and quite competent enough to make whatever sacrifice is necessary for the operation of their clubs. However, when it comes to Olympic competition they feel that Canada should be represented, and they would seek a policy by this government of transportation for the pilots at least.
I noticed a picture in a magazine this week showing that the United States soaring team was composed of 16 persons, and included maintenance people as well as pilots and meteorological experts. In previous years when Canada has participated we have had to go to these events and borrow gliders from other people because our clubs have not been able to transport their own gliders. They have also had to ask the help of other maintenance crews in cases of necessity, and they have had to use other meteorological services.
I ask the minister to give some consideration to this request. I think it would involve a very minimum expenditure to guarantee Canada's participation in these events. I believe it is warranted as a continuing activity in Canada, and one which should be developed and could be used for the improvement of our knowledge about mountain waves and things such as that.
Mr. Chairman, I seriously ask the minister to consider this suggestion. If it is something which is not under the administration of his department I hope he will suggest where I should refer the suggestion, because I do feel that these people have made an excellent showing in the past in spite of the handicaps they have faced. I suggest they would be excellent representatives of Canada in these international competitions.
I am very pleased to take the opportunity of referring to this subject during the consideration of the first item of the estimates of this department because quite recently Mr. Julian Audette, one of my own constituents, attended the Canadian soaring championship trials at Pincher Creek in Alberta, and there won two soaring championships, having attained an
Supply-Transport
absolute altitude of 24,500 feet and 17,500 feet altitude gain. In view of that fact this seemed to be an opportune time for me to make this request of the minister and the government.


Mr. Robichaud:: Mr. Chairman, my intervention during the consideration of the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport will be brief. I should like to ask the minister for certain information which I hope he will supply during his reply.
On May 10, in reply to a question addressed to the minister by the hon. member for Cochrane, the minister stated that the municipality of Gloucester and the town of Bathurst had submitted a joint resolution regarding the establishment of an airport in the county of Gloucester. I understand that earlier this session a delegation from the municipality of Gloucester and the town of Bathurst met with the minister and his officials to discuss the possibility of establishing an airport in the county. I would appreciate it if the minister could inform this committee of the exact policy of his department in this regard, as well as the terms and conditions under which a cost sharing form of assistance could be made available by the federal government. I should hope that at the same time the minister could also inform this committee whether similar representations have been received from the municipality of Restigouche and the town of Dalhousie and, if so, what reply he has made.
I understand the minister has made a statement to the effect that the municipality of Restigouche had purchased certain land with the intention of establishing an airport. I would appreciate the minister advising this committee whether that deal has been closed and whether the federal government has agreed to contribute to the cost of establishing an airport either in the municipality of Restigouche or the municipality of Gloucester and, if so, under what terms and conditions.


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, I should like to draw to the attention of the minister that problem which I drew to his attention earlier, but which I believe has been aggravated in the past month or so, having to do with the operations of the Canadian Pacific Railway in the trucking industry. I pointed out earlier that the Canadian Pacific Railway is now the largest trucking operator in Canada and that it has purchased a number of private truck lines over the past few years, although until recently it has operated those truck lines on an independent basis. That company recently has developed a new policy of integrating the truck lines into the railway's operations.
This has caused a number of labour problems in the province of British Columbia.

Supply-Transport
This new policy has meant that people who formerly had been represented by the teamsters union were forced to be represented by one of the railway brotherhoods though the particular operation in question represented but a small portion of the railway operation.
This situation has been recently brought to my attention again, and I am referring to this subject because of a letter I received from Mr. Weldon Jubenville, president of the international woodworkers of America, local 180. He informs me that members of that union have also been caused considerable difficulty because of the integration of these trucking operations into the railway services. I believe this is something which concerns both the Department of Labour and the Department of Transport, and I should hope that the two ministers in question will discuss this matter, because there are a number of employees in British Columbia at the present time who have had to face this difficulty, and because this situation will become more acute across this country as the railway integrates this type of service into its operation across Canada.
That integration will in effect mean that employees of these trucking firms, who have been able to choose their own bargaining agent over the years, will now be deprived of that right. It seems to me that each group of individuals in Canada should be able to choose the union it wants to represent it, and to choose the union to which it wants to belong.
I suggest there is another serious problem arising which is affecting those firms in British Columbia which are competing with other British Columbia firms whose operations are entirely within that province. Now that the firms have been integrated into the C.P.R. they come under federal labour legislation, as a result of which those individuals who are working for the British Columbia firms are placed in an unfair competitive position because of the fact that railway wages are based on the national average rather than the provincial average. Many employees have had to take substantial wage cuts, amounting to 65 cents an hour in the case of individuals belonging to the teamsters union, at the time they left the teamsters union to join the Canadian brotherhood of railway and steamship clerks.
Mr. Jubenville in his letter drew my attention to a letter his union had written to the Minister of Labour, which made reference to the fact that rates of pay to truck drivers following their integration with C.P.R. operations have dropped to $1.54 an hour as compared to $2.35 an hour which was being paid

when those individuals belonged to the international woodworkers of America. That situation seems very unfair, and warrants the immediate consideration of the government.
I have always opposed the entry of railway companies into the trucking industry. However, that view has not been shared by everyone in this committee. In view of this new problem which has arisen as a result of the railway companies becoming substantially involved in the trucking industry, this situation should be considered by the government with a view to deciding whether they should be allowed to integrate these services into the railway operations. I can see many problems arising from this change, such as the possibility of another monopoly in transportation developing. I understand the railway companies now control some 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the trucking industry in Canada.
I pointed out earlier that I thought it unwise to have all our transportation services tied to one union because, if a strike were called, the government would then have to take some compulsory action. I believe that collective bargaining should be allowed to run the full course, providing there are two transportation services; but when all the transportation services come under the control of railway management, and under the control of one union, I do not see how that course can be followed at all. The employees would lose their right to free collective bargaining, because the government could not possibly allow transportation in this country to come to a standstill. The policy of the government throughout has been in opposition to compulsory arbitration of any sort. The Conservative party as well as organized labour have been opposed to this for many years.
For the foregoing reasons I suggest the government should examine the trucking industry of this country as a whole. I suggest that, in the interest of the employees the trucking industry should remain outside the operations of the railways because, when the transportation services are controlled by one management and by one union, those employees likely will lose their right to strike.
I hope the minister will take this situation under consideration in consultation with the Minister of Labour in an attempt to decide what action can be taken by the government in regard to this matter.
(Translation):


Mr. Loiselle:: Mr. Chairman, at the very beginning of my remarks I should like to draw again the minister's attention, although it is a bit late, to the recent appointment of a vice president to the Canadian National.
Following the death of the previous vice president, I had taken steps and had even

broached the subject with the Minister of Transport-in fact, I even got in touch with the president of the company-in order that, out of 17 vice presidents of the Canadian National, one at least should be a French Canadian, especially in the case of the St. Lawrence area; there was no better opportunity for the government to make representations to the president himself. This government seems on good terms with the president, so the minister could very well have expressed the wish that a French Canadian be appointed vice president. I do not question the competence of the one who has been appointed, but I am convinced that there were some others who, having served very near the vice president, had all the necessary qualifications for the position.
I do not know whether the new vice president is bilingual; I would not be at all surprised if he was unilingual.
1 understand that with the adoption of this new bill increasing from seven to 12 the number of directors, the government may appoint two or three French-speaking directors, and then they will use these appointments to talk about national unity across the country.
It is not enough to make political appointments in order to preach unity; but it is very important to consider the qualifications of the appointees and this is why I suggest that the person selected as the replacement for the vice president should have been an employee with over 35 or 40 years of service in all departments of the C.N.R. I said it before and I say it now, I am convinced that that was the kind of appointment that should have been made and that the minister should have exerted the necessary pressure, or simply express the wish to the C.N.R. authorities, to the president if necessary, that a French Canadian be appointed.
I do not want to dwell too long on the issue, Mr. Chairman, because I have a few other matters that I want to raise.
First of all, I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that some time ago, I referred in this house to the Champlain bridge approaches, and that on May 20 last, I asked that the agreement signed the day before between the national harbours board and the city of Montreal be tabled. The only return that was tabled is a letter of September 1959 regarding three items, and two other letters under date of February 6 and 8, 1961, containing proposals to the city of Montreal, but no evaluation or information.
The reason why I asked for the tabling of this agreement between the city of Montreal and the national harbours board, is because it concerns the very important matter of the Champlain bridge exits on the north shore. It has been reported in the press that the 90205-6-381
Supply-Transport
national harbours board intended to spend $5 million for those approaches. In the explanatory letter of February 6-the agreement was signed only on May 19-mention was made that a few streets should be one-way streets, but nothing was said about the exact location of those exits and entrances on the north side of the Champlain bridge.
I often raise that point. I have been bringing this question to the minister's attention for three or four years now; the matter is most urgent and causes great concern to all the residents of that neighbourhood.
I notice that my remarks cause the minister to smile but I can assure him that if he Sis still sitting at the same place, one year from now-


Mr. Ricard:: That is a sure thing.


Gérard Loiselle: -and if the situation has not improved on the approaches to the Champlain bridge, I will again call the minister's attention to this matter and I will even invite him to visit the place, since it is situated in my constituency.
I repeat it, the situation will become unbearable.
Actually, a tunnel was built to replace the Atwater street bridge but it is much too narrow to handle all the traffic, especially at peak hours. It is now proposed to channel through that tunnel the six lanes of traffic on the Champlain bridge. That will lead to a disaster. The tunnel will certainly not handle the extra traffic.
I know that any suggestion coming from the opposition is always looked upon with a certain suspicion. We are always asked to make suggestions but very few of those we make are carried out.
Well, I ask that something be done in that regard and I hope appropriate action will be taken because the constituencies of St. Ann, St. Henry and Verdun, the latter being represented by a member on the government side, will be flooded with traffic and the situation will be disastrous.
I have suggested that elevated roadways be built. Whether elevated or level roadways are built, it does not matter at all, as long as the problem of the Champlain bridge traffic is settled. I would be satisfied if the traffic on the bridge were routed through Atwater street, past St. James street.
At the present time, all traffic seems to go through the Atwater tunnel, as I mentioned earlier. I wonder whether something will come out of it through repetition. I hope so, because I am not asking this for myself. As for me, if the road I intend to use is blocked, I will take another one. But I am making these representations on behalf of those who

Supply-Transport
must use this bridge that will serve housing developments now being built on the south shore of the St. Lawrence.
What will happen in these circumstances? The traffic on the Montreal side will be paralysed.
I hope that we shall at least get some explanation regarding the reported amount of $5 million being appropriated by the national harbours board for the improvement of the Champlain bridge approaches on the north side.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to another problem and to draw the minister's attention to an event which is occurring almost every year, and more particularly, it seems to me, these last few years, in the vicinity of Lachine canal.
Again last week, the canal took the life of a 10 year old child. As a matter of fact the drowning of one or two children in the canal happens every year. I warn the minister that I am starting a campaign to have an inquiry made into the matter so that means of protection may be provided at the most dangerous points. Whether it be a railing, a parapet or a fence, the important thing is to do something to keep off children. The body of the 10 year old child who drowned last week was recovered 8 days later.
I heard about that unfortunate accident only during the week end, and on Monday I approached the St. Lawrence seaway authority in order that something might be done to find the body.
While I was led to expect that the child might have escaped drowning, the lifeless body was discovered floating on the Lachine canal Monday evening. For eight days the parents had been in agony. The father was even reported as saying: I wish I could be sure that our child is dead because I could then bury him and I would know where he is.
Just imagine, Mr. Chairman, the concern of parents looking for a 10 year old child for eight days. And yet, such occurrences happen every year. Only last week the body of an older man was fished out of the Lachine canal.
It is essential that the matter be considered and that access to the most dangerous spots be made impossible. I am thinking in particular of Bassin street, close to Des Seigneurs street, where the canal is only two feet away from the road, since there is no sidewalk. Such places should be provided with fences or barricades, so that no other child will drown in Lachine canal.
Mr. Chairman, the matter I should like to raise now has been the subject of a few news stories, although I have not been in-

formed officially. If my memory serves me right, it would seem that the authorities of the city of Montreal got in touch with the Department of Transport in order to acquire from the Canadian National a property which is commonly called Turcot yard.
I would ask the minister-I do not know whether he is discussing the Soulanges canal, and if so, I would not like to disturb him -to kindly give me an answer and tell me whether the authorities of the city of Montreal got in touch with his department with a view to acquiring Turcot yard, which is owned by the Canadian National.
The present municipal administration apparently intends to clear the slums and build low cost or low rental housing. The Turcot yard would be an ideal location for a large residential area.
Mr. Chairman, for the information of the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais), who is apparently trying to say something that I cannot hear, work will be started within a year or a year and a half, in my constituency, on a low cost housing project, and I am very pleased. Moreover, I hope the situation will improve throughout Montreal following the speech made last week in Halifax by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker) at the convention of mayors and municipal administrators, in which he urged them to make greater use of the facilities offered by the National Housing Act. particularly with regard to low cost housing. Unless the present municipal administration changes its mind, it will probably follow his advice, and I hope that when the minister's department receives an application from the Montreal authorities-perhaps it has already received one-with respect to the acquisition of the Turcot yard, the minister will consider it and the situation will be improved.
Mr. Chairman, I have only one more short remark to make before resuming my seat.
At the present time, there are three bridges over the St. Lawrence, or rather the third one is just being completed. It has been suggested in the past, and therefore I wish to associate myself with the representations made by the hon. members for Maisonneuve-Rosemont and Hochelaga (Messrs. Deschate-lets and Eudes), that a bridge be built in eastern Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, instead of building a bridge, the department might make a survey to determine whether it would be preferable to build a tunnel under the river. Perhaps a bridge would be more economical, but it would raise far more problems than a tunnel.
We are often asked by ministers to make suggestions. I leave this one with the minister, and I can only hope that among the

many suggestions made to him, he will recognize that some are of great value and will give them due consideration.


Mr. Pigeon:: Mr. Chairman, I want to say just a few words with regard to the president of the Canadian National Railways Mr. Donald Gordon, who is still head of that company. I ask the government not to renew Mr. Donald Gordon's term of office, because all C.N.R. employees hate him and hope that his mandate will not be renewed. There is at this time an iron curtain between Mr. Gordon and employees of the C.N.R.
Many residents of the county I have the honour of representing in this house are C.N.R. employees. Those people have asked me to speak out for them. In addition, I have received letters from various parts of the country, asking me to urge that Mr. Gordon's term of office, be not renewed. Mr. Gordon is an autocrat. To my mind, he is enemy No. 1 of national unity. We know the pressures that have been exerted on Mr. Gordon, on various occasions, for the sole purpose of requesting fair treatment for French speaking Canadians. As a matter of fact, Mr. Gordon has just done something which not only is counter to national unity but is an insult to the French speaking population when this week he appointed as vice president a certain gentleman who is not French speaking while out of seventeen C.N.R. vice presidents not one is French Canadian.
This is a crown company, and I know that the minister is responsible only for the estimates of that railway company, and that the government may not directly interfere with that company's business. Therefore, I very much wish that the man who replaces Mr. Gordon will show more understanding than has the present incumbent and that he will try to give fair treatment to all Canadians, whatever their racial origin.
May I also say-and this is about the C.N.R.-there have been may items in the press on the subject of bilingualism at the various railway stations serving a large sector of the French-speaking population. Mr. Gordon has never paid any attention to the representations made in the interest of national unity and in the interest of C.N.R. employees. I sincerely hope that Mr. Gordon's term will not be renewed and that he too will be discarded as were the steam engines he replaced with diesels.
I have something to say also about T.C.A. There have been press items too about this crown corporation for whose expenditures the minister is accountable, and more specifically about air hostesses. Out of 690 air hostesses in the employ of T.C.A., 90 are bilingual and 75 can speak three languages;
90205-6-381J
Supply-Transport
the others speak but one language, at best speak a few words of French. Of the latter, 25 per cent are in the Montreal-based group and 33 per cent are stationed in Toronto. Among those who speak three languages, most of them being of European origin, there are a few French-Canadian girls. Since we are known abroad as a bilingual nation, it would only be consistent, I think, if T.C.A. officials did all they could to increase their staff of bilingual hostesses, so that passengers from abroad, as well as Canadians, may be understood. Besides tourists from abroad would have a good opinion about our country which is a bi-cultural and bi-ethnical country.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I wish the Minister of Transport would tell us why there has been delay in awarding a beer and wine licence to the owner of the restaurant at the Montreal international airport. That delay has been detrimental to the good name of Canada since all international airports have bars and restaurants which are allowed to sell alcoholic beverages.
May I point out also that the operators of that restaurant obtained the concession following a call for tenders, even though theirs was the highest tender.
I was also given to understand that they had been subjected to pressures and blackmail, and even that they had been compelled, by the son of the chairman of the liquor commission, to buy some $400,000 worth of furniture that he himself offers for sale, something which, in my opinion, is absolutely undemocratic. It is a case of nepotism.
Therefore I would appreciate a few words from the minister about this matter, and I wish he would tell us too whether he is aware of the fact that the award of the beer and wine license to the operators of the restaurant at the international airport of Montreal was delayed for several months. I was astounded to learn about this situation. This sort of thing gives a bad name to the province of Quebec and to Canada as a whole.
I therefore ask the minister to tell us about that case and inform us whether the facts were as reported.
(Text):


Mr. Small:: It was not my intention to speak on this question this afternoon, but I should like to make some reference to the remarks that have been made. I have already congratulated you, Mr. Chairman, upon your appointment to this office so it is not necessary to reiterate.
On frequent occasions I have made some comments-some people have called them lamentations, wailings or harangues-by way of criticism of the administration of the Cana-



$040 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supp ly-Transport
dian National Railways. I do not intend to go over the ground I have already covered, but some observations have been made, probably justifiably, by the hon. member lor Laurier, in respect of the president of the Canadian National Railways. The hon. member said the president's term of office is up and he has been kept waiting for some time, particularly in view of the passage of the bill to increase the number of directors, for his re-appointment as director and president.
The hon. member for Laurier then went on to mention the service of the president. Having worked with him and been associated with him for some years, I can also understand why the present Minister of Transport as well as the previous minister of transport spoke very highly of him and his administrative ability. I have never questioned his administrative ability at any time. I know that when you are working with a person you become very good friends and you probably overlook some things that would not be countenanced under ordinary business conditions.
On a number of occasions in the past I have referred to certain conditions at terminal stations which I did not believe were right. I started off with an air of levity and humour, trying to make my criticisms amusing. I am not one of those given to making complaints. I can generally see the humour in these grotesque situations. I can get a lot of humour and fun out of them. However, I found these criticisms were treated as humour and no attention was paid to them. When the C.N.R. president appeared before the committee, I would not say he was insolent but I would say he was arrogant and adopted a haughty manner, and he said, in effect, "If you did not like my efficiency and services, then you could dispense with them." Then, when somebody suggested taking him at his word, it was alleged we were persecuting him or unduly criticizing him. It is our prerogative to criticize or commend.
The main job of a person who is in the transport business is to give the kind of service the public expects. Although some improvements were made but they were not sufficient in extent to warrant people using the services the railways supply. It was intimated that the president of the Canadian National has been offered a position with the Chase National Bank in New York at $125,000. If he were wise, he would take it. He would get an increase in salary and the railway situation would soon be cleared up; the morale of the employees would be restored and the travelling public would be happy.
I have had a considerable amount of correspondence from railway employees. They call me on the telephone as well. I feel that

their complaints have merit and we cannot afford to ignore them. I do not believe the president of the railroad has the goodwill of the people of Canada. I do not know whether or not this is the result of continual criticism, but nevertheless reference has been made to the fact that morale within the service is very low and is not likely to be improved so long as the president remains. The hon. member for Laurier says the government should do something. I can assure him that if I had anything to do with the matter something would have been done long ago. Why the government have not taken action, I do not know because they must be aware of the criticism that most of the members of this house have received.
One of the complaints to which I referred three or four years ago related to the commuter service. The commuter service is deplorable. There is profit in commuter service but the railways have allowed it to deteriorate. They have not catered to it or tried to retain it. The railways tell you now that if you want this service you will have to pay a fabulous sum of money to have it restored. If you offer constructive suggestions, the officials tell you the commuter service is not very profitable; it cannot be maintained because it is only wanted in the morning and the evening. Well, this situation applies to every transit company. The Toronto transportation commission has to meet this condition. Every city that provides a transportation service is faced with the same problem, a high volume of traffic in the morning and at night. Departmental stores have to contend with a similar problem. People who are in the broad service field are faced with this problem and make an effort to meet the requirements of their patrons.
I believe it would be more advantageous to go after this traffic than to lay off men according to seniority as the railways have been doing. The men who are being laid off now could be employed on a part time basis, morning and evening-the hotels, restaurants and theatres do so-and they would probably get four hours or six hours of work. They would be glad to get it and, at the same time, the public would be provided with satisfactory service.
I have mentioned the trucking business before. The railways have had opportunities in the past to go into the trucking business, and it would not have been difficult for them to do so at that time. Now, the railways are going after those who have a vested interest in a trucking business. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway said a while ago that there was going to be jurisdictional trouble with the unions. These are things that make many of us wonder whether they are giving the best service. The remarks made by the

hon. member for Laurier quoting newspaper comment about the delay in the decision to retain the services of the president have also caused many of us to wonder whether this would perhaps not be an opportune time to dispense with them. If he is in any suspense or in doubt what to do, probably this would be the time for us to terminate his service. If the remarks had not been made about it I would probably have let the matter go. Personally I think the government would be well advised to dispense with his services. It is not going to cause any hardship to him because the salary he has drawn over the last ten or eleven years would set any man up in comfort for the rest of his life. The pension he will get will not be niggardly either. There therefore need be no qualms about doing anything that is unkind or is going to financially harm him because he will retire from his position with more income than many people living in Canada today will get when they retire. The only damage that will be done will perhaps be to his ego.
Mr. Thompson:: Like others who have preceded me, Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate you on having assumed the office of deputy chairman of committees, although I also regret the circumstances which necessitated your appointment, namely the serious illness of the hon. member for Spadina. I hope that your period in office will be a very satisfying one to you.
I should now like to say a few words about the Trent canal and the Murray canal, both of which run through my riding and their significance to the people in my constituency, particularly those who live adjacent to those canals. I should like to speak first about the flow of water through the Trent canal. This year representations were made by the Hali-burton chamber of commerce to maintain bodies of water in reservoirs at the high point of land in the Trent canal for the purposes of cottagers. As I understand it, the priorities which are given to the flow of water in the Trent canal are as follows. First priority is given to navigation or to boats. Second priority is given to power; I refer to hydroelectric power. Third priority is given to fishing or other activities of that nature. I would assume that fourth priority would therefore be given to cottagers. In view of the fact that the Trent canal is there to be used mainly as a means of transportation for boats, I feel that transportation and boating should be given a high priority and certainly hydroelectric power should be given very high priority. It means a great deal to people in communities like Campbellford, for instance, who rely for their hydroelectric power supply entirely on the water flow in the Trent
Supply-Transport
canal. I understand the department has decided that the normal flow of water will not be disturbed this year for the benefit of those who own cottages. In making this decision I think the department arrived at the right one.
I should make a few remarks in connection with the operation of the canal. Referring to the item which is covered in the estimates, I note that it calls for "administration, operation and maintenance". I do not believe it is quite clear what the policy is with regard to some of these non-commercial canals. The Trent canal was originally built as a commercial canal. It never performed that function and it has been reduced now to a canal which is used largely for pleasure craft. The only indication I could get as to the policy of the department toward this non-commercial type of canal is in the heading used in the estimates, namely "administration, operation and maintenance". In other words, the canals are going to be kept up but that is all. I should like to see the word "improvement" added to this heading. I should like to see not only maintenance but also the idea of improvement brought into the policy in respect of these canals.
In that connection I have a few small suggestions to make. They are things which I do not think are expensive but which I think could be a great improvement. As far as the tourist industry is concerned canals today constitute quite a tourist attraction. If they are going to be maintained, and if they are of some benefit as a tourist attraction, surely it would be worth while to spend a few extra dollars in order to make them really attractive to people who want to use them.
When I came down to the department a couple of years ago with a delegation from Campbellford with some suggestions as to improvements on the canal, we were told that the best justification for the expenditure of money on the Trent canal was the number of United States boats which used the canal; in other words, the more money that can be brought in from the United States or the more dollars that can be brought in, the better, and that is the best form of justification for the canal.
I think it is general knowledge that last year there was an unprecedented number of lockages through both canals. Both are being used more and more every year. In order to determine just what use is made of the canal by Canadian boats and by United States boats I took it upon myself last August to circularize the various yacht clubs and power squadrons around lake Ontario and also the Buffalo yacht club in lake Erie, in

Supply-Transport
order to see how much they knew about the canal and how much use was being made of it. I sent out a small questionnaire. It was not a very detailed one. The questions were as to what literature the various yacht clubs had on the canal, how many of their members had used it and what percentage of the members had used it; and I requested any suggestions as to the improvements that might be made for the use of pleasure craft. I sent out 22 of these questionnaires to various yacht clubs and power squadrons around lake Ontario. I am pleased to say that I had a great deal of co-operation. I had responses from most of them. In many cases they have gone to a great deal of trouble to get the information for which I had asked.
I should like to refer to two or three of the replies I received. I think that is the best way of getting these suggestions across. I have here a letter which was received from the secretary of the Buffalo yacht club which, of course, is not in lake Ontario. In any event the secretary of the Buffalo yacht club stated in part as follows:
I have talked to 64 members, who have sailed on the Trent waterways. Obtaining ice and finding navigational markers were the only areas of improvement mentioned.
Sixty four members constitute about 24 per cent of the memberships of the Buffalo yacht club. I might say that in every case the club indicated that it did not have any literature on the Trent canal system. Why no literature was available I do not know. It seems to me that the department must have some literature available. It might be a good suggestion that some of this literature should be sent out rather than just wait until it is requested by the various yacht clubs. It might be a good idea to send it out and let them have it so that they will know something about the canal and possibly make use of the canal. The secretary of the Buffalo yacht club in his letter stated:
We would be pleased to receive and post any literature on the Trent canal system.
I have another reply from the secretary of Canadian power squadrons, Toronto. He points out:
I have just completed 11 return trips through the Trent waterway system and I am entirely enthusiastic about the service and facilities of the system in so far as it concerns my own particular type of boat, which is a cabin cruiser approximately 40 feet long and of heavy construction. Dozens of our members use the canal and continue to use it year after year, and generally reports from the skippers of boats are most favourable, particularly those who have been through the system a few times.
He goes on to say:
One suggestion that could be implemented during the lay-up season, and that is to increase the number of chains in most locks because of the

large number of small boats now using the locks that find it very difficult to hang on when the chains are so far apart.
I consider that the Trent canal system is one of Canada's greatest boating attractions. All 240.5 miles of waterway is most beautiful and anything that can be done to help the boats that use its facilities would be most appreciated.
I have another fairly complete reply from the commodore of the Brockville yacht club. Again, this yacht club has no literature on the Trent canal; there is nothing available. Unless they ask for it, they do not get it. The commodore makes the following suggestions:
If facilities were available to provide water, power and ice at the docking locations adjacent to the locks, it would be a great assistance to boat owners. I would also recommend that additional dockage facilities be provided away from the locks on the various connecting lakes and rivers of the type that are maintained in the federal parks among the Thousand islands. This would permit boats to tie up and stay for 48 hours at a stretch.
I would also suggest that better facilities might be provided for tying up when it is necessary to wait for swing bridges.
Then he says in brackets:
This may not be a problem in the summer when the water level is not so high, but early in the year, when the current is swift, I found it a problem once or twice waiting for the bridge to open.
He goes on to say:
The most important recommendation I have to make is that the navigational buoys be numbered consecutively, as they are on most shipping channels. I discussed this briefly with the superintendent at Lakefield on my way down and he pointed out that one of their problems was the very large number of buoys that are used in this system. It may not be necessary to number all the buoys, but where there are several connecting channels, i.e., as through Stoney lake, it would be a considerable advantage to have the buoys marking the main route through the Trent numbered consecutively so that one is not led astray by channels marking routes to various summer resorts, etc.
There is also a fairly complete reply from the commodore of the bay of Quinte yacht club of Belleville. His suggestions are as follows:
Picnic and camping sites similar to those on the government islands in the St. Lawrence adjacent to Gananoque, chiefly for outboard boats.
Hydro plug-in on the docking areas above the locks. Most boats now require hydro to keep their television, refrigerators and electrical appliances in operation.
Those are just some of the replies which I received to this very brief questionnaire. It seems to me that if these canals are going to be kept in operation, and if it is considered that they are a tourist attraction of any kind at all-and I believe they are a tourist attraction-it would be worth while spending a few more dollars to make them more attractive to those people who want to use them.

As far as some of these services, such as hydro, water, and so on are concerned, I do not think we want to step on the toes of any of those people who might be operating marinas or duplicate services. I do not think we should interfere with them, but there are many places on the canal where there is no marina where these services are not available. I think the department could well make these services available in those places.
As I say, if it is worth while spending some money to keep these canals in operation, it would be worth while spending a few more dollars to provide facilities for the people who use them in the hope that more and more people will use the canals and it will help to develop a tourist industry in the area.
(Translation):


Mr. Racine:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take this opportunity to inform the minister of the situation which obtains in the area comprising the Beauce, Dorchester, Megantic, Compton and Frontenac counties.
As the minister is probably aware, this area is served by the Quebec Central Railway. I would not want my words to be construed as a charge against the minister, since my sole purpose is to bring the situation to the minister's attention and at the same time to the attention of the board of transport commissioners since they have jurisdiction over the railways.
There is no need for elaborate proof of the great importance of the area served by the Quebec Central Railway. It is therefore all the more surprising to see the board of transport commissioners tolerate the very poor service given there. The passenger service is a pity. There are not enough trains. There is also something detrimental to industry. It is common knowledge today that Quebec Central Railway is the property of the C.P.R. All freight carried over this line, for later transfer to the C.P.R. line, is subject to extra rates because of the transshipment from the Quebec Central to the C.P.R., so that shipping costs from this area are practically prohibitive, economically speaking, for customers of our industrial plants. Moreover, when placing their orders with manufacturers in our area, those customers now require that loadings be made at Quebec, Sherbrooke, or Lake Megantic, that is at points along the C.P.R.
Besides, as years go by, we have the impression that the Quebec Central is bent on closing all its stations along the line. Last year, for example, the station agent at St. Ephrem was replaced by a watchman, and the same thing will probably happen this year at the town of St. Victor.
Supply-Transport
The company complains and is always putting forward, before the transport board, the plea that it does not make the necessary turnover to maintain the service it was giving a few years ago. I rather think it is up to the company to give an adequate service if it wants to attract customers.
I intended to inform the minister of this particular situation. I am sure that the fact of having brought this point to the attention of the committee will help, or, at least, will result in the transport board being somewhat more careful when it has to reach decisions concerning the Quebec Central railway company.
I have every reason to believe that the minister, if he takes steps to improve the situation, will provide great economic assistance to a whole area stretching from Sherbrooke to Quebec, and from Quebec to lake Frontiere, in Dorchester county.
(Text):


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Chairman, may I also take this opportunity to congratulate the deputy chairman who was appointed today and offer the hope of a speedy recovery to the hon. member for Spadina whose illness necessitated the appointment being made.
I should like to associate myself with the remarks of the hon. member for Danforth. I, too, think that the criticism of Mr. Gordon is justifiable because of his overloading and arrogant attitude even at the House of Commons committee meetings. After speaking to many railway workers it became evident to me that he is almost inhuman and has the attitude of a dictator, thereby eliminating any aspect of human relationship with employees. May I suggest that Mr. Gordon be replaced by a president with foresight and the cause of humanity at heart.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Minister of Finance, for example.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 402 carry?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman. The
minister has undertaken, before proceeding with this vote, to deal with the many problems that have been raised and I am sure he wishes now to deal with them.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Laurier for his invitation.
I thought I should have the opportunity and pleasure of congratulating the new deputy chairman of the committee, but in view of his absence, I should like to offer him my co-operation through you, Mr. Chairman, and also congratulate him on his appointment. I should like at the same time to express my deep and sincere regret in regard to the ill-

Supply-Transport
ness of the hon. member for Spadina, and say that we are looking forward to seeing him back in this house as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, since the earlier discussion of item 1 of my estimates some weeks ago, a number of the questions raised in discussion have been answered either in part or completely by myself during orders of the day or during the debate in respect of various legislation which has been brought forward. I do not intend, therefore, to deal with those items which were raised during the earlier debate and which have been subsequently answered in this fashion, but will concern myself with the points which have not been dealt with. One of these has to do with the matter of aviation policy, raised by the hon. member for Laurier.
The general basis of policy regarding authorization of routes was outlined in the house by my predecessor. Any changes decided upon would be the subject of governmental announcement at the appropriate time. Perhaps I can best summarize the situation by quoting from a speech which I made to the air industries and transport association in Quebec on November 2, 1960, at which time I said:
Previously there had been an apparent objection in principle to the idea of competition itself. This position was modified and the government accepted the idea that there was no inherent objection to competition and, indeed, concrete advantages to be gained from competition, providing there was sufficient traffic to sustain it without harm to air services available to the travelling public. Therefore, with regard to scheduled and regular route services, the policy may be described as one in which the air transport board has the discretion to authorize competition where economic conditions warrant, but only where economic conditions warrant.
As I said earlier, this is the policy outlined by my predecessor, and the policy I expressed in the city of Quebec in November. That is the basis upon which the air transport board has been dealing with the various applications from various carriers in Canada.
An inquiry was made regarding current Canadian Pacific Air Lines applications and, if the hon. member will refer to page 4594 of Hansard of May 10, 1961, he will see that I dealt with this subject in the answers I gave at that time.
Reference was also made to the investigation of regional services and carriers being undertaken by the air transport board. I am fully aware of the problems facing regional air carriers, and the air transport board has been proceeding with its general review of this situation. My predecessor indicated earlier that the air transport board would make a complete report of the situation in respect of regional air carriers throughout Canada, beginning at the eastern seaboard.

The air transport board has been proceeding with this general review; the review is not taking the form of a single over-all report but involves a series of continuing investigations on a regional basis, the results of which, from time to time, may be implemented by air transport board decisions. It has completed its eastern hearings and I believe most of its central hearings, and will be proceeding with the western hearings very soon, I think some time this month. I am hopeful that during the coming months the situation in this regard will improve.
I was very pleased to see that the announcement I made a few days ago in regard to regional carriers was extremely well received by the press and by the industry itself. This board has considered the applications received from various carriers, and has made a review of the situation from the eastern seaboard to the city of Windsor, Ontario, to date.
In regard to the licensing of n on-scheduled charter services, it has been suggested that the policy which has provided for a more liberal granting of licenses for the operations of groups C and B chartered air services- that is those providing service by light to light medium size aircraft-was working to the detriment of the industry. I think those were the words used by the member for Laurier. In fact, however-I think this gives a good picture of the situation, or at least presents a very strong argument in favour of that policy which we have been following -the revenues of non-scheduled carriers in this class in 1960 were about $40 million compared with $29 million in 1959, and were up in all main categories.
Indications which were given by my predecessor to this house last year in regard to group C operators-that is the charter operators using very light aircraft-were that liberal granting of licences was resulting in the provision of a greater over-all service in Canada. What is not generally recognized is that the policy does provide for recognition of the fact that there may be occasions in remote northerly areas where exceptions to that policy may be justified. In such cases the air transport board has the discretion to make exceptions to the policy if necessary.
With regard to group B, charter operators -that is the operators of medium aircraft of, for example, the Beaver and Otter types -we have received representations to the effect that this policy needs some adjustment. Here again, initial results have indicated that the policy has produced more service. Overall charter revenues in 1960 have increased. However, it may be necessary to recognize some variations in conditions as between northern unsettled areas and settled areas of the country. My departmental officials have

informed representatives of the air industries and transport association that if they wish to make a careful and detailed study of this subject with a view to submitting representations and recommendations, I would be very glad to consider these to see whether an adjustment in this policy is needed. What is important to emphasize, however, is that any policy should recognize the desirability of avoiding extensive or excessive governmental regulations in this field.
We must not put the industry in a strait-jacket but at the same time we must offer to the Canadian public as much service as possible while making sure that this expansion in the number of carriers is not too sudden or rapid so as to wreck the whole industry. These are my answers to the various questions that have been asked on the aviation policy.
I should now like to go into the field of shipping policy. I was asked about the procedure we intend to follow in restricting our coasting trade in the great lakes area to ships of Canadian registry.
The commonwealth merchant shipping agreement provides for modification by agreement among the member states. It also provides for withdrawal on 12 months' notice. The length of time before change can be made depends upon the length of time required to reach agreement with member states on modification; or alternatively, if this is not possible, on the expiry of a 12 months' notice period. Since consultation through diplomatic channels always takes a little time, I cannot state with any certainty that this matter will have been cleared up to the point where the amendment to the Canada Shipping Act on this point could be introduced before the end of the present session, any more than I can state how long the present session is going to last. The amendment will be introduced at the first opportunity, as soon as our procedure has been determined after consultation with other member states. This we hope will be completed within three months. As I explained earlier, we are following article 25. I explained earlier in the house the difference betwen article 24 and article 25.


Lionel Chevrier: Articles 24 and 25 of the
agreement?


Léon Balcer: Yes. I was also asked questions regarding the position of Canadian operators who may have transferred great lakes vessels to other commonwealth registry. Once the modification has been made, such vessels will not be able to operate in the coasting trade in the great lakes unless they are again placed on Canadian registry. The operator will have to make application for return to 90205-6-382
Supply-Transport
Canadian registry in accordance with the terms of the Canada Shipping Act. Any such application, when received, will be dealt with upon its merits at the time.
I was also asked about the matter of Canadian content.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister permit me to ask one question on this subject which is of a good deal of concern to the people in the eastern provinces? Can the minister assure the committee that the reservation of the coastal trade to Canadian ships will not apply to ships plying from a point east of the great lakes-St. Lawrence region into the great lakes-St. Lawrence region; for example, a British ship from St. John's, Newfoundland to Montreal would have exactly the same rights as Canadian shipping under the new coastal policy?


Léon Balcer: I thought I indicated that earlier. I am glad to have the opportunity to repeat that a commonwealth ship operating from St. John's, Newfoundland to Montreal will be able to carry on in that trade. The new policy applies only to coastal trade between two Canadian ports inside the inland waters of Canada.


Lionel Chevrier: It does not affect international trade?


Léon Balcer: No, the coastal trade.
I was also asked about the matter of Canadian content. While this will be determined when the governor in council has approved the regulations, it is intended that the subsidy will apply to the total cost of the vessel but that some limitation will be placed upon the percentage of non-Canadian content to ensure that the great proportion of the vessel is of Canadian content. The exact percentage is still under technical study.
A question was asked regarding the relationship of the subsidy scheme to the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act. The provisions of this act relating to accelerated depreciation will continue to apply where operators wish to take advantage of them. Whether an operator will be allowed to take full benefit from the construction subsidy and also, simultaneously, all benefits available under the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act is a matter that is at present receiving study by financial experts, and, will also be dealt with when the regulations are issued.


Lionel Chevrier: May I interrupt the minister and ask a question. The minister says that this matter is under study, but the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act exists and therefore over and above the 40 per cent subsidy which the minister announced some

Supply-Transport
weeks ago the builder of the vessel will also be entitled to the 33 J per cent depreciation over a period of three years.


Léon Balcer: This is quite right, unless some restriction is included in the regulations and this is what we are discussing with the Department of Finance at the present time. We have no intention of amending the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps I can ask this question.


Léon Balcer: As far as the dual application of the subsidies and the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act is concerned, this will be covered by the regulations, and they will say, in such and such a case the subsidy will apply and in another case it will not.
Attention was also given to the procedure which we propose to follow in regard to the authorization of funds for the subsidies. The suggestion was advanced that I was acting improperly in relation to parliament in proposing to include only a $1 item in the supplementary estimates at this time, and that I was attempting to conceal the details of our policy. Nothing is farther from the truth, Mr. Chairman.
The purpose of including a $1 item in the estimates at this time was to allow parliament full opportunity to discuss the subject and to ask questions. After the policy has been in operation for a few months, it will be easier to assess the amount required in the first period of operation. It is more in accord with approval by parliament in the matter of subsidies if requests for funds in estimates are submitted to this house as actual contract details are worked out with applicants rather than sought in advance. This is the policy that, generally speaking, has been followed for many years with regard to coastal shipping subsidies, including the period of office of my hon. friends in opposition.
However, in view of the points that have been raised in the committee, I have discussed the matter further with my colleague the Minister of Finance and it has been decided to include in supplementary estimates for the present year a substantially larger amount to cover this program rather than wait for inclusion of an item in the final supplementaries next winter. I expect that the amount will be in the neighbourhood of $10 million to start with.


Lionel Chevrier: The supplementaries are already tabled.


Léon Balcer: I know. It will be $10 million. The problem is that it is virtually impossible at this stage to estimate how rapidly the program will begin to take effect; that is, how
[Mr. Chevrier. 1
rapidly the machinery can be established and arrangements made for applications to be received and processed; and how rapidly the shipping and the shipbuilding industry will themselves come forward with new projects. This is why the initial estimate to cover the first few months of the scheme is extremely difficult. At the present time a great deal of discussion is going on between the shipbuilders and the shipping companies. They are studying various plans, and so on. I can sympathize with both the shipbuilders and the shipping companies because they are quite anxious to see our regulations in order to start on their new projects.


Lionel Chevrier: So are we.


Léon Balcer: Every day we get inquiries-


Lionel Chevrier: So do we.


Léon Balcer: I can assure my hon. friends and the shipping and shipbuilding interests that we are rushing this matter as quickly as possible. The regulations are rather complicated. We are meeting with all kinds of technical difficulties but we are rushing the matter as quickly as possible and should be in a position to have these regulations ready in-


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the end of June?


Léon Balcer: I will have the draft regulations in my hands within the next two weeks and it is then just a matter of having the regulations approved by the governor in council. We are rushing the matter as fast as we can.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister has $10 million in the supplementary estimates. Could he say how soon he expects to provide the other $490 million that was promised by the member-elect for Esquimalt-Saanich before the by-election?


Léon Balcer: I have not met the member yet but I am very glad to learn that he has such tremendous confidence in our shipbuilding program. I would certainly be the happiest man in the world if we could build $500 million worth of ships in Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But you do not seriously expect it.


Léon Balcer: The figure seems rather large but I can tell the hon. member that if in the next ten years we simply replace all the ships we have and also provide for a modest increase the amount spent will probably run to $500 million. To come back to the figure of $10 million in the estimates, we had in mind possible figures, of course, with regard to ship construction under the new policy. Various formulae exist for relating expenditures on ship construction to employment and

no formula is completely accurate since this varies greatly according to size and type. The hon. member for Port Arthur advanced his own estimate which was, in fact, not too bad an effort. However, because of the normal time lag in getting a program of this sort under way, I would expect that the fullest effects of this policy would actually be achieved in 1962 and thereafter.
Reference was made to our relationship with the province of Quebec in the disposal of the Soulanges canal. There has been some misunderstanding on the part of the province.
I indicated my willingness to dispose of the whole canal to the province if no industrial concerns are interested in the potential industrial area in the vicinity of Cascades, but I felt that I should have a period of approximately one month to explore this possibility. We did not take action until we had heard from the province and there was a delay of some weeks before I received a reply from the appropriate provincial minister. However, this reply having been received, I am now exploring this possibility and have again informed the province that unless an opportunity for sale develops the whole canal property would be offered to the province; and, in any event, the balance of the property, composing by far the greatest portion of the canal area, more than ample for the purpose they have in mind, will be available to the province. I must say that we have already received some correspondence from a couple of industrial firms which have shown interest in the Cascades area, and we are investigating their offers at the present time.
Reference was also made to the development of a deeper waterway along the Chambly-Richelieu route. To clarify any misunderstanding, let me say that this project has not been rejected out of hand by the government. A communication was recently received through diplomatic channels from the United States authorities raising the question of whether a further reference on this matter should be made to the international joint commission, and this communication is now under interdepartmental consideration.
The hon. member for Burin-Burgeo raised a number of questions relating to marine activities in Newfoundland, and I will be very glad to study his requests. With regard to his query whether there is anything current in the matter of the project for establishing a free port area at Mortier bay, I can only state that I am not aware of any current review of this subject going on within my own department. He also asked about pilotage statutes in Newfoundland. The position is that the St. John's pilotage act remains in force until repealed and part VI of the 90205-6-382J
Supply-Transport
Canada Shipping Act proclaimed in its place. This has been considered but the timing has not been decided upon.
The hon. member for St. John's East asked about the ferry to eastern Newfoundland. Interdepartmental study of the special economic and technical report is almost completed. Report and recommendation to the minister are expected early this summer. The same member also asked about sailors' pay. The rates are set by the Department of Labour and treasury board. We favour a national, not a regional, approach, and recently this has been applied to the benefit of maritime sailors. Newfoundland rates are to be the subject of further study.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador asked about Gander airport. Landings were down last year very substantially but of recent weeks there has been an encouraging upward trend. He also asked about sealing vessels. We help them to get to open water but to take them into the ice is basically a dangerous and inefficient use of icebreakers. There is a great risk of the icebreakers getting stuck or frozen in themselves, and the task is far more slow and difficult than normal icebreaker convoy and harbour work.
The hon. member for Kootenay West asked about Wabush lake. Wabush lake is a 20-mile lake on the border of Labrador. The residue is overburden, that is, rock and soil primarily, and causes no harm to fish. The lake is several hundred miles from civilization in the northern Quebec-Labrador hinterland and does not represent a vacation or recreation area for any substantial population development at least for the present.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Surely the minister does not say that the Wabush lake area, where a vast industrial development is now taking place, is miles from civilization. Surely the minister will admit that there is a great civilization developing there.


Léon Balcer: I quite appreciate what my hon. friend says, but the point raised by the hon. member for Kootenay West was that we should reserve this lake for tourists, pleasure craft, swimming and so on. It is an extremely interesting industrial area and I look forward to visiting it, but I would not say that it is a great vacation spot or summer resort area.
The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville asked about rail service to Montreal international airport. There has been no direct reply from the railroads to the suggestion of a rail service to the Montreal international airport. It is a difficult and costly technical undertaking, we understand, since this really is an urban rapid transit system rather than a normal railway type operation. In cases where

Supply-Transport
this exists such as in Brussels, there is a special right of way and track solely for this purpose. The matter is still in the hands of the railways.
The hon. member for Laurier asked about the Warsaw convention on limitation of liability on international air services. The theory behind this convention is that below the limitation of liability figure it is made easier in the event of an accident to obtain damages from the air line but above that amount it is made more difficult. Below the limit the air line does not have certain defences available to it in law which otherwise it could apply against claims but, in return, damages higher than the limit need only be paid if gross negligence can be proven. The limit was established in the Warsaw convention over 30 years ago and, of course, which the changing value of currency, is worth far less than it was at that time. At the international conference at The Hague some years ago, the amount was substantially increased but The Hague protocol has not yet come into force.
My hon. friend recognizes that the previous administration did not take action to ratify The Hague protocol but now suggests the present government should do this. I am glad to be able to inform him that I have had actively under consideration for some time legislation to remedy this sin of omission on the part of our predecessors and I hope that at an early future session it will be possible to bring this forward for the consideration of the house.
The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, in commenting on aviation, made mention of space travel and satellites. The department is participating actively in programs relating to the civil use of space satellites. The first civil benefits of a substantial nature from space satellites will be in the fields of meteorology and communications. We are sending senior departmental technical engineers experienced in the field of communications to work with a special U.K. team in this field on a project in co-operation with the United States national aeronautics and space administration for trial development of space communications. In addition, we are actively in touch with the active program for the use of satellites in improved meteorological services and weather forecasting that is being developed in the United States. We have, at present, under active study both within the department and in consultation with the national research council and other interested Canadian agencies, the question of what further direct developments should be undertaken in Canada to ensure adequate participation in this field.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate raised the question of fishing vessels. The matter of coverage of fishing vessels in the regula-

tions in our shipping policy is under study by the Department of Fisheries. I think we can rely on the Minister of Fisheries to see that the coverage provided will be in the best interests of the fishing industry.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to get one
point clear from the minister, if I can. Does the minister mean by what he has just said that vessels under 45 feet in length will not be covered under his program, and that if anything is done it will be done by the Minister of Fisheries? Does he mean that these vessels will be covered, but under a different scheme?


Léon Balcer: I think my hon. friend misunderstood me. What we mean is that this section of the new regulations dealing with fishing vessels is under preparation by the Department of Fisheries. It will be included in the over-all regulations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That does not answer my one question. Is there any hope that vessels of less than 45 feet will be included in the program? That is the point I really want answered.


Léon Balcer: I do not want to amend what I said earlier, Mr. Chairman. I think I covered that point in my introductory remarks, and my hon. friend will have to be patient and wait for the regulations.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not seeking to acquire one, I can assure the minister, but there are a good many fishermen who are.


Léon Balcer: These regulations will come out pretty soon.
The hon. member for Port Arthur asked about the future growth of the air services branch of the department which, as he knows, includes civil aviation, telecommunications and meteorology. Projections of growth in numbers of personnel are subject to a wide margin of error because different assumptions have to be made, and in this particular case much will depend on the future rate of growth of aviation and communications in Canada. I would not be surprised, however, to see a growth of 35 per cent at the very least in numbers of personnel employed in the air services branch over the next five years.
The hon. member referred also to the reduced size of the department's annual report, and suggested that this was inconsistent with the growth of the department itself. In fact, the department puts out two annual reports. One, the shorter version, is entitled "Annual Report" which is intended for wide distribution and the other, a less expensive but much more lengthy volume, is entitled "Annual Record of Operations". This latter volume contains much more detailed information.

Both volumes have been tabled in this house. If there is a type of information which is missing, either from the shorter or lengthier volume, we would welcome suggestions in this regard.
Finally, the hon. member for Peterborough commented on the matter of water levels in the Trent canal. This is a very complicated subject in view of the different interests that have to be accommodated. I can assure him that no major changes in the present system of control would be undertaken without careful study and consultation; and that, at the present time, for this year we are not contemplating any major changes in the system of control previously followed, although representations suggesting changes are receiving study.
Of course, Mr. Chairman, I have not answered all the various questions that have been asked during the four or five days of discussion on the first item. As we go through the estimates and my officials are in front of me, I shall be very pleased to answer the various questions for hon. members. Before taking my seat, I want to thank all hon. members who have taken part in this discussion for their suggestions. I can assure them that all of these suggestions will be considered very seriously and I am hopeful that a number of them will be presented to the treasury board.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not want to delay this item, but I do not believe the minister dealt with one question which I put to him this afternoon. I refer to the president of the Canadian National Railways. I asked the minister whether or not it was the intention of the government, as announced by an hon. gentleman of the other place, to divide the activities relating to the direction of Canadian National Railways into two branches, namely policy and executive.


Léon Balcer: I am not criticizing any hon. member of the other place, because I believe the gentleman referred to is one of the finest members of the other place. However, my hon. friend knows quite well that the policy of the government is never made public by a member of the other place. I respect his opinion. However, so far as the chairmanship of this corporation is concerned, whenever any change or new policy is announced, it is always announced by a member of the cabinet.


Lionel Chevrier: I did not interrupt the minister while he was dealing with shipping policy. I have some questions on it which I will leave to a subsequent item when we get to it. However, there is one thing that I think he should answer before we get on
Supply-Transport
from item No. 1 and it is this. His announcement in the house with reference to the subsidy is quite clear. Having regard to that announcement, I think it is definite that if a shipbuilder wants to build a ship that would cost, say, $6 million he would be entitled to a federal subsidy of 40 per cent which would reduce the cost to $3,600,000. As the law now stands he is entitled, over and above that subsidy to the special or accelerated depreciation of 33J per cent under the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act over a period of three years which would reduce the cost by another $1,800,000. It therefore follows that a ship that normally costs $6 million could be depreciated and would cost the ship owner $1,800,000 at the end of the three year period. That is what I understand to be the case from the minister's announcement.


Léon Balcer: I think my hon. friend's example was quite correct. However, there are problems in tax law such as freedom from capture of depreciation. I think $1,600,000 was the amount mentioned.


Lionel Chevrier: The amount was $1,800,000.


Léon Balcer: This matter of freedom from capture of this depreciation is one which the tax officials have to clear up. That is what they are studying at the present time in relation to the subsidy.


Lionel Chevrier: Does the minister mean that regulations which he will bring down will alter the recapture position as contained under the Canadian Vessels Construction Assistance Act?


Léon Balcer: We are not going to alter the C.V.C.A.A. What we must decide is that the subsidy will apply in such and such circumstance or the subsidy will not apply in such and such circumstances. There is no need for an amendment to the C.V.C.A.A. at the present time. Following discussions my officials are having at the present time with the tax officials, this is the place where these provisions will be looked after, namely in the regulations, in the description of the subsidy and the various applications of the subsidy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Like my friend the hon. member for Laurier I do not intend to take up any time. However, I have a couple of questions which I do not think I can ask under any item except the first one. The first one is this. The minister told us that a study was going on with regard to a ferry to the east coast of Newfoundland. That study is apparently one of these perpetual things. It is not perpetual motion; it is apparently perpetual lack of motion. The leader of the Conservative party in the province of Newfoundland in the 1959 elections, which are now

Supply-Transport
nearly two years away, said that proposal was before treasury board at that particular time. I do not think any proposal in my recollection has ever been before treasury board for quite so long a time as that if the hon. gentleman, as all Conservatives do, was telling the truth to the electors at that time. It seems to me that it is about time the minister told us whether the government is or is not going to build a ferry to ply to the east coast of Newfoundland. There are problems as to what kind of ferry it will be and how long it will take to build, I admit. But is the government going to build the ferry or is it not going to build it? Surely the minister, after all this time, can answer that simple question.


Léon Balcer: I think the proposal was before treasury board but in a diiferent form and at that time it was turned down. However, a new and complete survey of the problem has been carried on. A full inquiry has been made and a report is practically ready now. I can assure my hon. friend that it will be before treasury board early in the summer and also that this ferry will be really established.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister think it will be ready in time for dissolution of this parliament or the next dissolution of the legislature of Newfoundland? That is the only time this question ever seems to be active.


Léon Balcer: We never set our time limit on points like that. We never think of these things.
Mr. pickersgill: It is like the $500 million for aid to shipbuilding in Esquimalt.


Léon Balcer: It was an advertisement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it was an advertisement from the Progressive Conservative association of which the hon. gentleman at one time was the honoured national head. However, as a matter of fact, as I was listening to my friend the hon. member for Laurier asking the question about the Soulanges canal and the minister replying to it and as I listened to the interesting speeches that were made this afternoon about another canal about which a friend of mine says that every time he crosses it he always takes off his hat to the taxpayers of Canada-and I refer to the Trent canal-I wondered whether the minister had ever given any consideration to giving the Trent canal to Mr. Frost in lieu of the $100 million that he is not getting from the Prime Minister.
The Trent canal, like the Soulanges canal, is no longer a commercial canal. In fact, it apparently never was a commercial canal. It seems to me that this canal would make a wonderful birthday present for Mr. Frost. It goes right through his constituency. If it is a

tourist attraction, it could be made into a provincial park and the federal treasury would be spared the expense of its upkeep. Mr. Frost could probably charge admission and get his $100 million in that way.


Lionel Chevrier: I have just one other question in connection with the shipping policy and the amendment to the British commonwealth merchant shipping agreement. From the statement made earlier by the minister it was not too clear that this would take some time. However, from what he said today it is now quite clear to me that it may be many months before it is implemented. The minister has probably seen the doubts thrown on the whole matter by a professor of Queen's University, I believe in Montreal. I refer to Professor H. J. Lawford. However, I do not intend to deal with that matter now. What I intend to deal with now is this. In the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of two or three days ago-I have just read it now and I have not it with me- there is to be found the statement that because of the amendment which will be made to the shipping policy and the extension of the restrictions on coastal trade, a British ship will now be able to move iron ore to an international port such as Cleveland, dump its load, go on to Duluth, take on grain and bring it down to a Canadian port either within the coastal limit referred to by the minister or outside it. I would like to know whether or not that is the case, because that is the affirmation in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. Is that correct?


Léon Balcer: Of course, this is an international voyage, and international voyages are not coastal voyages. The commonwealth merchant shipping agreement has nothing to do with international voyages.


Lionel Chevrier: I thank the minister for that answer. That was the understanding I had. However, the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix goes on to say that this is going to create a great hardship to Canadian ports such as Fort William and Port Arthur in that the tendency will be to go to Duluth, get the grain and bring it to a Canadian port, since they cannot go to Canadian ports such as Fort William, Port Arthur, the lakehead ports, either within the restricted coastal area or below it.
If that affirmation is correct, it is going to restrict Canadian trade rather than help it; and I take it from the minister's answer that my statement is correct.


Léon Balcer: Actually the tendency will be, I am quite sure, for Canadian grain to be carried in Canadian vessels. As I said earlier, my hon. friend is talking about an international voyage. I do not think it will have the effect he mentions, because we have been

asked time and time again by Canadian shipping companies to take this action, and from the reaction we received from them I am quite sure they look forward to a substantial increase in the carriage of grain from the lakehead down to the lower St. Lawrence ports such as Montreal, Three Rivers, Quebec, Baie Comeau and Seven Islands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue that point a little further. The minister says he has had a lot of requests from shipping interests. I should like the minister to produce the requests he has had from the farm organizations, because it is perfectly evident from what my hon. friend from Laurier said-and I must say I had not thought of it before he raised the point-that if the object of this restriction which the minister is proposing is to reserve the trade to Canadian vessels, it must be because the British vessels operate more cheaply.
What we may have in the future is a lower rate on grain from Duluth to Baie Comeau than we have from Fort William to Baie Comeau. That is going to be highly detrimental to the farmers of Canada and the ports at the lakehead, as the hon. member said.
I think the minister should reassure the committee immediately about what precaution the government intends to take to see that this does not happen.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend is placing this whole matter in very narrow perspective. He is dealing with all kinds of hypothetical effects of these regulations.
Let us not forget that these flags of convenience, for instance, have developed to the point where they have practically lost all national meaning. A great many Canadians are faced with unfair competition from people who have ceased to be truly British commonwealth citizens and corporations which have ceased to be truly British commonwealth corporations.
I just want to cite an example of how this matter has deteriorated. You may have a United States interest, for instance, which has a ship built in Holland, manned by a Greek crew, with Italian officers, and they register the ship in Bermuda and come and sail on the great lakes as a commonwealth ship.
I think there is unfair competition because of these flags of convenience. This situation was really becoming a danger to shipping and shipbuilding interests and I think it is absolutely proper that Canadian inland waters should be reserved for Canadian ships.
Practically all the trading nations in the world do this. When one studies the various
Supply

Transport
restrictions to protect national waters in all countries of the world one sees that the Canadian regulations are very far from being protectionist in the way my hon. friend suggests.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was considering this from the point of view primarily of the wheat farmers. If we are going to have to pay a higher freight on wheat from Fort William to Baie Comeau or Montreal than the rate that is established by international competition from Duluth to Montreal or Baie Comeau, the minister is certainly going to hear about it everywhere from Winnipeg to the Rockies and into the Peace river bloc; he should make no mistake about it. If the minister is looking at this in terms of votes, there are far more voters in all that area than there are in the interests that he is talking about.
I am not saying anything one way or the other about the question of whether or not these waters should be reserved exclusively for Canadian ships. I do know that if we are going to sacrifice our market for wheat in the United Kingdom, or any large part of it, it is going to be too big a price to pay for this policy. However, it is a big question that will have to be debated when the matter comes before us in the proper way and I am not seeking to do it now.
It is not an academic question; it is the most practical question possible. If you ask any western farmer, the one reason for his enthusiasm for what my hon. friend for Laurier did in getting the St. Lawrence seaway built was that it would give us cheaper transportation for our wheat to the markets of the world and put us in a more competitive position. It was not that the cost of transportation would go up so that all that advantage would be lost. If the advantage is going to be lost and a competitive advantage is going to be given to the United States wheat growers, it will certainly be a sad day for us in this country. That is what this editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix seems to suggest, as the hon. member for Laurier so accurately pointed out.
Of course we would rather see Canadian carriers carry the wheat if they will carry it at the same price, and the minister ought to tell us what precautions the government is going to take to see that they keep their prices down to the same level as British carriers or foreign carriers from Duluth to Baie Comeau for carrying wheat. Otherwise we are going to have a storm on the prairies the like of which we have not seen for some time.


Léon Balcer: Ever since this policy was announced we have received absolutely no indication from any shipping company that

Sup p ly-Transport
there was any intention of increasing these rates. What our shipping people were trying to get was the volume of shipping that was going to other shipping lines.
We have good ships here and we intend to build more. I think shipping companies, especially with the advantage they have at the present time with the subsidies and the closing of the inland waters, will be in a very good position to give excellent rates to shippers from the west.
Let us not forget that the shipping subsidy and the shipbuilding subsidy of 40 per cent is quite a great help to Canadian shipping on the great lakes and in the inland waters. There is absolutely no reason why Canadian shipping companies, with this kind of advantage, should increase rates for the transport of grain.


Lionel Chevrier: May I just briefly pursue one other matter connected with an answer the minister made earlier respecting Canadian ships operating under United Kingdom flag? The minister will remember that at one time there were close to 100 such ships operating under U.K. flag. However, I believe now there are only some 25. The minister indicated that in order to benefit or take advantage of the new shipping policy of the government those ships would have to re-transfer to the Canadian flag. I should like to ask what advantage there will be to those ships if they are transferred to the Canadian flag? My purpose in raising this question is that while there will be a subsidy of 40 per cent given to a Canadian shipbuilder this will not in any way assist the operation of the vessels. In other words, I am trying to say that the 40 per cent subsidy is only one step toward the equalization of costs among Canadian, U.K. and continental or European operators. Unless some enticement or assistance is given to that type of ship, what incentive now exists in the retransfer of those ships to the Canadian flag? What this all boils down to is, what assistance is being given under this policy to deep-sea operators?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, they may not want to come back under the Canadian flag, but if they intend to engage in coastal trade or trade on inland waters they must be under Canadian registry. As an example, I should perhaps refer to the Cloverdale of the Canadian Steamship Lines which was transferred to Bermudian registry. If the Clover-dale is to carry on with its work on the great lakes it will have to come back under Canadian registry.
As far as other ships at the present time under foreign registry and engaged in world trade are concerned, this new policy may not

be advantageous to them. Those ships have already been built, so there is no question of construction subsidy involved. I do not think it would be of advantage perhaps to those ships to come back to Canadian registry. However, there is a definite advantage for lakers and ships of that kind, engaged in coastal and inland waters trade, to come back to Canadian registry if they intend to carry on with that type of trade.


Lionel Chevrier: Well, are there any lakers which have transferred to outside registry? I was under the impression that all lakers, with the exception of the Cloverdale and perhaps one other, operated under Canadian registry. I should like to tell the minister that the Cloverdale, I am informed, transferred to the Bermudian flag for one purpose only, and that was in connection with income tax. I am sure the minister is aware of that fact. Does the minister know of any lake ships that have transferred out of Canadian registry into other registry other than the Cloverdale?


Léon Balcer: I am informed that there are quite a number of old United States lakers that have been placed under Nassau registry so they can carry on coastal and inland waters trade in Canada, and those ships will not be allowed to carry on with this type of trade if they do not register in Canada. If they do not carry a Canadian registry they will have to get out of coastal and inland waters trade.


Lionel Chevrier: There would be no advantage whatever to any laker that is presently under U.S. registry to change because the cost of operation is even higher there than in Canada.


Léon Balcer: The ships to which I have referred are old United States vessels purchased by individuals and placed under Bermudian registration, and are plying the great lakes at the present time with a commonwealth flag, engaging in trade from one Canadian port to another. These ships will not be allowed to continue to do that unless they come back to Canadian registry.


Lionel Chevrier: I understand that, and thank the minister for his answer, but it did not deal with the first part of my question. The minister has shifted the subject by his answer. The purpose of my first question was in regard to what incentive there was to Canadian ships operating under the United Kingdom flag, to come back to the Canadian flag as a result of the new shipping policy?

Supply-Transport


Léon Balcer: There is none except to those broadcasting committee, I have been informed ships which intend to engage in coastal and that the minister did not reply. I wonder if inland water trade in Canada.	he could do so now?


Mr. McPhillips:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words in regard to the payment of salvage subsidies. There is an item in the estimates regarding salvage subsidy which has been paid and is to be paid to the marine foundation of Montreal in respect to a stand-by salvage craft on the Atlantic coast. At one time there was a stand-by salvage craft on the Pacific coast. It was in existence there for some 50 to 60 years. However, the previous Liberal government, with its contemptuous disregard for the Pacific coast of this nation, terminated its operation and now there does not exist such a stand-by craft.
Canada is a maritime nation. I am sure ship operators approaching the Atlantic coast of our nation take a great deal of comfort in the fact that there is a stand-by salvage craft there. Many tons of ocean shipping approach the Pacific coast of Canada and enter the ports of Vancouver and Victoria, which receive approximately 10 million tons of ocean shipping per year, to say nothing of the great ports of New Westminster, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Tahsish and Chemainus. I suggest the minister should rectify this rotten act performed by that Liberal government. The Liberal government, during its entire term in office, treated the Pacific coast of this nation with contemptuous disregard. The only thing one can find that was built by the Liberal government on the Pacific coast is Lapointe pier, which Uncle Ernest built as a monument to himself. I should like to ask the minister to put this matter right, and to provide proper subsidies in regard to a salvage stand-by craft for operation on the Pacific coast of this nation.


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, I referred to a matter of pensions to 75 employees of the Canadian National Railways whose services are being terminated in the Niagara area because the C.N.R. is selling its franchise and equipment there. Could the minister deal with that subject now, or should I refer to it during the consideration of a particular item?


Léon Balcer: I do not have the answer to that question at the present time, but I will supply it before we conclude our consideration of these estimates.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Chairman, I also asked several questions of the minister. While I have been away attending the meeting of the


Léon Balcer: I do have an answer in regard to the last question asked by the hon. member for Gloucester, which dealt with airport grants to the municipalities of Gloucester and Restigouche. The municipality must provide the land and agree to operate the field. The field must be technically satisfactory, and the departmental officials must make a traffic study in order to satisfy themselves that the traffic potential for local use exists. Once the officials have been satisfied in regard to these principles, the department makes a recommendation to the treasury board in respect of a federal grant to a maximum of $100,000 on a dollar-for-dollar cost-sharing basis. These projects in respect of both municipalities are now under study.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I understood the minister had made a statement in Dalhousie, New Brunswick, on May 12, in which he said the land had already been purchased and the airport would be built. This does not seem to be in accord with what he is saying now. He says it is under consideration. According to the reports in the press, he made the statement then that the land had been purchased and that the airport would be built.


Léon Balcer: It is easy to see that my hon. friend was not there when I made the statement. Of course, I did not expect him to be there at that time. What I said precisely was that the department had various systems of aid for municipally owned airports and that I met with the people in Dalhousie and explained to them that this type of airport required to be approved by the department. I also explained that if the municipality would buy the land we would meet every dollar that would be expended by the municipality on a dollar for dollar grants basis. Preliminary reports indicate that it is a very good location. Of course, they have not bought the land yet. Also, there has not been a complete survey from the Department of Transport relating to traffic possibilities and technical aspects of the location. I assure the people that if the municipality is ready to do its share for an airport we will do our part, and the department will share in the building of that airport dollar for dollar.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I accept the minister's statement now. According to his statement, I must agree with the minister that he had been misquoted.

Supply-Transport


Mr. Carter:: Will the minister clarify the asssistance program for fishing vessels? Will this assistance be made available for new ships built to increase the fishing fleet, or only for new ships built to replace old fishing vessels?


Léon Balcer: I understand the interest of my hon. friend in these matters but, as I explained earlier, the regulations are being drafted at the present time. The section that deals with fishing vessels is being prepared by the Department of Fisheries. It will be part of the regulations which will be tabled as soon as they are passed by the governor in council. As I said earlier, I expect to be in a position to have these regulations ready for approval by the governor in council in a period of approximately two weeks.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I follow up the question of my hon. friend from Burin-Burgeo. The minister will recall that his statement was quite categorical on this point. His statement said that the assistance applied to vessels to replace existing fishing vessels. It did not say anything about a fisherman who had no vessel at all and wanted to build one. Is the minister now telling us that under this policy those vessels will also be considered?


Léon Balcer: Well, I do not want to add anything to the statement I made at that time. I do not remember exactly the wording of the statement, but I do not want to give misinformation to my hon. friend. I refer him to the statement I made on May 12. If any changes are made in the policy expressed in that statement they will be minor changes. I would ask my hon. friend to be patient for a couple of weeks and he will have the answer to his question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, we have been patient about this policy of the minister since last November. It now appears that the policy is not very much further advanced than it was last November. The minister rushed in here on May 12 and made a statement which was certainly blown up by his friends on Vancouver island into a $500 million program, about which the minister cannot tell us today whether a fisherman who does not own a vessel but would like to have one, can get any aid at all. The minister's statement was clear enough on that. In his statement on May 12 the minister said it was only to replace existing vessels. If anybody wanted to build a new vessel and did not have one already what would he do? The minister says that there are going to be minor changes. Surely it is a major change if

you are going to have the same assistance given to people who had not previously owned vessels. I do not know why the government would want to create a privileged class of those who already have draggers or trawlers as against other Canadians who surely have an equal right to consideration in this matter. Surely on a point as fundamental as this the government has made up its mind as one would expect of, to quote the Minister of Finance, any "normal" government.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, my only answer to the question of the hon. gentleman is to refer him to what I said on May 12. My statement stands as it was made at that time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One further question. Are South African ships still regarded as commonwealth ships?


Léon Balcer: This is a matter on which external affairs has not yet informed us.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say how the department is treating South African ships in lake Ontario and lake Erie at the present time, if indeed there are any South African ships to be treated there? I do not know, South Africa may not be any more a maritime nation than Canada is. If there are any South African ships, how have they been treated since May 31?


Léon Balcer: We will deal with the problem when it arises. As of today, I am informed by the officials of the department that no South African ships are in the great lakes.


John Whitney Pickersgill: None?


Léon Balcer: Not so far as we know.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the position under the commonwealth merchant shipping agreement? Does there not have to be some negotiation between the two governments because as it is now, I take it, a South African ship is no longer a British ship? There are unquestionably South African ships which move in and out of the seaway. They have moved in the past and they will in the future. What is the position of the Department of Transport with relation to those ships now?


Léon Balcer: The fact that the Union of South Africa has become a republic has certainly created certain problems, and this is a matter that is being investigated at the present time by the expert on external affairs.


Lionel Chevrier: What about your experts?


Léon Balcer: Well, my experts do not deal with these matters of international complications, and the various problems created by one country of the commonwealth becoming a republic is I think a little outside the scope of the Department of Transport.


Mr. Morris:: Mr. Chairman, before the encompassing first item which covers a multitude of transport matters passes the committee, I should like to make a few observations about transport policy, particularly as that policy has affected in the past and in its ramifications in the future will affect Atlantic coast ports. I do this because earlier in the debate and, indeed, earlier today reference was made in discussion of the first item to the position of the Atlantic ports of Halifax and Saint John. To introduce what it is I wish to say I should like to quote from the earlier debate on item one on the 13th of May as found on page 4773 of Hansard. The hon. member for Port Arthur is reported as having said:
We know that there are now icebreakers and mechanical devices which can keep the port of Montreal open for almost the whole of the year. We also know that this is a delicate political problem because it is going to have its repercussions and its effects upon Halifax and Saint John. Yet I had a figure given to me by a man who is very prominent in shipping.
I would interject here that the hon. member did not give us any further information about this individual prominent in shipping, nor do we have his name. The hon. member went on to say:
He pointed out to me that the average saving per ton on freight coming through Halifax and Saint John in the winter as against that coming through Montreal is $12 a ton in favour of Montreal. One only has to look at the amount of freight coming through the two maritime ports in order to realize that we are in effect subsidizing the Atlantic ports by not pushing very strongly a policy to open up Montreal to winter shipping.
If I heard the hon. member right, earlier today on the discussion of this first item he advocated, in conjunction with the hon. member for Peterborough, a long look at a new transportation policy for Canada which would be based on cost. I am one of those who are perplexed by the advocates of socialism in the house who are everlastingly asking the government to become involved in a wider range of governmental activity and who suddenly become pure when it comes to a matter which affects promises given to regions of this country. My constituents would feel that I was remiss if I did not mention in the house on this first item a matter which is of
Supply-Transport
great importance at each year's sitting of the House of Commons to the ports of Halifax and Saint John.
I have brought into the chamber this afternoon a copy of the British Colonist, a newspaper published in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Thursday morning September 15, 1864. Hon. members will perhaps permit me one minute's recollection to establish why it seems to me to be important to quote this newspaper on this first item today. Why September 15, 1864? Well, this newspaper the British Colonist reports on its first two pages-members will be interested to know that this was a phonographic report-an account of a dinner given in honour of the delegates from Canada, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island by the delegates of the province of Nova Scotia, a dinner held in the Halifax hotel in connection with the conference on colonial union.
Hon. members will recall that it was the last evening in the month of August, 1864, that the Canadian government steamship, Queen Victoria, which some Prince Edward Islanders jocularly called the confederate cruiser, sailed into Charlottetown harbour. There was a group at the harbour that evening but history records that the islanders had not come to the harbour to see John A. Macdonald and the other delegates but to see the first circus in Prince Edward Island in 21 years. Indeed, there was a little trouble with lodgings in Charlottetown. John A. Macdonald never slept in Charlottetown. He slept on board ship in the harbour.
On Thursday, September 8, the delegates held a ball in Charlottetown and the following morning, when the meteorological and other fog had cleared away, they set sail from Charlottetown and went to Pictou, Nova Scotia.


Mr. MacEwan:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Leverett Morris: The hon. member for Pictou applauds, as he fittingly should, for that charming community 100 miles from Halifax. There at Pictou some of the colonial delegates left the ship and went overland to Halifax. The others, John A. Macdonald included, remained on board the ship. The Minister of Transport might be interested to know that transportation in Nova Scotia in those days was in that high degree of refinement as a result of which the party that went overland arrived in Halifax after the ship which had circumnavigated half of the province.

Supply-Transport
On Saturday, September 10,	1864, the
colonial delegates met in the Halifax hotel. At ten o'clock in the morning the maritime delegates met and then, as now sometimes, could not agree among themselves. Within an hour the doors were opened and all the delegates from all the colonies resumed their plenary session. At 1.30 p.m. on Saturday, September 10, in Halifax the decision was taken to go to Quebec 30 days hence on the 10th of October. The following Monday, September 12, a great dinner celebrating the decision to proceed to the Quebec conference was held in the Halifax hotel. It is this newspaper which is the only extant report of what was said on that memorable night in Canadian history on which a great ball was held in the Halifax hotel celebrating the decision taken in that same hotel on the preceding Saturday that led to the Quebec conference and so to confederation.
These speeches are inherent in the heart of every resident of the maritime provinces. What was said that night is a part of the upbringing of every resident of our provinces. What was said? I quote from the newspaper itself which I have brought to the house. This great dinner was chaired by Sir Charles Tup-per, one of three illustrious Nova Scotians who have filled the chair of prime minister of Canada since confederation. Tupper introduced the speakers and Sir Georges Etienne Cartier, as he was to become, and then attorney general for Canada East, said among other things:
I have heard since I have been in Halifax the objection thrown out that there is much danger that you would be absorbed.
That is to say, by union or confederation.
It will be very easy for me to dispel such fears. I answer them by a question. Have you any objection to be absorbed by commerce? Halifax, through the intercolonial railroad, will be the recipient of trade which now benefits Portland, Boston and New York. If you are unwilling to do all in your power to bring to a satisfactory consummation this great question, you will force us to send all this trade which you ought to have through American channels.
I interject here that last year more than $400 million of Canadian imports and exports left Canada for foreign destinations or entered Canada from foreign lands via United States ports.
It is as evident as the sun shines at noon that when the intercolonial railway is built-and it must necessarily be built if confederation takes place-the consequence will be that between Halifax and Liverpool there will be steamers almost daily leaving and arriving at the former-in fact it will be a ferry between Halifax and Liverpool.

The phonographic report says that this was followed by cheers. We have not seen the ferry between Halifax and Liverpool as yet, but we would like to see it. Later in the same evening, the Hon. George Brown spoke in the Halifax hotel. The British Colonist reports him as having said, among other things:
But far in advance of all other advantages-
That is to say, of colonial union.
-would be this, that union of all the provinces would break down all trade barriers between us, and throw open at once to all a combined market of four millions of people. You in the east would send us your fish and your coal and your West India produce, while we would send you in return the flour and the grain and the meats you now buy in Boston and New York.
Then, Sir John A. Macdonald spoke, the father of confederation and Canada's first prime minister. This is what he said on that memorable evening:
I will not continue to detain you at this late period of the evening, but will merely say that we are desirous of a union with the maritime provinces on a fair and equitable basis; that we desire no advantage of any kind; that we believe the object in view will be as much in favour as against these maritime colonies-


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Would the hon. member say from what document he is reading?


Edmund Leverett Morris: I am quoting, as I earlier said, but evidently the hon. gentleman did not hear, from the British Colonist, a tri-weekly newspaper, published at Halifax, Nova Scotia, on Thursday, September 15, 1864. This edition records speeches made in celebration of the decision to advance to confederation. I was quoting from a speech made by Sir John Macdonald, and I continue:
In the case of a union, this railway must be a national work, and Canada will cheerfully contribute to the utmost extent in order to make that important link without which no political connection can be complete.
What will be the consequences to this city, prosperous as it is, from that communication? ... Build this road and Halifax will soon become one of the great emporiums of the world. All the great resources of the west will come over the immense railways of Canada to the bosom of your harbour.
Then, what did the Hon. Mr. Galt say on that evening in Halifax? He said:
If we are united we must have an intercolonial railway. I am an advocate of this great work, and it becomes an absolute necessity if a union of these provinces is to take place at all. . . But the railway is not to be looked upon as a question of cost, but as a bond of union, that will unite us in peace and in time of need.
Mr. Chairman, I cite these great utterances from our past, from a memorable night in the history of Canada, because these

speeches inhabit the minds and hearts of the people of the maritimes. When we hear, on the eve of the eruption of a new political party in Canada those who have espoused all sorts of government activity come into the house and say, stop all your activities when it comes to the maritimes, stop at the ports, then we say that purity ought to begin at some other place. The railway which linked us, without which there could have been no union and without us there could have been no union, was not built as an economic operation. It was built as a bond of union.
Lest any member of the committee think I am being partisan in my attitude, let me quote from a gentleman who did not adopt our philosophy. I refer to the Right Hon. Sir Wilfrid Laurier who, on July 30, 1903, while prime minister, moved in this chamber for leave to introduce a bill to provide for the construction of a national transcontinental railway. Hon. members will find in Hansard of that date, column 7671, the following words attributed to him:
Let me observe that if we have used American ports, it is not because for five months in the year our own ports are icebound. Everybody knows that our ports in winter are just as open as the American harbours. Everybody knows, except Mr. Andrew Carnegie and the bulk of American public opinion, that if we have used American ports and the bonding privilege, it was not because our harbours were icebound in winter, but simply because we had no railways to reach them. In the face of this, are the Canadian parliament and people going to stand on their manhood and place us in such a position that at all times of the year, not only by one railway, but by two or more, we shall have access from January to December to our own harbours, and be able to say to our American neighbours:	"Take off your bonding
privilege whenever it suits you, we are commercially independent."
Well, that is what the leader of the Liberal party said, the only reason we were not making use of the ports on a twelve months' basis was that we did not have railway connections to them.
The Hon. W. S. Fielding, a distinguished Nova Scotian and later minister of finance, said, as reported at column 8557 of Hansard for August 12, 1903, during the same debate on the bill to provide for the construction of an international transcontinental railway:
With this road built, instead of being dependent on the Canadian Pacific Railway only, Saint John will have two strings to its bow.
Not a pound of traffic that goes to St. John now will be taken away, and St. John will stand its chance of getting a fair share of the new traffic to be created by this road. Halifax, with its peerless harbour, will have advantages which it has not hitherto enjoyed. Surely, sir, the time has come after years of deception, humbugging and trickery about the lines to the maritime prov-
Supply-Transport
inces, that faith should be kept with these people, and that they should have a through line running on Canadian territory from ocean to ocean.
It is interesting to note that in the preamble of chapter 71 of the acts of 1903 which followed that debate, the object of that national transcontinental railway is cited as being to secure the most direct and economical interchange of traffic between eastern Canada and the provinces west of the great lakes-and I stress this-and to develop commerce through Canadian ports.
Finally, I quote from the Statutes of Canada, 1955, chapter 29, section 21. In this act the term "national railways" is defined as a phrase which comprises the Canadian government railways, Canadian national railways and all the companies, not in Canada, mentioned or referred to in the first schedule of the act. Section 21 of that act which is on the statute books of Canada states:
The board of directors shall so direct, provide and procure that all freight destined for export by sea that is consigned within Canada for carriage to national railways either at point of origin or between that and the sea shall, unless it has been by its shippers specifically routed otherwise, be exported through Canadian seaports.
That is what we want on the east coast. We should like to say that one of the problems on which we in the maritimes are trying to formulate our thoughts and on which we feel we can usefully request federal action concerns the ports, particularly Halifax and Saint John. We have brought into the Canadian confederation two and more of the finest harbours in the world. These harbours are well served by inland and ocean transport lines. Our ports of Halifax and Saint John represent an investment of many millions of dollars on the part of the federal government and its agencies. That investment has been made and continues to increase in order to provide all of Canada with the outlet to the sea on her Atlantic coast which was promised us and which has been promised us through the years.
It is a well known fact that this investment at Halifax and Saint John lies virtually fallow during the season of navigation in the St. Lawrence river. The ports of Halifax and Saint John spring to life only when the winter ice has barred access to the inland waterway routes. It would be ideal to us if a way could be found to keep our waterfronts in Halifax and Saint John busy all year round. It is all the more important that these ports be utilized to the fullest extent possible during the short months in which they are Canada's only ice free outlets on the Atlantic ocean. Instead of this utilization, what have we found in the

Supply-Transport
past? We have found very substantial quantities of cargo imported and exported via United States ports, last year some $450 million worth.
The Minister of Transport will know that I have been in communication with him both by letter and verbally. I readily accept the proposition that the figure of $400 million is greatly distorted by one commodity, namely oil passing through a pipe line from Montreal to Portland, Maine. But even the remaining portion of this business would provide great employment for our people and a marked improvement in the Atlantic provinces' economy. Hundreds of millions of dollars in inland transportation charges and labour costs, and port service charges flow into the United States instead of staying in this country where they could contribute additionally to the prosperity of our people.
I venture the opinion that we in the Atlantic provinces are disturbed at this flow of Canada's foreign trade through other than our own ports. We are not chauvinistic in the maritime provinces. We were two of the original four in confederation. We do not insist that all import and export traffic be routed only through Canadian ports. We do not urge that all traffic move via our harbours. However, we feel that we can insist and urge that companies which derive their prosperity from the Canadian market and from national legislation should make a special effort to ship their import and export cargoes through our Canadian ports. We de not believe we can rely on such slogans as "Ship via Canadian Ports" alone. Every ship that enters or leaves a port in the Atlantic provinces means dollars and jobs for the people of these provinces.
In a recent study prepared by the port of New York authority it was estimated that that great port supported one out of every four of its 13 million people who live in the port area. We do not have similar statistics relating to Halifax and Saint John but, if we had them, no doubt they would not show any marked or significant difference.
Our ports now provide a multitude of jobs in a variety of fields. Men who are actively engaged in ocean, coastal and local water transport derive their livelihood in large part at the expense of our harbours. Thousands who perform services such as stevedoring, cargo checking, marine salvage, dock and waterfront terminal operations are completely dependent on our ports. Government employees such as those in customs, immigration, harbour maintenance and administration, and of most of the firms which supply goods and services to the vessels, all live on the prosperity of our ports. The combined earnings alone of the longshoremen and freight

handlers, watchers and checkers at Halifax and Saint John average $10 million annually. If we use the principle of free economic generation by which every dollar earned generates or creates at least $2 of additional income, we have nearly $30 million worth of income from these two ports.
We are therefore hopeful that, when port delegations representing the ports of Halifax and Saint John wait upon the Minister of Transport, as he has graciously agreed to allow them to do on June 26, there will be found a way to recapture part of the great volume of goods now passing in and out of Canada by other than our ports. This would be of assistance not only to the ports of Halifax and Saint John but to the entire economy of the Atlantic provinces and would keep faith with the pledges made to us throughout the years preceding and following confederation.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: It is not my intention to delay the passing of the first item, Mr. Chairman. However, the fact that the hon. member for Halifax found it possible to speak for nearly 30 minutes about the great politicians of the nineteenth century causes me to have less hesitation about asking a question of a politician of the twentieth century. My question is this. Will the minister inform me whether he has received from the chamber of commerce of Kapuskasing an invitation to visit Kapuskasing and the airport there? If so, can he say whether he expects to be able to find time to go there? I can assure him that he will be well received. Moreover, he can go there in safety with the planes of the Department of Transport. I can assure him that they will find it easy to land there.


Léon Balcer: I have received an invitation that I was obliged to turn down earlier in the year. However, I certainly look forward greatly to this visit to one of the most interesting parts of Canada. I shall be pleased to get together with my hon. friend.


Walter George Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I did want to make some remarks as a result of the most amazing speech made by the hon. member for Halifax. I thought we were hearing the voice of Joseph Howe coming back to us again in this chamber; that is, Joseph Howe when he was leading the anti-confederates and before he came to his senses in 1870 and joined the federal cabinet. Evidently the hon. member for Halifax has not yet come to his senses in this regard.
The hon. member for Port Arthur did not in any way suggest that the port of Halifax should be abandoned. What the hon. member for Port Arthur suggested was that we need a complete transportation policy based upon

cost and service. I was sitting right next to the hon. member for Port Arthur, so I think I heard him accurately.
Service certainly means service to all Canadians, including those in Halifax. We are asking for a pattern which will allow a place for the port of Halifax, and surely the hon. member would not suggest that we are going to find such a place by holding back the clock, simply by spending money on transportation for coming to the port of Halifax at a cost of $12 a ton over the cost of going to another port. I would say this would be a disservice to Halifax and to all Canadians. If we carried this to its logical conclusion we would end all progress completely. This problem can be approached another way.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Order.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, could we pass the first item and carry on with the hon. member's remarks after supper?


Lionel Chevrier: We are quite agreeable to that.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 402
carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Deputy Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
(Translation):
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that when the house joined the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate, His Honour has been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the royal assent to certain bills.
(Text):
An act to amend the Freight Rates Reduction Act.
An act to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1962.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
Supply-Transport AFTER RECESS
The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m.
Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, since the supplementary estimates were tabled today, I wonder whether the committee would agree to taking up the supplementary estimates at the same time as the main estimates are being discussed? Every time we reach an item in the main estimates that corresponds to an item in the supplementary estimates the supplementary estimate could be taken up following the study of the main estimate.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no objection on this side.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Since we wish to co-operate, there will be no objection from this group.


Gordon Campbell Chown: I gather from the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Kootenay West that unanimous consent is given to consider the main estimates and the supplementary estimates simultaneously.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gordon Campbell Chown: The supplementary estimate to vote 402 is vote 583.
583. Departmental administration, further amount required, $47,585.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have one question to ask the minister with respect to this administrative item. The minister appoints individuals as agents of the Department of Transport, employees of other departments such as the Department of Public Works, who would be engaged in looking after wharves, docks, dredges and things of that sort. What arrangements are made between the minister's department and the other department? Does the Department of Transport stand responsible for any of the actions of its agents appointed in that way, in the performance of their duties?


Léon Balcer: If an agent is acting in the name of the Department of Transport we would be responsible.


Walter George Pitman: When we were summoned to the other place, I was making a few comments on the remarks made by the hon. member for Halifax. I should like to take two or three moments of the committee's time to complete my remarks because I think they will be germane to this particular item. The committee will recall that the hon. member for Halifax made a gallant plea on behalf of his port. He is to be congratulated for this. However, in making his plea he completely misinterpreted the statement of the hon. member for Port Arthur and of myself. I would suggest this speech should have been made

Supply-Transport
certainly before the building of the St. Lawrence seaway and perhaps it should even have been made at the colonial office in the early 1800's before the St. Lawrence canal was begun. I am sure the hon. member for Halifax realizes that in 1961 no group in the nation can be served if it means holding back progress. The challenge of the 1960's is surely that of the government making sure that progress is not syonymous with economic injustice. What we in this corner want is a national transportation policy which will find a place for Halifax but a proper place for it.
I would ask the hon. member what he would do if, for example, technological development gave us the opportunity to keep the St. Lawrence open all year? Would he suggest that the government ignore it? Would he suggest that they hide it and thus bring about millions of dollars in additional costs for people bringing goods in through the port of Halifax? The hon. member rather sneeringly calls us socialists but in his plea for the survival of Halifax as a major port he gave the most eloquent explanation of socialism that I have heard since I arrived in this house. He called not upon the industrialists or merchants to send their goods through Halifax. He called upon the government to come in and redress the balance. Surely if the normal measuring stick of free enterprise, that of profit, is to be utilized, the hon. member is telling us virtually that by that yardstick goods would go through United States ports and certainly through the St. Lawrence seaway but he wants the government to come in and redress the balance. Evidently that is his idea of what free enterprise actually means.
What he is really saying is that there is no free enterprise and, of course, he is absolutely right. We live in a mixed economy based on subsidies. The coal miners of Cape Breton and the port of Halifax are subsidized. The wheat farmers are subsidized. We in eastern and central Ontario are subsidized by tariffs and so on. What we want is a planned approach which takes the whole business of subsidization out of this ad hoc unplanned political hocus-pocus which it is certainly in today. If it is costing us more to use the port of Halifax, the hon. member suggests that we should try to find some way to increase the cost.
This is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Trade and Commerce speaking. Has he not been talking to his minister during this current session, the minister who has been reading us lectures across the floor that we must cut down the cost of production, that we must lower our costs so as to make our goods competitive throughout the world?

Yet the hon. member suggests that we bring in goods through Halifax and increase the cost of production. This is certainly one of the most amazing contradictions within the bounds of a single department of government that I have heard during the present session. Surely it is exactly this sort of thing which is over-pricing our goods in the markets of the world.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce has set up a productivity council to bring down the cost of production. Would the hon. member suggest that if, with regard to an industry to which the council turns its attention, the council decides there should only be 1,500 workers instead of 3,000 the nation should subsidize the other 1,500 workers? I do not think so. The minister is concerned about bringing down the cost of production. We are also concerned about bringing down the cost of production but let us plan it so that we can give some kind of economic justice to all.
The 1960's and the 1970's are going to bring about tremendous disruptions in the labour force. The Minister of Labour has suggested that we are going to have to have flexibility and mobility of labour such as we have never seen before. Yet the hon. member for Halifax, standing firmly on his free enterprise platform, tells us we have to try to keep the port of Halifax operating no matter what happens.


An hon. Member:: He never said any such thing.


Walter George Pitman: The hon. member for Halifax used history or misused history to support his argument. When confederation came about there was one promise made and it will be found right in the British North America Act. That promise was to build the intercolonial railway and it has been fulfilled. We could no more promise to keep the port of Halifax operating at full volume than the people of Halifax or of the maritimes generally could guarantee the stage coach route from Toronto to Kingston. But we did do something. We did pledge that the people of the maritimes would never be put at a disadvantage. We did state that the well-being and prosperity of the maritimes would be guaranteed as a result of confederation. I leave it to the hon. member for Halifax to decide whether that pledge has been kept.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine services-
403. Marine services administration, including agencies, $1,032,610.
Mr. Benidickson:: Mr. Chairman, I was not a member of the committee that examined the proposed amendments to the Canada

Shipping Act but I wonder whether those amendments contain any decision of the government with respect to a problem about which there has been a fair amount of argument back and forth over the last couple of years. I refer to the question of whether small boats, regardless of the amount of outboard power by which they may be propelled, should require a licence. I believe that up to now boats powered by outboard motors of less than ten horsepower have not required a licence from the department. Is that still the situation, and is it proposed to alter it in the amendments this session?


Léon Balcer: The limit is still ten horsepower but the amendments will give us authority to make regulations to cover all small boats.


William Moore Benidickson: At the present time the regulations would not permit a change by order in council without reference to parliament. Is that correct?


Léon Balcer: At the present time we could reduce it by order in council but what we intend to do under the new legislation is to extend the power of regulation and licensing to cover other types of boats such as sailboats and even non-powered vessels.


William Moore Benidickson: What about the minister's intentions with respect to licensing operators? I believe no licence is required at the present time irrespective of the age of the operator provided he is operating a small boat with a motor under ten horsepower.


Léon Balcer: We have arranged a conference with representatives of the provincial governments for September 6 and these matters will be discussed then. All these matters, including the questions of licensing operators, who will do the licensing, whether there will be a charge and so on, will be discussed at length with the representatives of the provincial governments.


William Moore Benidickson: I take it from what the minister has said that it is fairly obvious that it is his intention to make some rather radical changes both with regard to licensing of small powered boats and possibly operators as well. He referred to a conference on September 6 and the question of who was going to look after these matters. Are representatives of the tourist industry, tourist camp operators and so on, going to attend this conference?


Léon Balcer: We have a winter conference with representatives of the industry where they express their views and where there is every possibility for them to discuss all matters that might have a bearing on their trade.
Supply-Transport
The department has in mind very much, of course, the development of the tourist industry in Canada and there is no intention at the present time of bringing forward regulations that would more or less put the industry into a strait-jacket. We will discuss the matter with the provinces to ascertain who will issue licences, if licences are to be issued, and who will be responsible for the machinery because, so far as the Department of Transport is concerned we have doubts about the usefulness of setting up a huge machine to handle licensing of small boats. The matter has been discussed with the trade, and we are going to discuss it with the provinces. We will try to find the best formula to assure that there will be a minimum of accidents and problems. At the same time, we do not want to be so strict that we will restrict the trade.


William Moore Benidickson: I hope that if the new legislation is going to give wide open power to the cabinet, the minister will not make recommendations in the early stages, at least, that will be too radical in nature. I think the regulations should take into account the density of the traffic in various parts of Canada. Something that might be required in a heavily populated area where the area of the water is extremely small, would be quite different from what might be justifiable in areas such as northern Ontario where we have a great deal of water and a relatively small population. I would hope that bureaucracy would not run wild in connection with this proposal and start a program of empire building. We do not want to build up a big supervisory staff or to have new regulations that would be completely unnecessary in certain territories where traffic is very light and, perhaps in consequence, the accident rate is almost negligible.


Léon Balcer: That is precisely the point of view we had taken in our discussions with the trade last winter. We want to make it clear that the department has no intention of setting up a huge machine. We simply want to co-operate with the provincial governments and various bodies to try to avoid as many accidents as possible. We certainly do not want to set up a huge machine, and we do want to encourage the tourists as much as possible.


William Moore Benidickson: I would just urge the minister to go slowly, and sort of feel his way along in connection with these regulations. I think this is true also in the matter of any departure from the historic pattern in respect of the age barrier. I have lived in an area in which we have a lot of lakes, and 1 have observed that some youngsters can perform a very fine service for their

Supply-Transport
family, as well as contribute to their own amusement, if they are given by those in control of them modest power on their boats. A great number of them, irrespective of their rather tender age, operate small boats more efficiently than some elderly, inexperienced tourists who will come and rent a boat.
As I say, if these children are not given boats of idiotic power, they can perform a useful service for their families during the summer vacation by providing transportation back and forth, and so on. I would hope that some blanket regulation would not be developed under which no one under 12 years of age, or something of that kind, would be allowed to get a licence to operate an outboard motorboat of reasonable power. On the other hand, I must say that I see some very deplorable examples of bad judgment on the part of parents who allow young children to operate outboard motors of 18, 25 and even 50 horsepower. Having regard to the age of the youngsters, this is rather ridiculous. As I have said, however, I hope that the regulation will allow some discretion in this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Aids to navigation-
404. Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $6,783,790.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I have just a few words to say about this item. I understand it relates to aids to navigation, which is a subject in which I have been interested for some years. I think for five years I urged the department to put markers on the Columbia river between the international boundary and Castlegar. Finally, they were placed there. It took a long time to get this accomplished, but it only took a couple of days' work by a couple of men to install them. These markers were very necessary, and there were some very narrow squeaks before they were installed involving United States tourists coming up in small craft who were unfamiliar with the channels.
I also have been urging that such markers be established on the Columbia between Arrowhead and Revelstoke. I am very glad to know that arrangements are being made to mark the river between Arrowhead and Revelstoke. I mention this at this time because of increasing water traffic from Portland in the United States north as far as Revelstoke on the Columbia river. Last year, there were about 100 craft involved.
Yesterday, I received a letter informing me there will be 10 to 15 craft going to Revelstoke this week end from points south of the border. There were a number of accidents last
year between Arrowhead and Revelstoke in which boats lost their propellers on sandbars. In these swift waters, shore markers are usually used and the people steer from one marker to another. I think in this instance it is a Department of Public Works official who acts as agent for the Department of Transport in this area. He has a lot of work to do, so this sort of thing has to take second place. In the meantime, we have these craft going up the river. The last trip made by one United States flotilla between Arrowhead and Revelstoke resulted in four boats losing their propellers and one suffered serious damage to the hull. There are no markers in this somewhat swiftly flowing stream to mark sandbars, logs and that sort of thing.
I suggest in view of the increasing importance of navigation on the Columbia, and because of the interest of more and more United States citizens who are finding out what a marvellous trip it is into the garden of Eden, it would be worth while for the department to have one of its officials in Vancouver make a visit to the district and examine the marking of the river between the international boundary and Castlegar, and between Arrowhead and Revelstoke. Then, as promptly as possible, he should see that these markers are set in place. We have had high water in that district lately, which tends to push these buoys out of place. They should be replaced as soon as the water starts to drop. I made the trip down the river with one captain and there were 11 buoys out of place for over six months. No one had been in there to replace these buoys which had been washed out by the high water. This is necessary in view of the narrow channels.
At any rate, we want to do all we can in the Kootenays to attract the United States tourists because they are coming up there and stopping over at our tourist resorts. They go into Kootenay lake and sometimes transfer their craft over to the Columbia or vice versa. We do urge the minister, therefore, to make certain that his department does all that is possible to make navigation safe. It is not an expensive job at all.
My final word is to suggest that the department should issue a rudimentary chart that could be sold to these people at the customs office at Trail when they come into Canada for use up the river. This chart could show where the markers are, and indicate what a red buoy, blue buoy or black buoy means, green lights, red lights and so on. More and more we are finding people without experience operating these boats in swift waters and in some cases dangerous waters. I make this plea at the request of the chambers of commerce in the district, the tourist resort operators and the local people generally.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I am informed that the director of marine works is going out to the Arrow lakes area later this month with the purpose in mind of trying to get a contract or contracts into operation in order to put up these markers. As far as charts are concerned, I think anything along that line would have to come after the markers were put into position. I do not know what can be done in that regard, particularly in the immediate future. However, knowing that part of the country quite well, knowing the hon. member's great interest in it and also his interest in the development of free enterprise of all kinds, I thought I should perhaps suggest to him that this would seem to me to present a great opportunity for him and some of his friends out there to institute a pilotage system in order to get these United States craft safely up and down this stretch of water.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I might inform the minister that we have instituted a pilotage system, but our pilotage system's main function is to direct these people to the proper stopping places in which many have an interest.


Lionel Chevrier: I observe that the Minister of National Defence has a roving commission tonight.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have quit roving now.


Lionel Chevrier: Perhaps he might help me with the matter I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Transport. It has to do with a dispute which has arisen between two entities over which the minister has jurisdiction. I refer to aids to navigation on the St. Lawrence seaway. The minister will probably recall that the Auditor General of Canada has, I believe, before some committee-whether or not it was the public accounts committee I cannot remember-made a recommendation that aids to navigation on the St. Lawrence seaway should be paid for by the St. Lawrence seaway authority and not by the Department of Transport. I should like to tell the minister that the recommendation of the Auditor General in that regard is totally unwarranted. I respect, of course, the opinion of the Auditor General, but I think I should inform the minister that the Auditor General did not possess the information which he should have had when he made this recommendation. Not only is the recommendation unwarranted but it is wholly erroneous and perhaps I may just take a moment or two in which to say why.
If the St. Lawrence seaway authority were to pay for the aids to navigation on the seaway, then why should not the authority pay for the pilotage or why should it not pay for a number of other matters that arise on the
Supply-Transport
St. Lawrence seaway? I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the minister for what it is worth and I believe it is worth something, although I doubt very much whether the government would take cognizance of anything I have to say. However, I bring the matter forward because I am convinced that it was settled a long time ago.
When these two entities, namely the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation started to negotiate on the question of matters that affected tolls, they immediately eliminated the aids to navigation and they said, "This is not a matter for us to determine or to consider; this is a matter for our respective governments". That was the situation in the United States and that was the situation in Canada. When the present government established the international tolls committee, it told the members of it, "here are the things upon which you must base your calculations in order to arrive at the amount of capital expenditure upon the seaway". That was done not under the previous administration but under this administration and I have no fault to find with this at all.
The only thing I want to bring to the attention of the minister is this. Aids to navigation on the seaway were not even considered. The matter did not go to the joint tolls committee because it was taken for granted that they would be looked after by the Department of Transport in the same manner that the Department of Transport looks after all aids to navigation east of Montreal and west of Montreal beyond the St. Lawrence seaway and in all other parts of Canada. I do not want to take an undue length of time in discussing the matter. However, I feel that the recommendation of the Auditor General was not only unfair but unwarranted and that the St. Lawrence seaway authority should not be charged with that item of cost as it was never the intention that it should be charged with it, either in the meetings that took place between the two entities or in the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act which clearly sets out the powers and purposes of the legislation.


Léon Balcer: Not only do we listen with care to what my friend the hon. member for Laurier says but I might tell him that he has convinced me. I know that this matter was raised in the public accounts committee. My officials have explained the situation before the public accounts committee. We have referred the matter to treasury board and treasury board has told us to carry on looking

Supply-Transport
after the cost of these aids to navigation but to keep them in a separate account, and that is what we are doing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-
406. Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,398,550.
Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall vote 406 carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before vote 406 carries, may I ask whether the minister has had time since dinner to give consideration to the constructive suggestion I made to him about the Trent canal?


Léon Balcer: During the dinner recess I had a most interesting meeting with the truckers and I forgot completely about my hon. friend and his very good suggestion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the minister say he has forgotten what my suggestion was?


Léon Balcer: For the moment only.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My suggestion was that the Trent canal should be given to Mr. Frost as a sort of consolation prize, in lieu of the $100 million that the Prime Minister has not given to him, although he promised it before the 1957 election, so that Mr. Frost could turn the Trent canal into a provincial park in the same way that the Quebec government would like to turn the Soulanges canal into a provincial park, and thereby relieve the federal treasury of its cost.


Léon Balcer: I am sure that if we were offering Mr. Frost 13 miles of a certain length of canal, he would not refuse just because he could not get 14 to one.


Lionel Chevrier: You do not know Premier Frost.


Mr. Grills:: With regard to the remarks made by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, may I say that when he speaks of the Trent canal he is speaking of something that is very close to my home and also very close to my heart. The Trent canal starts at the lovely bay of Quinte in my riding. I am certainly not in accord with him when he suggests giving it away to anyone. I might inform him that it is one of the beauty spots of Canada. It is a real tourist attraction. While there may not be any direct revenue from it, it is a tourist attraction and indirectly that fact should make it worth while, more so now than ever before in the history of Canada. We have many more pleasure craft coming to our land and in our land. There are many more using the Trent canal than

there ever were in years gone by. I therefore cannot agree with this idea of giving away this canal that starts in my riding, which is such a lovely place. I would invite the hon. member to come up some time and I will show him one of the very special tourist attractions of Canada.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I must express a good deal of astonishment at the expression of the lack of confidence by the hon. member for Hastings South in the government of Ontario.


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise the matter of grants paid in lieu of taxes to my municipality of Thorold by the St. Lawrence seaway authority in respect to the Welland canal and Welland canal lands. The St. Lawrence seaway authority took over the operations of the Welland canal on April 1, 1959, and prior to that date the canal municipalities received yearly grants in lieu of taxes from the Department of Finance under the Municipal Grants Act.
My town has an area of 1,390 acres. Of this area, the canal owns 483 acres, 87 of which are leased. The canal actually makes use of 396 acres, nearly 30 per cent of the area of the municipality, and this is over 65 per cent of the taxable area of the town.
The Department of Finance paid grants in lieu of taxes in respect to certain canal buildings. These buildings were greatly depreciated, much more than similar buildings in town, and they had an assessment of around $170,000. The Department of Finance then paid something around 10 per cent of the toted taxes of the town until March 31, 1959. For the rest of 1959 and since-that is, for the other nine months of 1959 and since-the St. Lawrence seaway authority has refused to pay any taxes in respect to buildings, and this reduces their taxes down to something around 8 per cent of the total taxes.
It may be argued by the St. Lawrence seaway authority that the town gives no services in return for these grants, but I have seen our police out in force protecting their buildings and I have seen our firemen fighting fires in canal buildings.
I attended a meeting in St. Catharines last year between the municipalities and officials of the St. Lawrence seaway. Mr. Rankin, the chairman of the St. Lawrence seaway authority, was there. He received us very well. One statement which he made was that grants would be arrived at on a different basis, but the amount that the municipalities would receive would vary very little from what they had received in the past.
I suggested to him at that time that this was the thin edge of the wedge in getting out of

paying a certain amount of taxes, and he said this was not the case. The point is that ever since the town has not received any grants in lieu of taxes in respect to buildings, and this amounts to about $10,000 a year or 2J mills.
Since I have been in parliament I have heard two ministers of finance state that crown corporations would pay grants in lieu of taxes on a fair and equitable basis. I understand that in the United Kingdom the government pays grants in lieu of taxes in respect of all crown properties and buildings.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority states that they are not bound by any assessment act, municipal act or the Municipal Grants Act, all of which is probably true. But I do suggest that no matter on what basis grants are paid, the decision is made on a unilateral basis and we would like to know what that basis is.
The amount of $10,000 is considerable for a small municipality, particularly a municipality that has provided services across tax free land of the canal for well over 100 years, as well as providing free services to the canal all this time.
When I was presenting the case of the municipalities here in 1952 I referred to the fact that I had seen an old picture of a hand fire fighting brigade fighting a fire in some canal structures. This picture was 100 years old. In 1951, for instance, our fire brigade fought 22 fires on canal property. I realize there is some history back of all this in connection with the Welland canal and the old Welland canal rehabilitation about which the St. Lawrence seaway authority would not be aware.
The present canal cuts across our natural drainage system and in 1949, as mayor of the town, I applied to the Department of Transport to have the effluent from a sewage disposal plant go into our natural drainage system running along the canal. The department objected at that time to this proposal and offered to pay $100,000 toward the cost of an interceptor sanitary sewer.
At the time of the rehabilitation of the old canal an arrangement was made that the department would forgo contributing this $100,000 and would go ahead and carry out more rehabilitation, which was done. However, at the same time we have been denied the right to build a sewage treatment plant along our natural drainage outlet and will be forced to pay the cost of piping our sewage through an interceptor sewer a distance of eight miles or more.
The town of Thorold in my constituency very reluctantly accepted this arrangement with the department, but they did so thinking that they would from then on be able to
Supply-Transport
draw a grant in lieu of taxes in respect to canal properties. Now these are being considerably reduced and I think it is very unfair. The other canal municipalities are not similarly situated. Thorold is on the brow of a mountain; it contains all the flight locks, and at that particular point there is a concentration of buildings. This condition does not obtain to the same degree in the other municipalities.
Other municipalities are of course affected by the canal because they have duplication of services. Some of these municipalities must maintain firefighting equipment on each side of the canal; they must have two sewage plants, which they would not need if the canal were not there.
I would like to hear from the minister on what basis grants in lieu of taxes should be paid by the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I would like to know whether or not the Department of Finance was wrong in paying the grants previously on buildings; and if they were wrong at that time, why were they paid? I should like to know on what authority these grants are paid, and why they are not being paid now in respect to buildings. As I have said before, we do give protection to their buildings.
One other matter I should like to refer to, has reference to the interruption of street traffic in the city of Welland caused by boat traffic in the canal. The canal goes through the city. There are no locks nearby and for some miles both north and south of the city the canal is a straight sailing level. The boats necessarily traverse the canal at reduced speeds and when they bunch up in groups of three or four some hundreds of yards apart in traversing this area the bridges are sometimes up for 30 minutes or more at a time. This presents a real street traffic problem and affects the economy of the city.
I should like to ask the minister whether he can intercede with the St. Lawrence seaway authority in an effort to see that the boats do not bunch up in this way. I am sure that if the minister was successful in such an attempt his efforts would be very greatly appreciated. I would also like the minister to reply to my question in respect of the reason why the department is not now paying grants in lieu of taxes on buildings.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me I should like to say in regard to the two items referred to by the hon. member for Welland that I should be pleased to provide an answer. However, I point out to the hon. member that these two matters are strictly within the jurisdiction of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I shall accept the two questions as notice and attempt to provide an

Supply-Transport
answer when we reach our consideration of the estimates on the St. Lawrence seaway.


Mr. Nixon:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister could give some consideration to the supplying of uniforms for the workers on canals, including the operators, lockmen and those individuals who work on the walls. I have particular reference to the canal at Sault Ste. Marie where, on the United States side, the employees are all supplied with uniforms while on our side they are provided only with caps, and perhaps shirts. I think there would be a great deal of improvement in the general appearance around these canals and locks were the employees dressed in uniforms.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I feel that is a very good suggestion. The treasury board has ruled that, for the time being, our canal employees will be supplied with caps only, because it would be very costly to provide complete uniforms, particularly in view of the fact that many of them are on rough work, and work with greasy machinery, and would require more than one uniform per man. It has been decided, therefore, at least for the time being, to supply caps only, but I should not like the hon. member to feel that the door has been closed on his suggestion.
(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I could not allow item 406 pertaining to canals to be carried without saying a few words on a matter of concern to all members. I refer, of course, to the Soulanges canal.
As everybody knows, the province of Quebec conceived a splendid plan to use and develop this canal for another purpose, not only for the benefit of this particular area, but of the whole province.
I should like at this stage to recall briefly that the federal government had once expressed its readiness to sell all the canal property to the Quebec government for the nominal amount of $1. Subsequently the present government was willing to sell to the province of Quebec an area of about 13 miles, reserving however that one-mile stretch that the Quebec government considers most important for its proposed development, namely the Cascades area.
The most surprising point during that discussion was the letter sent to the newspapers under the signature of the hon. member for Vandreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais). Indeed, I mentioned it during the examination of item 1 of the Department of Transport's estimates. In that letter, the hon. member stated that he alone is against this transfer of land to the province of Quebec. Moreover, the hon. member stated that he was to be

held fully responsible for the action he has taken.
Now, it seems that further negotiations were carried out between the federal government and the government of the province of Quebec. The item under consideration gives us an opportunity of presenting our arguments in connection with that matter.
Knowing as I do how highly interested the minister is in this matter, I am sure he would have been most disappointed if we had not mentioned that subject, because he will now have an opportunity not only of making his point but also of informing us of all the discussions which may have been going on recently. Moreover, the minister will be able to tell us what happened after the newspapers announced the government's offer to sell that part of the canal which is called Les Cascades.
I would therefore ask the minister to state his arguments in connection with this question. I am sure he will be grateful to me for having made it possible for him to do so and I may have a few questions to ask him afterwards.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words concerning the subject on which the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) has called the minister's attention.
I am not satisfied with the reply the minister gave me this afternoon, and rightly so, because if he remembers well, when I asked him certain questions concerning the Soulanges canal, he told me that all the chambers of commerce of that district had asked him to keep the mile-long section of canal in the neighbourhood of Point des Cascades. I then asked him to name those chambers of commerce but he did not do that; instead, he merely produced this advertisement which was prepared jointly by the Soulanges chamber of commerce, the people who work on the Soulanges canal and others. However, that advertisement did not mention any representations by chambers of commerce. I have here all the representations made by the chambers of commerce, and they all asked the minister to make the transfer at no cost to the government of the province of Quebec, of all the Soulanges canal properties, not with the exception of a one-mile area, but of all the properties, to make possible the carrying out of all the projects that were mentioned, thus giving the people of Soulanges county a source of income which would enable them to prosper as they did before the canal was closed down.
It is therefore obvious that all the chambers of commerce were in favour of the transfer to the province of Quebec of all the proper-

ties, for the purpose which the minister knows.
In my opinion the minister should admit that he had no resolution from the citizens of Soulanges except the pamphlet I mentioned.
The minister should also tell us how long he intends to have that advertisement carried before deciding whether or not he will give to the province of Quebec the mile-long section of property he is retaining at present. In my opinion, the house is entitled to know whether the offer will last for a month, six months or a year. The longer this matter is delayed, the more difficult it will be for the government of the province of Quebec to undertake its program.
I do not wish to make any personal remark but the minister doubtless remembers the statement he made during a political meeting held in the county. I understand he said later on that he regretted having made that statement but there is no doubt in the minds of hon. members that it is the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges who is delaying the transfer.
After all, if this could be really beneficial to the industrialization of the area-and 1 hope so because it would be in the best interests of the people-it seems logical that such industrialization should take place on the upper side of the canal, in the neighbourhood of Coteau where there are already two railways, the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, while on the Cascades side there is no railway at all. There is an excellent road but in addition to a road, in order to promote the industrial development of the area, other means of transportation are required, therefore, I suggest that the ideal location for industrial development is the upper part of the canal.
I should like to ask the minister whether he got a resolution from the chambers of commerce and, if so, whether he would table it now.


Mr. Bourbonnais:: The hon. member for Laurier is asking for the tabling of certain documents from the Soulanges chamber of commerce, I must tell him that he knows nothing about the matter, because a few days ago he mentioned there were eight chambers of commerce in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, when actually there are only four; one for the Soulanges area, one for Rigaud, one in Dorion and another on Perrot island. Only two cham-
Supply-Transport
bers of commerce have submitted resolutions, asking us to transfer the entire Soulanges canal to the province of Quebec for the purpose of setting up a fish-breeding station and a bird sanctuary. And those chambers of commerce were influenced by a small group of politicians in that county who wanted to create obstruction and delay the solution of the Soulanges canal problem.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Hear, hear.


Marcel Bourbonnais: When the hon. member speaks of industrializing the upper county, the Coteau du Lac district, he just wants to create confusion and misunderstanding, because we have no sites there. If there is to be industrialization there, it should be the sole concern of the people in that community, of the chambers of commerce. It is up to them to promote any industrial development.
Since 1956, the Soulanges chamber of commerce took some steps jointly with the industrial expansion committee and the Soulanges canal employees, and even spent a lot of money on publicity, to attract industries in the Soulanges canal area, no matter where.
The only site belonging to the Department of Transport which may serve industrial ends along the Soulanges canal, is at Cascades Point, about two miles from the seaway.
It is true that there is no means of communication by rail. But at Coteau landing or Coteau station, those properties that are mentioned do not belong to us.
The people of those localities should start something themselves to bring industry into the district. And if the friends of the hon. member for Laurier in Quebec decided to build the roads that were already started in 1959 and 1960, the district would know what it is to be industrialized.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: A follower of Mr. Lesage.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Chairman, when we offered the province of Quebec 13 miles of the Soulanges canal for camping sites and fish hatcheries which would delight fishermen and so on, the Quebec department of fisheries and game would have immediately accepted our offer if they had been in earnest.
They refused it for one reason only, the fact that those people, like the hon. member for Laurier, often talk through their hat. They made promise after promise. They promised to erect buildings on the premises, that all the fishermen in the province of

Supply-Transport
Quebec would gather there and fish all kinds of fish-perhaps cod, I do not know-but they forgot one thing, namely that the present roads and bridges of Dorion, St. Ann and Perrot island, which were adequate for the people of Montreal island who often go fishing and holidaying in the Soulanges area, are not adequate for present-day traffic. New bridges had been started in 1960, but the Quebec Liberal government has stopped the work. The department of fisheries and game is more concerned with developing parks and fish hatcheries than the provincial government is concerned with solving a major traffic problem at the mouth of the county. That is the reason why the Quebec government has refused our offer. It is an excuse for not fulfilling another fantastic promise they made.
If no reasonable offers are made for the purchase of that part of the canal which we have put on sale, or if they do not involve enough employment opportunities, we will turn over the whole canal to the province of Quebec, and we will see whether the Lesage government was in earnest; we will see whether they can carry out their plans for a fish hatchery and a bird sanctuary.
The famous member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) has been trying to defend the position of the Liberal government of the province of Quebec. But why? He knows nothing of the interests of the people of Soulanges. The only thing we are trying to do is to diversity the economy of the constituency of Soulanges. This is none of their business. They have all the problems they need in Montreal, so let them deal with their own problems before sticking their noses into things they know nothing about.
A diversified economy is a must for Soulanges; to develop Soulanges into a centre for tourists, fishermen and bird lovers will not improve economic conditions, nor will it help the citizens of Soulanges. It may help a few of the friends of the hon. member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont and of the hon. member for St. Ann who would very much like to go fishing there, but it will not settle the problems of the people I represent.
Anyhow their argument does not hold water as we offered more than 90 per cent of the canal property for purposes now approved by the provincial government. We only want to keep 10 per cent of that land in case some industries would want to estab-
[Mr. Bourbonnais.l
lish themselves immediately or within a few years' time, so as to create employment for the residents of the Vaudreuil-Soulanges county.
This country has not only sportsmen but also farmers and workmen who have to leave their home to earn a living elsewhere. If employment could thus be created at home, our people would not need to go away and earn their living in Montreal.
Unfortunately members like the hon. member for Laurier, do not understand those problems; all they want is to confuse the issue.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You do not know anything about the province of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, earlier today we had an excellent example of the way the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges is dealing with a question which, to our mind, is a serious one.
First of all, he told us to mind our own business. Then he said we did not know what it was all about. Now, Mr. Chairman, when an hon. member thinks a matter is of general interest, he is not only entitled to deal with it but he also has-notwithstanding the remarks of the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges who, unfortunately, did some bad manoeuvring in this respect-the responsibility of putting things right, as I intend to do.
He said that there was only one chamber of commerce which had passed resolutions. I have here-


Marcel Bourbonnais: On a point of order. The hon. member for Laurier does not quote my words correctly. I said that there were 4 chambers of commerce in Vaudreuil-Soulanges, one in the Soulanges district, one in Vaudreuil, one at Rigaud and one at lie Perrot, whereas only two chambers of commerce have sent in resolutions requesting transfer of the Soulanges canal. That is always the way the hon. member for Laurier deals with matters concerning us.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member for Laurier is not familiar with Quebec. He is a stranger adopted by charity in Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member is so flustered that we cannot understand what he says.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I come back to what I said earlier-there are seven chambers of commerce in the county of Soulanges that

made representations to the minister. I do not want to delay the vote, but I have here some petitions and resolutions. I have one from the chamber of commerce of Soulanges that I mentioned earlier and there is another one from the municipal corporation of the village of Soulanges, and another from the corporation of St. Joseph's parish of Soulanges, and yet another from the corporation of the village of St. Zotique-


Marcel Bourbonnais: On a point of order.


Lionel Chevrier: There is also-


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Vaudreuil-Soulanges has risen on a point of order.


Marcel Bourbonnais: The hon. member said that I mentioned one chamber of commerce. He cannot even read the resolution sent in by municipal corporations. He does not even know the difference between-


Jacques Flynn: Order. I shall give the hon. member for Soulanges the opportunity to make corrections if he wishes, but he cannot interrupt the hon. member for Laurier without his consent.


Lionel Chevrier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling to order the hon. member who, as I said a moment ago, is overexcited over this question which certainly has harmed his chances in his own constituency.
I was saying, Mr. Chairman, that in addition to the chamber of commerce which I mentioned, there were also municipal corporations of the Soulanges county all of which indicated their support of the resolution passed by the Soulanges chamber of commerce recommending that the Department of Transport allow free transfer of all lands and buildings along the Soulanges canal to the government of the province of Quebec in order to facilitate the development of the projects referred to and thus bring to the people of the Soulanges county a source ,of income that would allow therri to prosper as they did before the closing of the canal.
Now all those resolutions passed either by the Soulanges chamber of commerce or by the municipal corporations which I mentioned, support the full and complete transfer of the Soulanges canal to the province of Quebec, not subject to the condition that one mile or two miles be reserved, but unconditionally, so that the province may benefit from it according to the plan submitted.
Then the hon. member spoke about bridges and roads and spent several minutes dealing with a matter which is purely provincial and 90205-6-383
Supply-Transport
outside federal jurisdiction, but he is so mixed up about that business that he wanders away from the subject and talks about things that have nothing to do with that transfer. About this transfer of the Soulanges canal he finally says: "We do not own any land in the upper part of the Soulanges canal".


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You did not understand a thing.


Lionel Chevrier: This proposal is wrong because the C.N.R.-


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You are an ignoramus.


Lionel Chevrier: -and the C.P.R. own considerable land there and everybody knows that those two companies would be very anxious to see that part developed for industrial purposes if possible. And no one knows it better than the minister himself, that if he had requests from industries and passed them along to the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. those two companies would make that land available to those industries to enable them to develop that part of the Soulanges county.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Why don't you look after your own constituency of Laurier?


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry that the hon. member should not appreciate this inference but I wish to tell him and I repeat that as long as we, on this side of the house, believe that it is in the public interest to concern ourselves with a matter, even if it is not related to our constituency, we shall do so without hesitation.


Marcel Bourbonnais: The hon. member for
Laurier insists on coming back to a matter
about which he knows absolutely nothing. If the two railway companies, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, own land in that area, it is in their interest to set up industrial centres there. We do not have to meddle in the business of a company or of a corporation, and he should be the first to know it.
He talks about the matter of bridges, which he says, comes exclusively under the jurisdiction of the province. Well, I must inform him that the bridges that will be built in the future in the Vaudreuil, Perrot island, and Ste. Anne de Bellevue area, are part of the trans-Canada highway. Yes, he does not know what he is talking about. Last November, plans were prepared, filed and approved, for the trans-Canada highway to run through Dorion, Perrot island and over the Ottawa river at Ste. Anne de Bellevue, towards Montreal. When those bridges are built and the traffic at these points moves more freely or allows a greater volume of circulation, then it will be time to develop parks, recrea-

Supply-Transport
tion areas of all sorts in order to attract tourists, fishermen and campers. But, until these bridges are built, there is no use thinking about it.
I know that the government of the province of Quebec will not go ahead with its plans. I challenge that government-and will do so through the newspapers and any other means at my disposal-to go ahead with its plans on this 13 mile stretch which we have offered them. And since the member for Laurier suggests I am in a fix, I invite him to visit my riding and meet my constituents.
He makes much of some resolutions which he has received from municipal councils, but you will have noticed that those resolutions are always in the same style and are all from the same source. We know that, at the present time, in the province of Quebec, all the small municipalities are crushed under the dictatorship of the Liberal government. They are compelled to do this only because a provincial minister directs them to do so. It is the same resolution, written in the same style, which has been passed by seven or eight municipal corporations and by two chambers of commerce. However, two other chambers of commerce did not choose to do likewise.
There are about 25 municipal corporations in Vaudreuil-Soulanges which are not yet under the dictatorship of the Quebec Liberals.
Therefore, I challenge the hon. member for Laurier and I invite him to come and discuss this matter in Vaudreuil-Soulanges.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He will not go because he is afraid. He is a stranger in Quebec. He was admitted out of charity.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont asked me first of all to clear up this matter of the Soulanges canal. Well, I believe I granted his wish this afternoon. Unfortunately, I think he was absent from the house when I explained the situation as far as my department is concerned.
I am asked for how long this offer of land for industrial purposes at Cascades will stand. The offer is for a period of one month and it is already a week since this offer was advertised in Canadian papers. In addition, our trade commissioners throughout the world have been informed. I should also like to inform the hon. member for Laurier that we have already received a couple of offers which we are now considering.
I feel that the stand taken by the federal government is both logical and consistent, moreover it is justifiable. Indeed, I sincerely

think the people of Vaudreuil-Soulanges will come to realize that the government has acted in their best interest.
I know it is nice to have a place where people can fish and relax, but there are many other places like that in Quebec. A great number of the lakes which are available to the public-


An hon. Member:: There are the Laurentians.


Léon Balcer: -probably offer advantages which are greater than those of Point des Cascades. At any rate, we did not want to make any trouble. We were willing to do our share. That is why we were ready to give not only thirteen miles of canal but even the canal bed; we were even willing to give properties, buildings, and even a mill. I sincerely feel that with those thirteen miles of property along the canal, the provincial government could have made a very fine park and set up a whole series of scientific stations where the fish habits could have been studied and where all kinds of fish-breeding experiments could have been carried out.
On the one hand, they seemed to insist on having also Point des Cascades, which is indeed a wonderful and large enough location. But on the other hand, many people-I am not saying everybody, I am not denying that municipal corporations passed resolutions asking that everything be handed over to the provincial government-have made representations to the government and, as my hon. friend from Vaudreuil-Soulanges was saying earlier, two or three public bodies have, for some years, been attempting to promote industrial development at Point des Cascades.
All we want is one month, in order to have a chance to advertise the location and see if any industry would be interested to build a plant there. Let us not forget that while parks are fine it is better to try to get industries in a rural place like this which was deeply affected by the closing of the Soulanges canal and the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway.
To date we have received two offers from industries and they are being considered.
But as I was saying a moment ago, the problem of the industrial development of Point des Cascades will be under consideration for a month. And, if after a month we should find that offers made were not too attractive

and could not provide enough employment, we shall be delighted to transfer the whole canal to Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: May I put a question to the minister? The last part of his answer is satisfactory, compared to what he had to say previously. For the first time, I think, we have heard him say that if no serious application has been forthcoming after 30 days, the whole canal would be transferred to the provincial authorities.
I should like to ask this question: is the federal government or the Department of Transport contemplating spending any money to incite industry to come into this area, or even building a wharf?


Léon Balcer: There is no doubt about
it. Besides, if there was ever a government that proved it, ours did. We are trying by every possible means to urge industry and private enterprise to create job opportunities for Canadian citizens. If a serious proposal is made to us to help develop that industrial site, and if the canal and its approaches have to be dug, and wharves have to be built, I am convinced that my colleague, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Walker), will not hesitate a moment to recommend that the required work be done for the industrial development of that area.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister did not answer the question I put to him several times: what chamber of commerce recommended the conditional transfer of Soulanges canal?
In reply to my question he said there was one. I asked him to name it and he produced a folder, which was not a resolution by a chamber of commerce. Has there been one?


Léon Balcer: It was the Soulanges chamber of commerce which repeatedly asked the federal government to help it with the industrial development of the federal property of Cascades Point.


Lionel Chevrier: The minister knows that the chamber of commerce of Soulanges sent him a petition requesting the transfer of the whole canal to the government of the province of Quebec. I have it here and so does the minister.


Marcel Bourbonnais: Mr. Chairman, allow me to point out to the hon. member for Laurier that he does not have a petition in his hand, it is a resolution adopted at a regular meeting of the chamber of commerce of Sou-90205-6- 383J
Supply-Transport
langes-there is a difference. Now, I am a member of the chambers of commerce of Soulanges, Ile-Perrot, Dorion and Rigaud. I have attended several of their meetings. As a matter of fact, I have been attending their regular meetings since 1958. There have been talks about the industrialization in the whole constituency. Those people came here as a delegation in 1959 and again this year, to ask that something be done toward industrialization in the Vaudreuil-Soulanges area. This is our first opportunity of initiating a development in the district by offering the Soulanges canal land to industry. In my opinion the Minister of Transport the other day expressed the views shared by the chambers of commerce and the whole population of Soulanges and Vaudreuil-that industry be attracted to my riding by every possible means. But if the member for Laurier does not want to understand, if he wants to continue talking about matters he does not know the first thing about, there is nothing you can do.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, before going on to another item, there is only one point that remains to be clarified. Since the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges and the minister are both present, this is as good an opportunity as any.
In the letter he sent to the newspapers, the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges said that the original offer of the province of Quebec had been accepted at one point by the federal government and that the Minister of Transport had even asked the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges to break the news at a certain meeting.
Now, this is the question I would like to put to the Minister of Transport: What happened at that point to make him change his mind about the offer from Quebec? It was the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges who said so, not I. I do hope that by crossexamining the Minister of Transport and the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges, the truth will finally come out.


Marcel Bourbonnais: It's very simple: at the last general Conservative convention, in Ottawa, the Quebec minister of game and fisheries, his deputy minister, his secretary and all his assistants, as well as the engineer of the Quebec highway division, I believe, asked us to transfer the whole of Soulanges canal to the province of Quebec for the purpose of developing parks, etc.

Supply*-Transport
The Minister of Transport, who lives in Three Rivers and not in my constituency, of course does not understand as well as I do the problems that exist in my area. Besides, it is my duty to know them and to inform the proper authorities accordingly. The hon. members who have made a lot of fuss about this matter have spent the evening discussing a problem they know nothing about, thus making fools of themselves. They want to prove a difference of opinion between the minister and myself.
The Minister of Transport was agreeable to surrendering the whole of the Soulanges canal as was part of the population in my county. It is as simple, as clear and as honest as that. I objected to such action because I am familiar with local problems. I have been studying them for a score of years. I have lived in that part of the country for 40 years. I know what problems they have. When I told the Minister of Transport that we could not let go of the whole canal, but keep part of it for our people, farmers and labourers who have to find work elsewhere, the minister understood immediately and he supported me. Members opposite think it extraordinary for a minister and a member of parliament even if they do not always see eye to eye to finally come to terms. Well, what prompts them to rise is the unity they can see in our party compared to theirs. I ask them to turn to the Lesage cabinet and see what is going on in there.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I would very much like the minister to answer the question I put to him earlier. What happened that made the government change its attitude after having accepted the original offer from the province of Quebec?
My second question is this. When there is an agreement between the province of Quebec and the federal government, to implement a project which is consistent with public interest, since when must the government yield before a member who is opposed to the project and states he is the only one to object?


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He is a good and honest member.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont would like to know what made me change my mind. First, let us recall certain facts during the discussions with the province of Quebec. The province wanted to buy for the nominal price of $1 the whole property of the Soulanges canal to create a fish breeding station there.

I agreed to meet them. On that occasion, my first words were to express my amazement that they wanted all the canal properties for $1, and that they refused to consider any other proposal. I told them that personally, I had no objection to their request but that I found them hard to please. Afterwards, I heard the arguments of my hon. friend for Vaudreuil-Soulanges which seemed most reasonable. In fact, as I said earlier, there is no reason why we should not try to industrialize a certain part of this area which is in need of such development. I felt that was a sound argument, much stronger than any of those put forward by the provincial representatives at that meeting. I was convinced by that sound argument which showed that my hon. friend for Vaudreuil-Soulanges is concerned about the welfare of his constituents. That is why we acted as we did.
(Text):


Walter George Pitman: I should like to ask the minister a short question. No doubt he was very much impressed by the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke about the modernization of the Trent canal system. I wonder whether there are at the moment any plans for its modernization or whether any study is being made at this time.


Léon Balcer: We have a ten-year rehabilitation program. In connection with this rehabilitation program a certain part is done every year. It all depends on the amount that treasury board allows us to spend every year. For instance, this year we have new locks at Fenelon Falls. Another year we will do another item of modernization. It is a ten-year plan and it is progressing.
(Translation) :


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, just one question concerning the Lachine canal. Could the minister say whether, as a result of the St. Lawrence seaway, there has been a serious drop in traffic in the Lachine canal?
There are all kinds of rumors to the effect that the Lachine canal will be closed within a few years, that it will be used as a boulevard or something of the kind. Is the minister in a position to indicate what is planned for the Lachine canal in the near future?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as my hon, friend knows, the Lachine canal comes under the St. Lawrence seaway authority. On the other hand, I can tell him that as far as I know, there is no question of the Lachine canal being closed and being no longer used

by those industries along the canal. As far as I know, there is no question of closing the Lachine canal at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: Is there not a considerable amount of traffic going through the Lachine canal, as was the case in 1960, for instance?


Léon Balcer: There is considerable traffic into the canal, but it does not go all through the canal. There is a lot of traffic servicing all the industries along the canal, and I think the canal is of great service.


Lionel Chevrier: As long as the industries established along the Lachine canal go on at their present rate of activity, I suppose the government will not consider closing such an important canal?


Léon Balcer: Certainly not, Mr. Chairman. (Text):


Mr. Peters:: From time to time there has been considerable discussion throughout the north with regard to the feasibility of diverting water from the Arctic watershed to the great lakes system. Are any continuing surveys taking place with regard to this matter or are there at the present time under consideration any international or joint United States-Canadian surveys in connection with the diversion of this water?


Léon Balcer: At the present time our department is making no study or survey.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
407. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $1,850,230.
Lionel Chevrier: Will the minister give a breakdown for this item?


Léon Balcer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. For 196162, the Nova Scotia canals, $32,300; Quebec canals, $362,550; the Rideau canal, $445,250, and the Trent canal, $1,010,130.


Lionel Chevrier: What are the payments, for instance, to municipalities for work done by those bodies? The vote includes:
-payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies.
What is the meaning of that?


Léon Balcer: I am informed that this relates to certain work such as a bridge over a canal, where we contribute toward the construction of the bridge by the province instead of building our own bridge.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 407 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Transport
411. Construction or acquisition of ships and equipment, $14,500,000.
Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, there are two questions I should like to ask the minister in connection with vote No. 411. I notice in this item that two weatherships from the west coast are going to be replaced. One is the Stonetown and the other is the St. Catharines. I believe the St. Catharines which is going to be replaced is the old frigate St. Catharines that rendered very good service during the war.
I am sure the people of St. Catharines would be quite interested to know just what is going to be the final disposition of this ship. During the war the people of St. Catharines raised substantial sums of money each year in order to send special comforts to the sailors on the St. Catharines frigate. I should like to ask the minister whether the ship is going to be scrapped or whether it is going to be sold for other use.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I was very pleased to hear the remarks of my hon. friend. I knew the ship St. Catharines during the war. I served in the same escort group, and I remember that the sailors and officers on that ship were extremely well taken care of by the people of St. Catharines. We were even a little jealous.
I would tell my hon. friend that no decision has been arrived at yet as to what we are going to do with these two ships. Their plates are getting dangerously thin and we are definitely faced with the obligation of replacing them. I imagine they will be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation for disposal, but no decision has yet been arrived at. Most probably, as I say, they will be turned over to Crown Assets Disposal Corporation.


John Smith: I should like to say that we have a very active sea cadets organization in St. Catharines, and if the ship is going to be scrapped they would very much like to have the logbook as a souvenir of the frigate St. Catharines of the war years.
I have another question in connection with this item. A substantial number of ships are going to be built by the Department of Transport; I believe there are some 14 altogether. This will run into a sizeable amount of money, which money will be well spent at the present time in the shipbuilding industry. I hope it will be possible to distribute this work across Canada so that all shipyards will get a little bit of it, but I should not like to see the work allocated. I wonder whether the minister could give us any information about this. Are all the ships going to be up for tender, or are some of them going to be allocated?

Supply-Transport


Léon Balcer: They will all be built after tenders have been called, but the tenders will not be called for all of them at the same time. I can assure my hon. friend that tenders will be called for all of them.


John Smith: Will tenders be called for them?


Léon Balcer: Tenders will be called for them.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 411 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railway and steamship services-
414. Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment and harbour facilities, $4,340,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I take it the minister has no additional information to give us about the east coast ferry beyond what he gave before dinner.
I notice the cost is exactly the same this year as it was last year. Could the minister say how many vessels are normally employed on this service at the present time.


Léon Balcer: Is this vote 415 or 414?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Vote 414. In addition to the Carson certain other vessels are used.


Léon Balcer: I wonder whether my hon.
friend would let me take this question as notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be very happy to do so. There is one other question I have in connection with this item. I will be glad if the minister will take them both as notice and answer at his convenience.
It has been the experience, I think, that when the Carson was in regular operation it was able to keep up pretty well with the freight load without very much help from other vessels, but there is always a backlog whenever the Carson is off the run for any length of time. I wonder whether the minister, when he gives the other information, could indicate how well the railway is keeping its freight current, instead of having the backlogs that used to be so serious.


Léon Balcer: The C.N.R. operate the coastal shipping services for passengers, mail, express and freight. It services 234 ports of call on the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador. At present there are ten railway vessels and four chartered vessels employed on that service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is the whole coastal service; that is not just the service from Port aux Basques?


Léon Balcer: No, that is the whole C.N.R. service around the coast of Newfoundland. At the present time the flow of traffic is well

looked after except during certain periods because of very heavy ice conditions. We will have to provide something more sometime during the next five years.


Chesley William Carter: Mr. Chairman, could the
minister give the committee some information regarding the construction of the new vessels for coastal service? I understood one was to go into service last month but has been delayed, and that there was to be another new one constructed following that.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, the first one is almost ready for service, and will be in service very shortly. In regard to the second vessel, the construction has been awarded to Saint John Drydock Limited with a scheduled delivery date of May, 1961. I have been informed of a slight delay resulting from the strike in the shipyards. Work has resumed now, so delivery will be made in the very near future. As far as the third vessel is concerned, tenders have been called, and tenders will be called very shortly now for the construction of the fourth vessel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
415. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects $1,545,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I believe this vote is exclusively in respect to the car ferry that is to go into service between Cape Tormentine and Borden. Could the minister inform the committee what date it is expected that this vessel will go into operation?


Léon Balcer: The delivery date was to be during the autumn of this year but, because of the delay caused by the strike which I mentioned earlier, it has been extended to mid-winter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In that event, there is no assurance that the same terrible conditions will not exist for at least part of next winter that existed up until May of this year. Of course, the minister is not responsible for the ice even though he does have charge of meteorological services, but he will appreciate that the situation was quite deplorable. The minister must also be aware that about the time the ice conditions were the worst, the Abegweit was taken off service and put into drydock for refitting because, it was stated, she would lose her place in the queue. It is obvious that there is not enough shipping capacity to get the people across, and I should like to know whether the minister

expects that the new vessels will be put in operation before the causeway is ready.


Léon Balcer: Yes, a few years before that. Item agreed to.
Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1961-
418. Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $6,585,000.


Robert Hardy Small: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether this is the right item in respect to which I should raise my question, because there is no reference to money beside it. All it says is:
Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits-
There is no reference to an amount beside it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The amounts are listed below.


Mr. Broome:: Read down further.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, in respect to vote No. 418, I should like to ask a question following up a question asked previously by an hon. member. I notice there is an increase from $5,410,000 to $6,585,000 in the deficit. Could the minister explain the reason for that increase? How does this deficit work?


Lionel Chevrier: It is red.


John Whitney Pickersgill: How does a deficit work?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I may have put the question badly but I should like to know the reason for the increased deficit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The service does not pay.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I can give a brief explanation regarding the increase of $1,175,000 in the deficit for 1961 as compared with 1960. This year there is an increase in maintenance and dock tracks, as well as buildings amounting to $145,500. The cost in regard to the North Sydney-Port aux Basques service is $117,000 and, in regard to the service from North Sydney to other island ports the cost is $28,500. During this year there will be a decrease in the cost of repairs to buildings and equipment on the North Sydney-Port aux Basques service amounting to $70,000. There will be an increase in repairs to floating equipment on the North Sydney to other island port services in the amount of $7,000. The increase in the cost of the operating services in 1961 will total
Supply-Transport
$1,224,500." The increase in the cost of freight handling and switching will amount to $900,-
000.	The increase in wages to crews is $200,000, and the increase in the cost of material and supplies is $35,000. The increase in cost of fuel charges is $50,000; the increase in claims for taxes and various miscellaneous charges is $39,500. There is also an increase in equipment rentals of $18,000, making a total of $1,325,000. That will be reduced by an estimated increase in operating revenues of $150,000. The net increase in operating deficit will be $1,175,000.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the repairs that the minister has referred to have mainly been to docks and other facilities. I should like to know if the ferry, which was referred to a moment ago and the service it provides, is maintained separately from the repair items, or is the whole operation of ferry services and terminal facilities regarded as one main item? I should like to know the relationship between the Canadian National Railways, mentioned as "the company" in this vote, and the facilities which normally would belong to the Department of Transport. Are they maintained separately or combined in one group?


Lionel Chevrier: They are separate in combination.


Léon Balcer: Our cost is kept separately. The C.N.R. submits these accounts for operating costs, etc., to the Department of Transport for whom it acts as agent.


William Arnold Peters: Under this item the minister mentioned terminals at the particular ports. Are they distinguished as Department of Transport terminals? Are they separate from Canadian National facilities? In other words, do the Canadian National Railways use them the same way that other people might use them? Is there a public section in so far as the Department of Transport is concerned with reference to these facilities?


Léon Balcer: We own all these facilities and the Canadian National operates them. I am told that these installations are for public use. They are used by the C.N.R. which has operated them as our agent.


William Arnold Peters: One further question. Is the ferry that is being built for the Department of Transport or is it for the Canadian National Railways?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no ferry being built.


Léon Balcer: This item deals only with ferry service to Newfoundland. The new ferry that we are building is for Prince Edward Island.

Supply-Transport


Chesley William Carter: What the minister has said has conveyed the impression to my hon. friend that this amount is charged up to the ferry between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. It is my understanding and it has always been so, that this amount covers not only the ferry but all the ships that operate between the mainland and Newfoundland and the coastal services in Newfoundland as well. If I am not right in this I should like the minister to put me straight.


Léon Balcer: This is for the installations at North Sydney and Port aux Basques and it is used by the ferry service between these two points. This ferry service is run by the C.N.R. These installations can be used by other C.N.R. ships which are doing coastal service along the shores of Newfoundland.


Chesley William Carter: That is part of the answer, but the item as it appears here refers to the one ferry, and in the minds of everybody that amount covers the ferry between Newfoundland and the mainland. When you say "ferry" you immediately think of one ship, namely the William Carson; but as I understand it there is more than one ship involved in this, and not only the ferry but the coastal boats as well.


Léon Balcer: That is right.


Chesley William Carter: One other question. Is part of this deficit due to the fact that the ferry is classed as a railway and the rail rates prevail on it as distinct from what we would call freight rates on ships, so that the ferry does not earn the revenue that she would earn if she were not part of the railway?


Léon Balcer: They have included a through railway charge even on that part of the trip that is covered by the ferry. If the rates were water rates the revenue would be lower and the operating deficit would be greater.


Chesley William Carter: That is what I thought. One other question. I do not expect the minister to have the information available now, but, since he is getting some information for my colleague from Bonavista-Twillingate I wonder whether, without too much difficulty, it would be possible to get some comparative figures for last year and the year before of the tonnage carried by this ferry, including passengers, cars and freight.


Léon Balcer: I can give these figures right now between North Sydney and Port aux Basques. I can give a comparison between 1959 and 1960. The number of crossings in 1959 was 1,126; in 1960, 1,250. Tons of revenue freight carried in 1959 amounted to 246,353; in 1960, 255,535. The number of passengers carried in 1959 was 58,435; in 1960, 67,527. The number of automobiles carried in 1959
was 11,642; in 1960, 15,427; trucks, in 1959, 2,026; in 1960, 2,773; cattle, in 1959, 5,276; in 1960, 4,394; carloadings at terminals, in 1959, 16,144; in 1960, 16,140. There is an increase everywhere except in carloadings at terminals, which are down by only four cars; and in cattle, which are down by almost 900.


Chesley William Carter: I thank the minister very much.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
585. Bell Island-Portugal Cove, Newfoundland ferry service, repairs and improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, $97,400.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Can the minister say precisely what is being done with the terminal facilities there?


Léon Balcer: Yes. The Department of Public Works have terminal facilities which are being operated there. These are temporary improvements at Portugal Cove on which have been spent $44,375, and on the ferry at Bell Island, $42,300.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At Bell Island?


Léon Balcer: Yes; that is an expenditure of about $87,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
421. Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1961, $339,000.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Could the minister say whether any consideration is being given to getting another vessel for this service?


Léon Balcer: Not at the present time. We have made a traffic study and we will review the matter in a couple of years.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister is familiar no doubt with the efforts that have been made by the mayor of Yarmouth to persuade the department to acquire a vessel that used to ply somewhere in the Caribbean. I think I asked a question about that on the order paper. I have not turned it up recently, but could the minister say whether this matter was seriously considered at all?


Léon Balcer: I am told that a year ago the department was approached by the province on the whole question of the service from the south of Nova Scotia to New England. That is what led to the study being made as a result of which we decided that for the time being we will leave things as they are and will review the situation in a couple of years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
423. Railway to Great Slave lake-location survey. $550,000.
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, this item is for the location survey with respect to a railway to Great Slave lake and the amount is

$550,000. I should like to bring one or two matters to the attention of the minister. The minister will remember that in the speech from the throne in 1957, I believe, an announcement was made that a railway to Great Slave lake would be built. We are now in 1961 and there is still no indication that this is going to be done. In the following year again in the speech from the throne there was another announcement respecting the appointment of a royal commission to select the route which would be followed in the construction of the railway, whether it would be via Waterways or via the western route from Dawson Creek and Hines Creek up to Great Slave lake.
After more than three years we now have this vote of $550,000 in the estimates for a location survey and in the supplementary estimates there is another item of $193,908 or an approximate total of $750,000. I think the minister owes it to the committee to give some indication of what is intended under this survey. Who is going to make the survey? Is it going to be done by the owners of Northern Alberta Railways? Is it going to be done by some other body or group who will report to the Department of Transport? How will it be done? Again, will some of this work be given by contract and when does the government intend to begin construction of the railway? Surely parliament is entitled to know whether there is going to be any action because this appears to have been nothing but bait for election purposes since 1957. There has been no real action with reference to the construction of the railway. The minister can shake his head if he wishes. Perhaps he does not like the expression, but there is no doubt that those who live in the area must be tremendously disappointed at the fact that after four years we are only now talking about a location survey.
The first year the matter was mentioned in the speech from the throne we were going to have a railway. Later it became clear that the government had announced the construction of the railway without ascertaining the wishes of the people in the area and that there was some difference of opinion as to which route the line should follow, the eastern or the western route, and a royal commission was established for the purpose of determining that matter. Now that the royal commission has reported we have this location survey. I think the committee is entitled to know the answers to these questions I have put.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Just before the minister speaks, may I say that I had intended to raise questions very similar to those put by the hon. member for Laurier because some 90205-6-384
S upp ly-Transport
of my constituents are particularly interested in the construction of this railway. I hope the minister can answer the questions asked by the hon. member for Laurier and can give us a fairly complete explanation of the situation at the present time.


Lionel Chevrier: You will not protest even though it interests your constituents.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, as usual the
government is going to carry out its undertaking. We said in the speech from the throne that the railway was going to be built and it is going to be built.


Lionel Chevrier: When?


Léon Balcer: Perhaps my hon. friend will be patient for a minute. First of all, the hon. member has asked who is doing the survey. The survey is being done by the C.N.R. and it is under way at the present time. It is a little ahead of schedule and it should be completed by next winter.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Next Wednesday?


Léon Balcer: Next winter.


Lionel Chevrier: Next summer on the ice.


Léon Balcer: The hon. member for Laurier will probably be disappointed, but I should like to take this opportunity to tell hon. members that at this session there will definitely be a bill for the construction of this railway. At the present time we are carrying on discussions with the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company. The talks between the mining company, the department and the railway are proceeding very well, and I am very pleased to say that before too long I will bring before the house proper legislation for the construction of the railway.


Lionel Chevrier: May I tell the minister I am not at all disappointed by what he has just stated. What I am disappointed about is that it has taken four years to implement the announcement in the speech from the throne in 1957 that the railway was going to be built.


Léon Balcer: It is a major railway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my incredulity at one statement made by the minister. The minister said that there was definitely going to be a bill this session for the building of this railway. I do not recollect it being included in the list of bills that was given to us at the time the Prime Minister asked us to sit these outrageous hours we have been sitting.


Mr. Lambert:: Did you read the speech from the throne?

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does this mean that still another bill is being added to the list for this session even though the survey will not be completed until this winter?


Norman Platt Lambert: Did you read the speech from the throne?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I read the speech from the throne but it has very little relation to what has happened this session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
427. Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1961 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $8,200.
Mr. Creaghan:: I should like to take a few moments of the time of the committee to discuss this item. On the face of it, it appears to be an item for $8,200. However, in reality, to the citizens involved, it represents an item more like $6.2 million. Now, one does not have to be an accountant or belong to the Glassco royal commission to understand that statement.
In the first place, this vote makes provision for an increase from $20 to $30 per month in the amount paid by the government to retired railway workers in the maritime provinces and throughout Canada. At the present time there are approximately 4,000 people relying entirely for their income upon these cheques issued by the provident fund. These people live in the maritimes predominantly, but some of them are located in various parts of the country as a result of being transferred while employed by the government railway. The figure I mentioned of $6.2 million is an accurate figure according to reports I have received.
The provident fund is maintained at the present time by deductions at source from all concerned of 1.5 per cent of the salary of approximately 2,000 men employed by the Canadian National Railways. The fund also receives a grant, by statute, of $100,000 from the Canadian National, together with the deficit required which the Canadian National must pay to maintain this fund. Last year the deficit of the provident fund exceeded $6 million. I understand that since 1922, when the Canadian National took over the administration of this fund, the total deficit met by the Canadian National has exceeded $75 million.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, it seems obvious that if the Canadian National, because of its inheritance, has paid the provident fund $75 million since 1922, then it is fair to state that the Canadian National has contributed its share. However, I question

whether the government of Canada has contributed its fair share to these railway workers. In 1940, there were 10,000 people in receipt of benefits from this fund or still contributing to the fund. The last figures I have, for 1959 indicated that this figure is now less than 6,000, made up of approximately 2,000 contributors and 4,000 pensioners.
I believe that the time has come for the government to take another look at this matter. Financially, it does not make very much difference, as long as the Canadian National takes care of the deficit because, although it appears that the government of Canada contributes only $8,200, when the government picks up the Canadian National deficit, it means in actual fact that the government is paying $6 million or $7 million annually. As I said a moment ago, I think the time has come for the government to take a very close look at the Intercolonial Railway provident fund. At the present time the people administering the fund are located in Moncton, New Brunswick, and they are entirely Canadian National employees. I suggest that the minister should consider the possibility of transferring the administration of the provident fund under his jurisdiction. Notwithstanding the fact that these employees worked for Canadian National, the pension cheques they receive have "Department of Transport" printed on them, and they are government of Canada cheques. If the government is carrying the load, then the government may as well get the credit for the full amount it pays rather than for the amount of this item.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I suggest also that the statutory increase in the pension payment from $20 to $30 is not sufficient. The amount of $30 was authorized many years ago, and today it is away out of line. There are very few people involved who are in receipt of this minimum pension. All of them gave many, many years of service at a time when railway wages were very low.
The act incorporating the fund was passed in this house in 1907, and it defined employees as employees of Her Majesty. The people for whom I have been speaking, many of whom I represent, are very disappointed over the fact that, notwithstanding an act of parliament which says they are employees of Her Majesty, they were not included in the assistance rendered by the Minister of Finance in 1958 when this house authorized increases in the pensions of retired members of the armed forces, the R.C.M.P. and the civil service. These people feel that they were employees of Her Majesty, and not employees necessarily of the Canadian National.

Supply-Transport
I hope that after the minister's estimates have been concluded he will give serious thought to my remarks tonight. Perhaps when the railway committee meets sometime later this month, he will be prepared to make a statement on this important subject.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Air services-
Administration branch-
429. Air services administration, $1,852,117.
(Translation):
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I should like to put a few questions to the minister concerning the international air terminal in Montreal in relation to the holders of franchises who have successfully tendered for the lease of the restaurant. I should like the minister to explain the delay of the province of Quebec in granting a beverage licence, a delay which I think was harmful to the reputation of the province of Quebec and of Canada.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I must say I have never really understood the exact reason of that delay. I know there have been certain changes in the management, but it is all hearsay. I do not know just what happened, but the matter was settled overnight, and after a delay of at least three or four months, a licence was granted to the Montreal air terminal.
I do not yet know the reason for the delay.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister should have made no comment rather than say that he believes on the basis of hearsay that there was a delay of four months. I would remind him that when I was on the other side of the house, we tried for years to get a licence from the province of Quebec under the former government, but to no avail. Let me tell you why. The Department of Transport had set aside a location for a beverage room in the old terminal, and for years we made representations to the Duplessis government but never got a licence, because the province of Quebec insisted that the tenant be selected by itself exclusively. That is why we tried for years but to no avail.
I am surprised, to say the least, that the hon. member should ask such a question after barely three months, when things dragged on for years under the former Duplessis administration.
So let the hon. member and his minister not get excited about this. I know what happened at the time.
90205-6-384i
(Text):
However, I did not rise to discuss that matter. I rose to discuss another matter which was brought up in this house the other evening, namely, a contract that had been given by the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys to Autair Helicopter Services. It concerns this department and it falls under the heading of "Air Services" because the minister is responsible for air services, is responsible for the air transport board and is responsible for the operation of the Aeronautics Act. The Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, rising in his place the other evening, told us that the policy followed by his department was the same that had been followed by the former administration. He put on the record a letter which I had written to my former colleague, the Hon. Mr. Prudham, then minister of mines and technical surveys. But the minister never brought to the attention of the house first the statement made by the former minister of transport, namely the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, when he said in this chamber that he was going to decontrol the policy having to do with air services and he did decontrol it. When we asked him questions in the house why he decontrolled it he said he decontrolled it for the purpose of allowing competition, that it is the policy of the present government to allow competition in this field. If that is the case, why was competition not allowed in the case of the contract (1) for the polar continental shelf project and (2) for the topographical survey in the Arctic regions of Canada?
Then again, the minister referred to the policy which was followed by the previous administration. It is true that I wrote the letter which was put on Hansard to my former colleague, namely the Hon. Mr. Prudham. But the policy on more than one occasion was that, when tariffs were filed, the work was divided among various contractors. Here we have a contract that has been advertised. Tariffs have been filed. However, after the tariffs had been filed, approaches are made by an officer of the department to a certain helicopter company with the object of awarding a contract, when Autair filed a lower tariff with the air transport board and got the contract. I suppose I shall be asked this question: Why do you not prove that and establish it? I have tried to establish it by the questions I have put on the order paper. Some of the statements which I have made and which I am about to make I can establish from the record. Others I cannot establish from the record. However, the Air Industries and Transport Association have

Supply-Transport
been able to establish it. At their convention which took place in Victoria recently they passed a number of resolutions. I should like to quote from the Financial Post of June 3, in connection with this matter. The article is entitled, "Sealed Tender System Urged by Air Transport Companies" and it reads as follows:
The Canadian aviation industry has asked the government to call for sealed tenders on future air transport contracts.
They should be opened in the presence of other bidders, the airmen argue.
This was one of the resolutions passed at recent meeting in Victoria of the Air Industries and Transport Association.
The airmen were actually complaining about Autair Helicopter Services, the controversial Montreal-based company which has been in and out of the political headlines since its formation.
It was claimed that last year Autair was granted a contract to supply helicopter services in the Arctic after it had been given a second chance to bid.
That statement does not come from me. I did make a similar statement in the house some time ago. The minister said it was not true. Here the Air Industries and Transport Association are taking this matter up and saying the same thing. Why are they doing that? They are doing it because they know full well that the company was allowed to submit another tariff after another company had entered into negotiations with the department. Then the article goes on to say this:
The association has also asked Ottawa not to give contracts to operators who have to lease special equipment from the U.S. if a Canadian operator already has such equipment on hand.
Autair was again the target, as it leased a large helicopter from the U.S. to handle part of the Arctic contract.
Again I put on the order paper questions having to do with this matter and very little information has been obtained from the minister. Here is the resolution which was passed by the Air Industries and Transport Association. I shall just read the governing clause which is as follows:
Now, therefore he it resolved, that all government contracts for air transport be requested on a sealed tender basis with a definite closing date and time and that such tenders be opened in the presence of any bidders desiring to attend and also a representative from the air transport board to advise on interpretation of licensing and tariffs.
This is the company which received from the government last year $183,500 for a contract which it had from the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys for the continental shelf project and for topographical work. This was for work done in 1960. The amount of the contract was $183,500. I presume that by now the company has been paid this amount. This amount was paid notwithstanding the charge that was made in the House of Commons that they were not the lowest tenderer.
From the evidence that was adduced at that time it was clearly indicated that again they had been given a second chance to tender. This is the company that also operated in the province of Quebec under the old regime of the late Mr. Duplessis without a licence from the air transport board under the Aeronautics Act. There is no doubt-and I put this on record previously-that when Autair Helicopter Services applied to the air transport board for a licence it was turned down; the air transport board declined the application. However, on appeal being made to the minister, the minister allowed the appeal.
This contract has been given to a company which, notwithstanding all sorts of protestations, has had its insurance cancelled twice and, has had no less than eight accidents; indeed it has had more than that number. I should like to put on record, Mr. Chairman, and I now ask permission to table the record of accidents of Autair Helicopter Services on the continental polar shelf contract. They had eight accidents during the years 1959 and 1960. This information is obtained from sessional paper No. 211B tabled in this house on May 16, 1961. I should like permission to table this list of accidents.


Jacques Flynn: I am not too sure as to the intention of the hon. member. He has mentioned that he wanted to table the document.


Lionel Chevrier: What I mean is that I want to have it printed in Hansard.


Jacques Flynn: Does the committee agree that this document be printed in Hansard at this point in the remarks of the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Léon Balcer: I have no objection. However, Mr. Chairman, I should like to remind you that this document has already been tabled in the house. It is an answer to a question.


Mr. Monleith (Perth):: It is already tabled.


Lionel Chevrier: No; it has not been tabled in the house. It has been made an order for return and therefore it is not on Hansard. 1 think I am entitled to make a copy of the order for return and to put it on Hansard in order to indicate the number of accidents this company has had in the last two years.


Jacques Flynn: As I understand the question of the hon. member, he wants this to be made part of his speech instead of reading it. I think that is the request the hon. member is making.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we want to be careful about the precedents that we establish. I understand

this is a document which is already in the possession of the House of Commons. The hon. member wishes it to be recorded in Hansard without reading it. It seems to me that if we adopted this as a practice we would have Hansard filled up with quite a number of documents already in the hands of hon. members. Would it not be better if the hon. member drew our attention to the source of the information and simply summarized the accidents about which he has this information?


Lionel Chevrier: No, Mr. Chairman; I intend to put it on Hansard myself if I am not saved the time of doing so by being allowed to table this statement. I think it will save the time of the committee if the statement were entered in Hansard. If not I shall proceed to put it in Hansard seriatim.


Jacques Flynn: If there is not unanimous consent, the hon. member realizes he will have to read it. Is there unanimous consent?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman; I think the document should be read.


Lionel Chevrier: Then in connection with starred questions which I have put on the order paper and to which answers were given not in Hansard, but by an order for return, I should now like to put on Hansard the record of accidents of Autair Helicopter Services Limited on the continental polar shelf contract:
(a)	CF-KMV-Bell 47G2-ten miles from lake la Bouille, P.Q., on 25th February, 1959-the right ski sank in the snow on landing and the aircraft rolled over. Substantial damage.
(b)	CF-KMX-Bell 47G2-lake Gaillard, P.Q., on 7th March, 1959-while attempting take-off, the helicopter nosed over and crashed. Substantial damage.
(c)	CF-KMW-Alouette II-Labrieville south, Ber-simus 2, P.Q., on 13th May, 1959-on take-off, uncontrollable vibration attributed to ground resonance was set up and the aircraft crashed. Complete write-off.
(d)	CF-KMN-Bell 47G-northern Quebec on 10th July, 1959-the helicopter experienced a sudden loss of lift and crashed to the ground. Substantial damage.
(e)	CF-KMX-Bell 47G2-Veza lake, P.Q., on 15th January, 1960-while transporting an engine in a net slung beneath the helicopter, the net snagged in fallen trees during an approach to land. The aircraft tipped forward and crashed. Substantial damage.
(f)	CF-LME-Bell 47G2-Greening station, P.Q., on 10th March, 1960-the helicopter was parked close to the railway track and the rotor was struck by a passing train. Substantial damage.
(g)	CF-IKS-Bell 47G2-near Richmond gulf, P.Q., on 9th April, 1960-tiie helicopter experienced control difficulties during flight where the seizure of the lateral damper on the manual controls resulted in jamming of the cyclic stick which prevented the pilot from controlling the aircraft, which was forced landed. Substantial damage.
(h)	CF-IKR-Bell 47G2-de Gue river, P.Q., on 13th August, 1960-while attempting to land the
Supply-Transport
float equipped aircraft on a small sloping shelf of rock the aircraft toppled into the water. Substantial damage.
Then there is this note:
All involved partial write-off since major components were destroyed.
This is the record of the company to which the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys gave a contract for important helicopter services on the continental polar shelf. I asked what were the accidents in 1961 and I was told there were none. I have it from a reliable source that Bell 47G2A helicopter had an accident in 1961; tail boom extension smashed-


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, it is all very well for the hon. member to talk about a very reliable source when reading a document. If he is going to read a document he should tell the committee what the document is, and if he wants to talk about a very reliable source he should not be afraid to name that source.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not speaking from a document; I have notes and I am making the statement in this committee that I was not given the information I should have been given in answer to this question. I have it on reliable information that there was an accident in 1961.


Léon Balcer: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, what the hon. member for Laurier is stating in fact is that my department has not given a true answer to one of his questions. He is trying to prove that by saying to the committee, "I know from a very reliable source that the information given by the department was not true; it was not according to the facts." I think in all fairness, and according to the rules of the house, if the hon. member is going to make such a statement the least he could do is name that very reliable source.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know of any rule of the house whereby I am required to name the source.


Léon Balcer: Then, Mr. Chairman, I suggest-


Lionel Chevrier: Just let me finish. The minister will have an opportunity to reply, and I hope he will give an explanation why it is that this accident of which I am about to give the details was not reported when I asked for the information.


Léon Balcer: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman-


Lionel Chevrier: Is the minister going to allow me-


Léon Balcer: -if the hon. member is speaking to the point of order I am ready to listen

Supply-Transport
to him, but if he is going to carry on from there without speaking to the point of order,
I think I have the right to continue.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the point of order on which the minister rose?


Léon Balcer: The point of order is that if an hon. member puts a question on the order paper or asks it on orders of the day and a minister files an answer, the hon. member has to accept that answer. What the hon. member for Laurier is now saying is, "Well, I have asked a question: were there any accidents reported to the department in 1961?", and he tells the committee that the department said there were no accidents. Then the hon. member says, "I have a very reliable source that says that the information given by the department is not according to the facts; it is not true". I think that is a serious accusation the hon. member is making, and the least he could do is tell the committee what his very reliable source is.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I am not making an accusation against-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Just a moment. I am not making an accusation against the officers of the Department of Transport. I am making the statement that in 1961 there was an accident experienced by Autair Helicopter Services Limited, and in the information I have, that accident was not reported. Because of that I say that the officers of this department should now take the necessary steps to inquire whether or not it is a fact that Bell 47G2A helicopter had a tail boom extension smashed after being struck by its own main rotor blades, because of the lack of the pilot's experience, on the continental polar shelf project after the contract started, in 1961. That is what I am asking the minister to inquire into, and I am not accusing-


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member give the date of this accident?


Lionel Chevrier: I will have to give it to the minister later, just as the minister has not always at his finger tips all the information we request. But that is the point I am bringing to the attention of the minister. I think the minister should inquire whether or not that is the case, and if it is not the case and if I am wrong, I will rise in this house and apologize to the house for the statement which I have made.
I now move on to another part of the information that was given in connection with this matter. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, I advised the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys long before I rose to discuss this

matter that I intended to deal with it this evening. I spoke to him personally in the corridor, and I sent a message to his office.
It seems to me that part of this is not the responsibility of the Minister of Transport, but a great part of it is. That part which has to do with the air transport board falls under his jurisdiction, while that part which has to do with the giving of the contract is not his responsibility. I suggest that is why it is difficult to deal with a matter of this kind, two departments being involved. As the minister knows, in this case there are two departments involved.
It is well known that this firm is one which was very close to the late Premier Duplessis, and is equally close to the present federal government. Because of the statement which I have made I do not think the contract should have been given to that company under the circumstances it was given, by the filing of tariffs without the submission of tenders. I asked last year that this matter be investigated, but nothing was done. I have asked the minister again this year to make sure, before the contract was started upon, that the equipment which the minister listed to have been in possession of the contractor, was in his possession before he started to do the work on the continental polar shelf. From what was reported at the air industry transport association it appears that all the equipment which was required was not in the possession of that contractor and, in fact, that some of the equipment had to be obtained in the United States. That is why the resolution was passed at the air industry transport association protesting against allowing the equipment to be brought in from the United States under those circumstances. That resolution reads as follows:
Therefore be it resolved that the air transport board and the Department of Transport and the Department of National Revenue refuse to permit foreign-owned equipment to be imported under any lease or other short term device unless such suitable fixed or rotary wing aircraft cannot be procured from another Canadian operator at lease or charter rates and conditions considered fair and equitable by the air transport boar.
Be it further resolved, that in the allocation of government contracts priority be given to those operators equipped and qualified to perform the contract on which the tender is being submitted.
Mr. Chairman, I protest again the manner in which this operator was given the contract; that is, by the filing of tariffs on a second occasion.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, will the hon. member permit a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: If my memory serves me correctly this is the fifth time the hon. member

for Laurier has raised this matter in one form or another. I am becoming a little confused.
I should like to ask the hon. member for Laurier whether he is implying or alleging that in some way or another there exists mismanagement, there is patronage, there is collusion and there is inefficiency. Just exactly what is it that the hon. member is trying to prove?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I suppose it does not matter very much how often I have raised this matter. I believe I am entitled to raise it a thousand times if I should want to. However, it is not the fifth time I have raised it but the third time.
I am complaining about the manner in which the contract was awarded. I am complaining about the fact that this company was refused a licence in the first instance by the air transport board. I am complaining about the fact that this company had its insurance cancelled twice, and I am complaining about the fact that it has had eight accidents of a serious nature, and that under the circumstances it should not have been entrusted with a contract of this kind in respect to the continental polar shelf.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: May I ask the hon. member a question? In regard to the accidents which he has stated have taken place, could he explain to this committee where there has been any loss of life or any cost to the taxpayers?


Lionel Chevrier: There has been no loss of life but the accidents have entailed substantial damage in each case.


William Lawrence Marven Creaghan: To whom?


Lionel Chevrier: To the aircraft; the helicopter.


An hon. Member:: What are you worried about?


Lionel Chevrier: I did not hear the question.


An hon. Member:: Are you worried about the company?


Lionel Chevrier: I am worried about the fact that accidents of this kind are taking place up in the Arctic. I am worried about them because, if something is not done, one of these days someone will get killed and it will be too late.


Jacques Flynn: Shall vote 429 carry?


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am interested in this problem because I have listened to the hon. member's statement regarding it on a number of occasions. He has convinced me that there is something wrong involved, and I am surprised that he should let the subject drop each time he makes his complaints. The
Business of the House
situation reminds me of one in which two individuals continually insult each other until they reach the stage of blows, at which time one sits down. I feel if what the hon. member for Laurier has said can be established by fact there is something seriously wrong with the licensing procedure of the department. I feel the charges which have been made by that hon. member are serious and, if untrue, should be answered by the minister. If the situation to which the hon. member has referred does exist, the minister should inform this committee what his department intends to do to correct that situation. I think the charges have been made with some justification because I have checked to the extent of meeting one of the officials of the company and have been informed that another tender was made. I suggest this is not a game that we are playing, and that at least some of the charges are accurate. Because of that, I feel the minister is obliged to inform this committee what is being done to terminate this problem. As the hon. member for Laurier pointed out, this awarding of the contract happened on two occasions under similar circumstances.
In view of the complexity of this problem, I am sure the minister wishes to reply, and I should, therefore, like to call it ten o'clock.


An hon. Member:: You mean 10.30.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the business will be tomorrow and Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will commence with the estimates of the Department of Justice. I should remind the house that we have already devoted three days to considering the estimates of that department. Following that we will deal with the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. On the completion of those estimates we will then carry on with the estimates of the Department of Transport.
Our objective this week is the completion of our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice, the Department of Fisheries and the Department of Forestry.


Lionel Chevrier: Can the minister give any indication as to the business for Monday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
At 10.30 o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Items Passed [The following items were passed in committee of supply]:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A-Department-
402.	Departmental administration, $3,395,700. Marine services-
403.	Marine services administration, including agencies, $1,032,610.
Aids to navigation-
404.	Administration, operation and maintenance including fees for membership in the international organizations listed in the details of the estimates, $6,783,790.
405.	Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $5,290,000.
Canals-
406.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $2,398,550.
407. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, including payments to provinces or municipalities as contributions towards construction done by those bodies, $1,850,230.
St. Lawrence and Saguenay rivers ship channels-
408.	Administration, operation and maintenance, $1,891,389.
409. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $4,952,000.
Canadian marine service-
410.	Administration, operation and maintenance including authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, to make commitments for the current fiscal year not to exceed a total amount of $20,379,688, $18,864,688.
411.	Construction or acquisition of ships and equipment, $14,500,000.
Marine regulations including pilotage and marine reporting services-
412.	Administration, operation and maintenance, including grants and contributions as detailed in the estimates, $3,600,129.
413. Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $2,229,000.
Railway and steamship services-
414.	Newfoundland coastal services-construction or acquisition of passenger-cargo vessels and equipment and harbour facilities, $4,340,000.
415. Construction or acquisition of auto-ferry vessels and equipment as listed in the details of the estimates, provided that treasury board may increase or decrease the amount within the vote to be expended upon individual listed projects, $1,545,000.
416.	Construction of dock and terminal facilities at Port aux Basques, Newfoundland, $134,300.
417.	Enlargement of dock and terminal facilities at North Sydney, Nova Scotia, $31,900.
Payments to the Canadian National Railway Company (hereinafter called the company) upon applications approved by the Minister of Transport made by the company to the Minister of
Finance, to be applied by the company in payment of the deficits, certified by the auditors of the company, arising in the operations in the calendar year 1961-
418.	Newfoundland ferry and terminals, $6,585,000.
419.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals, $2,845,000.
420.	Prince Edward Island car ferry and terminals -construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, $980,000.
421.	Yarmouth, Nova Scotia-Bar Harbor, Maine, U.S.A., ferry service-deficit, 1961, $339,000.
422.	Maritime Freight Rates Act-payment to the railway companies operating in the select territory designated by the act, of the difference occurring on account of the application of the act, between the tariff tolls and normal tolls under approved tariffs (estimated and certified to the Minister of Transport by the Canadian National Railway Company and approved by auditors of the said company respecting the eastern lines of the Canadian National Railways and in the case of the other railways by the board of transport commissioners for Canada) on all traffic moved during the calendar year 1961, $14,750,000.
423.	Railway to Great Slave lake-location survey, $550,000.
424.	Repairs and expenses in connection with the operation and maintenance of official railway cars under the jurisdiction of the department, $62,200.
425.	Degaussing Canadian government ships and Canadian-owned merchant ships, of 1,000 gross tons and over, of Canadian registry, or of United Kingdom registry if subject to re-transfer to Canadian registry under special inter-governmental arrangement, $190,000.
Pensions and other benefits-
426.	Amount required to pay pensions at the rate
of $300 per annum to former pilots:	Raoul
Lachance; Jules Lamarre; Wilhelm Langlois; Auguste Santerre, $1,200.
427.	Railway employees' provident fund-to supplement pension allowances under the intercolonial and Prince Edward Island Railway Employees' Provident Fund Act so as to make the minimum allowance payable in the calendar year 1961 $30 per month instead of $20 per month as fixed by the said act, $8,200.
428.	Supplemental pension allowances to former employees of Newfoundland railways, steamships and telecommunications services transferred to Canadian National Railways, $105,000.
A-Department-
583.	Departmental administration-further amount required, $47,585.
Marine services-
Marine regulations including pilotage and marine reporting services-
584.	Administration, operation and maintenance- to extend the purposes of vote 412 of the main estimates for 1961-62 to include the grants detailed in these estimates, $2,488.
Railway and steamship services-
585.	Bell Island-Portugal Cove, Newfoundland ferry service-repairs and improvements to terminal facilities owned by Newfoundland, $97,400.
586.	Railway to Great Slave lake-location survey -further amount required, $193,908.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, June 9, 1961