1961-05-20

Hon. Howard C. Green (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thought the house might be interested if I made a short report on the two conferences which I have been attending, the first in Oslo, which as hon. members know was a meeting of the foreign ministers of NATO countries, and the second in Geneva, which was dealing with the question of Laos.
First of all I shall deal with the NATO meeting, which was held under very favourable conditions. Oslo is a lovely city, almost as nice as Vancouver, particularly at this time of year.
Probably the senior statesman of NATO is the Hon. Halvard Lange, the foreign minister of Norway. This meeting was held in his home country, and that made the atmosphere very friendly and statesmanlike. Norway, of course, is a wonderful friend of Canada, and that is true of all the Scandinavian countries, of which there are two others in the NATO organization, Denmark and Iceland. With these Nordic countries Canada has most friendly associations.
At this conference the chairman was the new secretary general of NATO, Dr. Stikker of the Netherlands. It was very difficult for him, of course, having taken over such a short time ago, but he contributed a great deal to the success of that meeting.
Certainly one of the most important discussions consisted of a review of the international situation. This was commenced by Dean Rusk, the new secretary of state of the United States. He made a very full and helpful statement concerning the situation in the world as seen by his great country.
There were various centres of interest discussed, such as Germany, and particularly Berlin, and it was generally agreed that this is the most vital area in the world today in so far as east-west tensions are concerned. Other questions which were discussed concerned the situations in Cuba, Laos and the Congo, as well as disarmament, colonialism and the United Nations, and the difficult economic positions of Greece and Turkey. These 90205-6-322
two countries, on the eastern flank of the alliance, do not have many of the advantages of the other members. Their economic condition is not nearly as good, they have special problems. They need special help.
There was also some slight discussion regarding defence questions, although the main discussions on that subject will take place at the December meeting when the Ministers of National Defence and Finance will be present as well as the foreign ministers.
Canada, of course, has been very firm in her attitude on Berlin, and more than once our Prime Minister has made it clear that we stand behind the people of West Berlin in their determination to retain their freedom. In respect of disarmament, Canada's position is very well known, and I think appreciated, by our NATO colleagues. It seems very likely that the United States and the Soviet union will commence discussions early next month aimed at working out an agreed negotiating forum. I would think that all the nations which participated in the 10-nation disarmament talks would be included in the negotiating group and, of course, our own country was one of those. Probably there will be others, we hope in the capacity of a neutral chairman and perhaps vice chairman and secretary. There is a reasonable chance that as a result of those discussions which are to take place between the United States and the Soviet union, disarmament talks proper can be resumed about August 1. It would be unwise to give any guarantees about that date, but I am very hopeful that this will be the result.
On the question of the Congo, we pointed out that Canada considers that peace-keeping activities such as our participation in the United Nations Congo operation are of great value to the other members of NATO even though they do not happen to be participating directly in that very important work. There has been some tendency to question Canada as a NATO country being a member of the United Nations committee on the Congo, and perhaps a few eyebrows have been raised about our taking a part in Laos. But we pointed out that this is a role which Canada is particularly well fitted to fill, and that those peace-keeping activities are extremely important in the over-all objective of maintaining peace which is the objective, of course, not only of the United Nations but also of

External Affairs
the NATO alliance itself. I believe the Canadian point of view is approved by the other members of NATO.
We were attacked in the United Nations from time to time regarding our actions in respect of the Congo because we happened to be a NATO country, and it would be a little bit thick if we were also to be attacked by our NATO allies on the ground that we were participating in this United Nations action. I think this question has been pretty thoroughly cleared up.
On the attitude of NATO to the United Nations, I believe there is now unanimous appreciation among all NATO countries that they must play their full part in the United Nations; that it is not good enough to sit off in a NATO alliance and not be very keen about helping out in the United Nations. Canada has never seen much sense in a hands-off attitude of that kind, and there has certainly been a distinct move in the direction of our views on this question by the other members of the alliance.
The question of colonialism is a very important one. Our position on this issue is perfectly clear because of two stands taken by our own Prime Minister. First there was the stand he took at the United Nations in his inspiring speech there last September when he pointed out that the Soviet union had a great deal of nerve to be trying to criticize the western nations on the question of colonialism while at the same time there was not the slightest move on their part to give any kind of independence to the countries which at one time were free and which are now part of the Soviet union.
The other stand was the one taken at the commonwealth prime ministers' conference. That made it clear beyond per-adventure where Canada stood with regard to nations achieving their independence, and our position on this point is very clear. Mind you, the colonial question is exceedingly difficult for some of the NATO countries, but at the same time I should point out that two of the NATO countries have taken the lead in giving independence to dependent countries, first the United Kingdom and then the republic of France. They deserve great credit for what they have done in the way of settling the question of colonialism. There is quite a long way to go yet, and I think all members of NATO realize that this problem must be faced and that the countries being held as dependencies must get their independence.
Hon. members will realize that there was very good consultation at this meeting, and I think there has also been a distinct improvement in the consultations taking place in the permanent council of NATO. Canada is very well satisfied now with the degree of and

opportunity for consultation. We brought up again the question of a heads of government meeting. Once a little further progress has been made in the long term planning for the alliance, I am hopeful that the heads of government will be brought together to approve or alter the recommendations made. I think it is very important that the heads of government should meet at the earliest time that makes sense; that is, when the necessary preliminary work has been completed.
The conference on Laos was, of course, a very different kind of conference. It did not have any head, and I have never attended a conference quite of this type. There have not been many held. There was a good deal of difficulty in commencing. In the first place, word from the international supervisory commission that a cease fire was in effect was not received until the morning of the day the conference was to open. After some deliberation, the report that a cease fire was in effect was accepted as satisfactory.
Then there was another problem as to what would be done about seating the Laotian delegates. There were three sets of delegates, one from the royal Laotian government, one from the government of Souvanna Phouma, and one from the Pathet Lao. This was really a very complicated question, and almost to the minute set for the opening there was uncertainty whether or not the conference would go on.
We thought it would not be proceeding, but just to be sure and to show that at least we were not stalling the beginning of the conference, the Canadian delegation streamed up to the headquarters of the European branch of the United Nations. Nobody else was in front of the main entrance except about 150 newspapermen and photographers, who were not quite sure either whether or not the conference was beginning.
When we talked to the senior man at the United Nations he told us that he had received a message a few minutes earlier from the British, the United Kingdom being one of the two co-chairmen, the other being the Soviet union. This was the message:
We have agreed on the simple formula that there will be no meeting this afternoon at 3 p.m. (May 12) and cannot say anything about the future.
There was, therefore, no meeting that afternoon. We had a good look at the conference room and found we were to be seated next to the Chinese. We learned other details as well about the proceedings. This question of the Laotian representation was not settled until four days later. You can imagine the consultations that took place in the intervening period.

Finally this formula was agreed upon:
The co-chairmen have agreed to seat the representations from Laos proposed by the individual governments participating in the conference.
The United States proposed the royal Laotian government and, although I do not remember exactly, I believe the Soviet union proposed the government of Prince Souvanna Phouma and I think the Chinese proposed the Pathet Lao. I am not just sure which country did that. In any event, everybody was proposed but the royal Laotian government representatives have not turned up as yet. They refused to sit on the ground that they are the official government, and they would not proceed under the circumstances.
The conference opened on Tuesday last and we heard a statement from Prince Sihanouk the head of state of Cambodia which, as you know, is a neighbour of Laos; Canada, by the way, is a member of the truce commission in that country also. I thought he made a very fine opening speech. The essence of it was that in this conference the delegations should look forward and not backward; that there was not much point in threshing old straw, and we should try to see what could be done in the future to settle the problems.
I spoke on behalf of Canada on the following day. If it is the wish of the house I would be glad to table a copy of that speech or have it printed as an appendix to Hansard, and then hon. members could see the attitude the Canadian government took. I cannot do this in so far as the NATO conference is concerned because the proceedings there are secret. In so far as the conference on Laos is concerned, it is possible to hand copies of the statement to the press.
I believe that Canada's position with regard to Laos should be, at all times, to consider problems in the light of her membership on the truce commission. This commission is going to be given great responsibilities for the working out of the Laotian problems. I think we are well advised to keep that in mind, and to talk and negotiate from the standpoint of being a member of that truce commission. This, I think, strengthens our hand a great deal in trying to get our views accepted.
The conference has two main jobs to do, in my judgment. One is to support the international truce commission which is actually in the field. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are Canadians in Laos at the present time. This conference must see that they get what they require in order to carry out their job; it must meet their requirements from week to week. The other job is to work out a long term settlement. I think that will have to be done on the basis of the Geneva 90205-6-322J
External Affairs
agreements of 1954. We base our position on those agreements, but there will have to be some modification in them.
On Thursday I intervened again to point out the need to provide that commission with airplanes and helicopters. The situation was that as early as May 1 the chairman of the commission, in his first report to the cochairmen of the Geneva conference, the United Kingdom and the Soviet union, asked for money, airplanes and helicopters. He also reported that he would be economical; that the commission would not waste money. In their reply the co-chairmen made arrangements to provide a little money and they approved of the idea of being economical- the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fleming) approves of that also-but they did not say one word about the airplanes and helicopters.
Therefore on Thursday afternoon I drew this to the attention of the conference and said I could not see any reason why the co-chairmen should not wire at once to the commission and ask for details of their requirements. Mr. Gromyko, the head of the Soviet delegation, did not want to move that quickly. Mind you, we had him in a comer because of the letters that had been exchanged. He simply could not get away from the terms of those letters. However, the final decision was that the British and the Russians would think it over during the night, and a special meeting of the conference was called for yesterday morning at which the conference was to hear their decision. They decided that a wire would go out, and this is the message they sent: Please inform us whether the commission has any technical requirements to facilitate the exercise of its functions in relation to the cease fire.
That was not exactly what I had asked for the day before. I had asked for recommendations from the commission with regard to the number of inspection teams there should be, and for some other details. However, I thought it best to accept this offer rather than have another long argument about it.
I spoke again yesterday morning, and everybody agreed that this wire should go out. Mind you, these people on the commission have not yet got their airplanes and helicopters, but at least the wire has gone out requesting them to ask in detail for what they require. Mr. Gromyko came over to me after the meeting had adjourned and said, "You know, if you had accepted that letter without making some remarks about it, I would have been very suspicious; would have thought that letter went too far".
That is the way we stand at the moment. I am very hopeful that the commission will be given the tools to do this very difficult job. I think there is a reasonable prospect

External Affairs
for the success of this conference in spite of all the difficulties there have been. I expect to be going back in a matter of three weeks or so.
There is great value in these contacts we make with other countries at these conferences. We have had friendly discussions with the delegation from Cambodia; they are very pleased with the work of the Canadians on the truce commission in their country. The same thing happened with regard to South Viet Nam; that nation is also very pleased with the work our Canadian commissioners have been doing in their country. We have also had very friendly discussions with Thailand, with the delegation from the royal Laotian government, and with the delegation of Prince Souvanna Phouma.
I am convinced that one of Canada's most important roles in world affairs at the present time is to follow the policy of gaining the confidence of all the newer nations. They cannot be bludgeoned into doing what we think should be done, but I think if we are friendly with them and talk with them on a man to man basis quite a bit can be done in the way of getting their support for the policies in which we believe. This has been the experience at the United Nations; most of the new countries support the plans put forward by the western countries there.
I am hoping that out of this Laotian conference will come not only a settlement which will enable this little country to be neutral and enable the Laotian people to develop their country with help from outside, given without any strings, but that in addition the conference will make more friends for Canada and will help us to play an even greater part in world affairs.
I am sorry to have taken so much time, Mr. Speaker, and I will be very glad to appear before the external affairs committee at any time that can be arranged in order that members may cross-examine me with regard to these two conferences.


Mr. Speaker:: Before the hon. member for Essex East begins, may I ask the consent of the house to the suggestion made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the speech which he proposes to table be printed as an appendix to Hansard.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, I should also like to include the second statement I made with regard to giving the commission the equipment it requires.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that these documents be printed as an appendix to the official report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of documents referred to above, see appendix.]


Hon. Paul Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all hon. members of the house when I say we are glad to see the Secretary of State for External Affairs back in his seat. We realize that he has made a statement this morning under considerable difficulty, because I understand he arrived home at 2.30 a.m. On that account one would not expect the minister to display the same lucidity of expression which normally attends his statements in this house.
The minister has reported on two conferences, the NATO meeting and the conference dealing with the situation in Laos. The minister has not given us any great detail about the NATO conference. He has expressed the view that Canada is now satisfied with the arrangements for consultation. As this is a very important matter, we will look forward to the opportunity in the external affairs committee of getting further details from the minister, particularly in relation to the position allegedly being taken by one of the major participants in the North Atlantic treaty organization. The attitude of General de Gaulle in this regard will of course be of very great interest to us.
The minister may be assured that we in this party take a strong view along with him and support the government in any steps taken to strengthen the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. We should have welcomed from the minister some indication as to what steps are being taken in that particular. Again in that regard we shall be afforded an opportunity when we confront the minister in the external affairs committee.
While he was away the minister will, no doubt, have noted that very important developments have taken place in Canada. Undoubtedly he has followed from afar the nature and character of the visit of the President of the United States to Canada. It will be of interest to the minister to know that there was some consternation in Canada and in this house as the result of a statement reported to have been made by him concerning Canada's offer to adjudicate the difficulties between United States and one country in the Caribbean. This report prompted an interrogation in this house of the Prime Minister by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister gave the assurance that Canada, notwithstanding that report, had made no such offer to adjudicate in the difficulties which might be regarded as prevailing between Cuba on the one hand

and the United States on the other. Perhaps the minister, when he appears before the external affairs committee, can tell us about this as well.
With regard to Laos, we have noted what the minister has said. We sincerely hope his optimism is warranted. We agree fully with him that every support must be given to the international supervisory truce commission of which Canada is a member. That commission, working as it does in a difficult terrain and under difficult circumstances, must be afforded every means of security and given every opportunity to carry out an efficient operation.
The minister said nothing about the relationship of the situation in Laos to the companion problem in South Viet Nam which is now engaging the attention of certain countries, particularly the United States.
The hon. gentleman has returned from these two conferences. We have welcomed the general statement he has made. Perhaps we would not expect him to make anything more than a general statement at this time in view of the circumstances of travel and the like. It is possibly regrettable that these statements cannot be more substantial in quality. This is perhaps inherent in the very nature of international negotiations. It would, I am sure, have been of great interest to the Canadian people if they could have been told with more particularity the consequences of the two meetings which the minister attended, first in terms of what is being done to strengthen NATO during a critical stage in its development; and second, that the 14 power conference was going to take strong measures to guarantee that no undue advantage was taken of this little nation in old Indo-China and that there would not be any development which would vitally affect the integrity of Viet Nam and its 22 million people.
The minister may be assured that once he has been afforded the opportunity for rest, and the kind of contemplation that comes with rest, he will find the opposition in its treatment of him generous but possibly even more searching than its spokesman is at the moment.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: My
comments will be brief, for two reasons. First, I do not think this is a proper time at which to comment at length and, second, one would need to study such a statement as has been made by the minister for external affairs before being able to comment on it lucidly and at length.
The hon. member for Essex East showed some concern for the minister's weariness. Let me say to the hon. member that I think
External Affairs
his concern is unnecessary. I marched behind the minister on the cobblestones of France for a good many months, and we used to wish he would tire out sooner. We were distinctly under the impression he was tireless. I am sure we all welcome him home and am glad to see him looking in such good health. I tell him this; that every one of us, when we met in the restaurant, sent for the papers and these were perused immediately. We looked them up to see what he had said today, and then we looked them up again tomorrow to see if what he said yesterday had been correctly reported. We followed all the reports with interest because we were concerned with the serious business he was undertaking on behalf of this country.
I was particularly interested in the report of the NATO meeting in Oslo, and I was glad to note the minister's reference to the friendly relations we have with the northern peoples. They are a stable and strongly democratic race. We are proud to be closely associated with them on friendly terms. I was interested to hear about the discussions on disarmament and the economic problems facing certain members of the NATO organization. I was particularly pleased to hear the minister say today he was hopeful that discussions would commence within the next month or so between the United States and the Soviet union on the subject of disarmament. I am sure we are all looking forward to the commencement of those discussions.
With reference to the minister's remarks on the situation in the Congo and the situation in Laos, it was a pleasure to hear of Canada's continued peace-promoting activities in these very important fields. I was interested to hear the minister mention the necessity for closer co-operation between NATO and the United Nations. I understood him to say, at least by inference, that possibly there should be more co-operation between the two organizations. We in this group look forward to the time when NATO will be merged into the United Nations and all our defence activities will be within the framework of the United Nations through an international police force.
We noted in the papers some reference to the minister's concern with respect to the attitude of Portugal toward colonialism. I do not know whether the reports were accurate or not. We must not forget that Portugal, although a member of NATO, is at present in defiance of a United Nations resolution. We trust this close association with NATO will have an effect in connection with these issues which are arising at the present time.
With regard to Laos, I was very pleased to hear the minister say that Canada should negotiate as a member of the commission,

Combines Investigation Act and in that spirit. We agree with that position entirely. Canada's record in this capacity in former occasions is good, and I am sure it will be maintained in the future.
In conclusion let me say that the minister's attitude, his approach and his general stability and character represent, I think, very much the spirit and the purpose of all Canadians in their approach to the difficult international situation we face.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-97, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide an extension of one more year to the moratorium, which was provided first in 1959, to those engaged in the fishing industry on the coast of British Columbia, with respect to possible consequences of their actions by virtue of the Combines Investigation Act.
Motion agreed to and the bill read the first time.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. Broome (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a very short question of the Minister of Justice in regard to the legislation on the order paper. I would ask the minister whether he can assure the house that, if it is necessary to extend the bill for another year, the bill at that time will not be called an act to amend an act to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member's question will be taken care of by a conclusion of the proceedings which have so far made it necessary to extend this provision.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT

Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-98, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to bring forward some minor adjustments and minor tightening up by amendments of a diversified nature.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister whether this has anything to do with the amendments regarding the commonwealth shipping agreement that he referred to earlier?


Léon Balcer: No, Mr. Speaker.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



ORDER OF BUSINESS UNDER PUBLIC BILLS AND ORDERS

Mr. J. F. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in connection with today's order paper, and the order of business under the heading of public bills and orders.
Item No. 1 shown there is second reading of Bill No. C-30, an act to amend the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. That bill was called for second reading last evening during private member's hour, and I believe it should have gone to the bottom of the order paper. In support of this contention I should like to quote Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation No. 380, which reads as follows:
380. When the bill comes up for a second reading in its proper course, one of the clerks at the table will read the order aloud, and the member in charge of the measure will then move its second reading.
I should also like to read from Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation No. 385, which reads as follows:
385. If, when the order of the day is read at the table, no motion be made for the second reading or other stage of a bill, or for its postponement, it becomes a dropped order,-
The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) had the opportunity of moving second reading of the bill at that time, but he chose instead to raise a point of order which was entirely unrelated to the bill. I believe that he therefore made the decision to proceed with another course rather than moving second reading of his bill. For that reason I believe it should have dropped to the bottom of the order paper.
The hon. member suggested, on the point of order which he raised, that the rights of private members were involved. I suggest they are very substantially involved, because the placing of this bill at the head of the order paper prevents other hon. members' bills from coming on; and, as the session might well end, this may mean the difference between one hon. member's bill coming on for discussion and not coming on for discussion.

For that very important reason I believe that Your Honour should make a decision in this regard.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I also intended to raise this matter, and should like to add a few points which were not raised by the hon. member who has just spoken.
Last evening, just before six o'clock, Bill No. C-30 was read at the table by the clerk assistant, and is so recorded in Votes and Proceedings of the House of Commons for yesterday at page 565, and also in Hansard for yesterday at page 5083. The sponsor of the bill chose not to proceed with it. It was read, and when he was not allowed to call it six o'clock, he then dealt with a point of order, which I assume it was his right to do.
I should like to present some further references. First, standing order 19 (1) of the House of Commons reads as follows:
19. (1) Questions put by members and notices of motions, not taken up when called may (upon the request of the government) be allowed to stand and retain their precedence; otherwise they will disappear from the order paper.
In this particular instance the motion was called and read, but not taken up. I should also like to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 87 (1) which in part reads as follows:
87. (1) When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day, or discharged.
The hon. member chose not to proceed with it, and it was not appointed for a future day. Therefore, I feel it must be considered to have been discharged.
I should also like to read subsection (4) of that same citation, 87, which reads in part as follows:
87. (4) It is one of the fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure that when nothing is done respecting an order of business it is struck out and cannot make further progress until the procedure regulating its passage has been regulated by the house.
Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to admit that the hon. member for Skeena found himself in a difficult position, with five minutes to go until the end of the hour for private members' bills. But I submit that this situation has arisen in the past with regard to private members' bills and will arise again in the future. The hon. member was in that position by reason of the proceedings in the house during the private members' hour. Nevertheless there was still considerable time before six o'clock for the hon. member to have moved second reading, as an examination of Hansard will show.
I believe he was placed in a position where he either had to proceed with the order, after it had been read, or to allow it to be dropped.
House of Commons
The hon. member raised a point of order in an effort to avoid having to speak on the bill, or to propose it, and I should like to quote his own words as they appear in Hansard of April 19, 1961 at page 5083. He is reported there, after the order was called, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, before the order is proceeded with I wonder whether it might be considered to be six o'clock?
The order had definitely been called and the hon. member, in the difficult position he found himself, tried to talk it out until six o'clock. I feel, nevertheless that the order was called and he chose not to proceed with it when he had the opportunity, and it should not appear as No. 1 under public bills on today's order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Skeena wish to add anything to the advice I have received on this matter?


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I do not care now, or at any other time, to become involved in the misrepresentations which have been given to my actions by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. I should simply like to point out that there are two incorrect things involved in the raising of this point of order. The first is that this is not the time to deal with it, as Your Honour has ruled on a number of previous occasions; points of order should be raised when that particular stage of procedure is reached which is involved, which I suggest would possibly be next Tuesday, when this matter will come up again.
Second, apart from the first point I have made, I suggest that Votes and Proceedings correctly sets out what happened. The order was read by the clerk at the table and I proposed, before the motion was put by the chair-which it was not-that it might be called six o'clock. There was some objection, and I then rose on a point of order. I proceeded on that matter, but before I had the opportunity to complete my remarks it was called six o'clock. I suggest, therefore, that the order is now in its proper place on the order paper. I am quite prepared, when the order comes up again, to continue speaking on that point of order. The motion was not put by the Chair, and the stage when it should have been put had not been reached.


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure whether this point arises now that the order paper has been settled, or whether it arises when the alleged error in the order paper becomes relevant by reason of the house having reached that point in the order paper, but I would think the latter would be the appropriate time. In any event, I shall take what has been said under consideration and be prepared to

Inquiries of the Ministry determine the issue when it arises. I express my appreciation of the assistance which I have received from hon. members in calling this matter to the attention of the Chair. The question appears to be whether, the order having been called from the table and not placed before the house by the Chair, and a point of order having intervened until the hour of sitting expired, the matter was really before the house. If it was, I assume the rules cited would take effect. If not, then perhaps the order is in its right place.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statement made by the Minister of Defence Production at Atholville, New Brunswick yesterday and reported in this morning's Gazette, to the effect that "probably two bombs and our defence industry would be lost", may I ask the Prime Minister whether the government has any actual plans to decentralize defence industries in Canada and locate them in areas of high unemployment?


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is a question for the orders of the day. I will take the question as notice, and if the minister made the statement alleged to have been made by him, I will give an answer at the beginning of the week.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister say whether at the NATO meeting there was any discussion of the genocidal measures being perpetuated in Angola by Portugal. Can the minister give any information to the house as to what progress is being made in setting up the United Nations five nation commission to inquire into this situation?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, this subject, of course, came up in the discussion of the whole question of colonialism. I think the members of that United Nations committee have been named, but I cannot remember which countries are involved.


Hazen Robert Argue: The minister might have something to add to the statement he has made about the actual situation in Angola and Canada's attitude toward it.


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, Canada supported the motion which was adopted by the United Nations just a few weeks ago. It is our belief that that step was a proper one to take. I have not up to the minute reports on what is happening in Angola. We have no representation in that part of Africa; therefore our reports of necessity are indirect.

On the orders of the day:


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to reply, Mr. Speaker, to another question the hon. member for Assiniboia asked me a few days ago concerning Angola, namely whether Canada had been approached to act on this committee. My understanding is that the president of the general assembly invited five nations to participate in this committee, and that he is awaiting replies from the governments concerned as to their acceptance. An announcement as to the membership of the committee, if not already made, will be made in a day or so. Canada was not approached to act on that committee.



RED CHINA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Yesterday in reporting to the house the Prime Minister said that the President of the United States and he had discussed the question of Chinese representation at the United Nations. I wonder if the Prime Minister could inform the house whether or not he and the President discussed the broader question of the recognition of China.


John George Diefenbaker: The question of recognition is a matter that is under continual study and discussion.



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Bonavisia-Twillin-gate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Labour. Did he recently give an assurance to a delegation from Cape Breton that if Dosco would keep the coal mines open the government would pay the bill?


Hon. Michael Starr (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, up until now we have been paying subventions on the coal sold in that area by the mines, and my statement related to those subventions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Will the minister comment on a statement which appears in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald to the effect that labour minister Starr said:
The big problem is to convince the company to keep the mines open. We will pay the bill.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the keeping of the mines open is, of course, a decision of management. We would like to see the mines kept open if possible. We have paid subvention bills and are prepared to continue to pay them if they keep those mines open.


John Whitney Pickersgill: May I ask a further supplementary question. Does the minister mean that the government is prepared to pay the cost of keeping the mines open?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I question the propriety of the course the hon. member is following in cross-examining, in effect, on an alleged statement in a newspaper. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. M. Benidickson (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the current political exigencies which are obviously interfering with the normal course of the matter, would the minister consider the presentation of another so-called baby budget this month in advance of the regular budget?


Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on this matter I am glad to welcome the hon. member back to the chamber. He evidently is not aware of the fact that in his absence the hon. member for Essex East has appropriated this matter as one of his personal preserves, and he in turn took it away from the Leader of the Opposition, who had it before that. All I can say about these hon. gentlemen and their itchiness over this issue is "honi soit qui mal y pense".


William Moore Benidickson: May I ask a supplementary question. Are we to take it that the policy of the minister is an adamant one, namely "Vote now and pay later"?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, the policy the minister follows and advocates is "Vote Conservative and save your country."
Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: May I ask
a supplementary question based upon the reply of the minister. Would it be correct to say that the minister does not propose to bring in his budget until after the byelections because he does not want to interfere-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating a question he asked the other day, apparently for the purpose of-


Paul Joseph James Martin: No.


Mr. Speaker:: -argument, and I suggest-


Paul Joseph James Martin: My question was not the question I put before.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, I heard the question sufficiently to know that it was not properly introduced at this time.



CANADA COUNCIL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. G. Beech (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister in a position to tell the house whether any steps have been taken to fill the vacancies on the Canada Council?


John George Diefenbaker: When the hon. gentleman advised me that he was going to ask this question, after I came into the house, I sent out for the press release which was issued the day before yesterday. There were six vacancies on the Canada Council, five of which have been filled. Those named are: Lady Dunn, St. Andrews, New Brunswick; Mrs. Ginette P. Trepanier, Quebec; Monsignor Basil Kush-nir, D.D., Winnipeg; Rabbi David Monson, Toronto; Douglas Black Weldon, M.C., London, Ontario. We are awaiting word from an outstanding industrialist in the province of Quebec, one who has been greatly interested in the arts, as to whether he will accept appointment to fill the other vacancy.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister inform the house whether the government has received representations from the ambassador of any government with respect to his country's desire to obtain a site for the building

Inquiries of the Ministry of a chancellery that will require the expropriation of private properties on Sussex drive or adjacent thereto?


Howard Charles Green: Mr. Speaker, no such information has come to my attention. From time to time informal discussions are held about things of this kind, but I have not heard of any suggestions that property should be expropriated.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. McMillan (Welland):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Now that the net amount in the unemployment insurance fund has reached a very dangerous level, according to the advisory committee of the unemployment insurance commission, when is it the intention of the government to bring in measures to replenish the fund?


Michael Starr: Just as soon as they are prepared they will be introduced in the house.


Paul Joseph James Martin: After May 29.


USE OF CHEQUE FORMS PRINTED IN UNITED STATES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, May 19, the hon. member for Outremont-St. Jean asked a question and the reply is as follows. For some years there has been an active program of mechanization, particularly in the prairie region, of the unemployment insurance commission. The object has been to reduce the time required for processing of claims and to eliminate duplication. In the prairie region at the present time benefit warrants are printed and tabulated by mechanical process. These machines are manufactured and installed only by Remington Rand of the United States. The particular punch cards required for these machines are also provided by Remington Rand and therefore bear the notation that they are manufactured and printed for Remington Rand in the United States. This is the explanation why these warrants are printed in the United States.


REQUEST FOR PROCLAMATION OF LITTLE LEAGUE BASEBALL WEEK
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. McLennan (New Westminster):: I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the splendid work

many of our citizens are doing in sponsoring little league baseball, which assists in combating juvenile delinquency and helps to mould the boys of today into the solid citizens of tomorrow, would the Prime Minister give consideration to proclaiming a national little league baseball week?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the observation as to the worth-while nature of the activities of those associated with little league baseball I am in full accord. Indeed, whenever I have the opportunity of going home to Prince Albert I am an inveterate attender of these games. The question of whether a national week should be set aside is one respecting which there are a number of important considerations. Quite a large number of organizations have asked from time to time to have days or weeks designated in this way. While I am not too hopeful as to the outcome, I will have the matter looked into.


INQUIRY AS TO ESTABLISHMENT OF SPORTS COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he is giving consideration to the establishment of a Canada sports council in connection with the sporting activities of our nation.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the speech from the throne indicated that certain legislation regarding sports would be brought before the house. There has been no change in the viewpoint of the government in this regard, and when the legislation is introduced the hon. member will have an answer to his question. I do not want to be abrupt with the hon. member but this is a matter that will naturally come up for the fullest consideration when the legislation is before the house.
(Translation):


BRIDGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (SI. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport. Since the Department of Transport's estimates are now before the house, would the minister table immediately a copy of the agreement entered into between the city of Montreal and the national harbours board with regard to the Champlain bridge approaches, the Point St. Charles dump and the causeway leading to St. Helen island?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, this agreement was signed yesterday and was announced in this morning's papers. As far as I am concerned, I have no objection to tabling this document as soon as possible.


Gérard Loiselle: A supplementary question. By "as soon as possible", does the minister mean today or in a few days?


Léon Balcer: I understand this agreement has just been signed in Montreal, and as soon as it reaches me, I shall be pleased to table it.
(Text):



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. P. Deschatelets (Maisonneuve-Rose-monl):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. Is it the intention of the government to allow a free vote-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is offending the privileges of the house under which hon. members are free to vote as they see fit. To suggest that any member would be subject to direction would, I think, be out of order.



OPPORTUNITY TO PREPARE FOR DISCUSSION OF LEGISLATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lionel Chevrier: I should like to direct a question to the house leader. Is he aware that last night he proposed for consideration on Monday legislation that was placed on the order paper only this morning, and does he believe that the best way to facilitate the business of the house and its proper scrutiny of legislation is by not giving members of parliament sufficient time to prepare themselves for these debates?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member seems to be mounting an argument about the conduct of the business of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The business for Monday announced last night included matters that were not even on the order paper last night. Some have appeared on the order paper today; others will not be on the order paper until Monday. Therefore I think it is proper for me to ask a question concerning the business of the house, and to inquire through the house leader whether the government thinks this is the proper way to provide members of parliament with an opportunity
Inquiries of the Ministry to scrutinize, study and consider this legislation when there is only one day to consider it, that day being Sunday.


Mr. Speaker:: I objected to the question, and I still think it is not proper, because it is really a leading question for the purpose of argument and to express an opinion as to the conduct of the business of the house. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question about the propriety within our rules of the course followed, or a factual question about the business of the house, he is quite within his rights; but I do not think it is appropriate at this time to debate the course that is being followed, which is the import of the question.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue the point of privilege, and bring this matter to the attention of the house. I think I am within my rights under the rules to do so. The question of what the business will be for Monday, as announced by the house leader last night, is quite clear. One of the things that will be discussed on Monday is an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act. I am prepared to discuss that act on Monday. There are some of us who would like to give this subject consideration before it is introduced in the house.
What will take place on Monday is this. There will be a meeting of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines from 9.30 until 11 o'clock, to consider the Freight Rates Reduction Act. At 11 o'clock I presume it will be the responsibility of the Minister of Transport to be in the house. I am sure that in the one and a half hours available it will not be possible to dispose of the Freight Rates Reduction Act. It seems to me, therefore, that because of the manner in which the business has been arranged by the house leader, and the business that is going to take place elsewhere on Monday, it will not be possible to give this important legislation-I take it that it is important, at least until I have seen it-the consideration it deserves. If the Freight Rates Reduction Act is under consideration in the committee while the house is sitting, then the minister and those of us who would like to be in the committee cannot be in both places at the same time.
The question which I put to the minister, therefore, is this. Does he think that situation is conducive to the orderly consideration of business here?


Mr. Speaker:: Order; that was the question to which I objected. The hon. member is in a position to ask the house leader if, in view of the difficulties he has pointed out, a change could be made in the order of business, but not to ask that question.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lionel Chevrier: In view of the difficulties which I have brought to the attention of the minister, does he not think it would be far more conducive to the orderly conduct of business if we were to take up the consideration of veterans legislation on Monday?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: This interjection by the hon. member for Laurier, and his accusation that something is improperly on the order paper, you have already exposed, Mr. Speaker. May I underline the matter. Everything that was announced as business for Monday has followed the procedure laid down by the rules, and proper notice has been given. The order paper right now contains every item that has been set for Monday with the sole exception of the resolution dealing with the Judges Act, which appears on Votes and Proceedings giving the proper 48 hours' notice.
The hon. member for Laurier is trying to insinuate or is insinuating that something is being incorrectly done. This insinuation is quite improper on his part. The question that he raises as to whether or not a committee can handle some business it has outlined for Monday is not a responsibility that rests on my shoulders. The committee is responsible for its own order of business.
Then his final suggestion about dealing with war veterans allowance legislation is, of course, quite out of order. This item will be brought forward at the appropriate time. Hon. members on the other side of the house and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillin-gate apparently did not want that subject debated at any great length. He said it was of no importance, and that is reported in Hansard.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I rise on a question of
privilege, Mr. Speaker. The statement the minister has made is totally false, and he knows it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has, I think, gone further than he would intend to go by saying that the minister knowingly made a false statement to the house. I would ask him to modify that statement, because it is not in accordance with our practice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will say, sir, that the other day-


Donald Methuen Fleming: Withdraw.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not intend to have my course dictated by the Minister of Finance. I only recognize one Speaker in the house, notwithstanding the efforts made by the Minister of Finance, to usurp that position.
I say, sir, an effort was made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs the other evening to

misrepresent a statement I had made about another bill, namely the bill concerning the directors of the Canadian National Railways, as though it referred to the war veterans allowance bill. I corrected the statement at that time, and if the minister read Hansard he knew that what he was saying was wrong. I presume that he did not bother to read Hansard, and I withdraw any suggestion that he made this statement deliberately.


Gordon Minto Churchill: In order that there may be no misunderstanding, I have read Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think we should not debate what happened the other day. The hon. member has withdrawn the accusation that there was any deliberate misstatement. This is not the appropriate time to revive a debate.


Lionel Chevrier: There was a statement made by the house leader which was totally inaccurate.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The question before the house was a discussion of the business of the house. There was a suggestion by the hon. member for Laurier that the business of the house might be rearranged. I take it that has not been accepted. It is not appropriate to debate the settlement of questions concerning the business of the house.


Lionel Chevrier: I am not going to debate it, but I did want to raise a question of privilege because it has been said here that proper notice has been given for this legislation, and that is not correct.


Mr. Speaker:: This would be a point of order, and if the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order I shall be glad to hear him.


Lionel Chevrier: I raise a point of order, sir. In so far as the Judges Act is concerned proper notice has not been given because, according to the minister's statement last night, we are to discuss the Judges Act on Monday. The Judges Act is not yet on the order paper, and it is not on Votes and Proceedings. It cannot, therefore, be put on the order paper until Monday; hence it cannot be discussed on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the case, then of course the matter cannot be dealt with on Monday.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let
me clear up this point at once. What was said was that the resolution preceding the Judges Act would be proceeded with on Monday. The resolution is on Votes and Proceedings of yesterday, and therefore can be proceeded with on Monday. I am sorry

that the hon. member did not read Votes and Proceedings thoroughly before he raised this ill-considered point.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The minister surely knows that when the resolution comes up on Monday, all we can do is have it advanced from one category to another on the order paper. It cannot be debated earlier than Tuesday under our rules.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. J. Walker (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member for Nipissing on May 17, may I say that completions of houses in centres of 5,000 population and over, keeping in mind that completions follow six months after starts, in the period January 1, 1960, to the end of April, 1960, numbered 29,100 dwelling units and in the period from January 1, 1961, to April 30, 1961, 21,727 dwelling units. Completions in other areas are available only for the first quarter, that is to the end of March. For 1960 the figure was 7,024 dwelling units and for 1961 it is 6,244 dwelling units.
A second question was asked by the hon. member for Trinity as to the number of unsold completed houses. At the end of April, 1961, the number of unoccupied houses and duplexes was 4,442. Last year at the same time the number was 3,768.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Fort William posed a question to me on May 18 with respect to the situation as to carpenters at Moosonee, and the provincial conciliation board report. I wish to advise him that the officials of my department are checking the implications of this report with the Ontario department of labour and with the officials of Defence Construction Limited. When they have reported to me I will be only too glad to supply further information to the hon. member.



CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to put a question to the
Supply-Transport
parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I should like to ask whether the department is still sponsoring the observance of citizenship day, and if so whether the department was satisfied with the response to their effort yesterday.


Mr. John Charlton (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The answer to the first question is yes, and both the minister and I attended functions of that sort.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Chown in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT 402. Departmental administration, $3,395,700.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have been looking at yesterday's Hansard with regard to a matter in which my hon. friend from Laurier-I am wondering, sir, whether I have the floor or whether somebody else has it.
I was saying, sir, that I had been looking at Hansard for yesterday with respect to a matter about which there was some difference between the hon. member for Laurier and myself on the one hand and the hon. member for Greenwood on the other. It is really only a historical point which should not take up much time of the committee. The question is with respect to the time at which a decision was made to turn the Canadian Northern Railway into a transcontinental railway, the initiative in that regard, and the decision with regard to the building of the National Transcontinental and the Grand Trunk Pacific, which was of course actively sponsored by the Laurier government from 1903 onward.
The best information I was able to get hastily about it-and I did not spend a great deal of time in research-was that while the Canadian Northern Railway was started in 1898 or 1899 in Manitoba, and while some time early in the century the Canadian Northern Railway also acquired some existing eastern lines and began to build some more, the project for connecting the eastern and western parts of the system and for building the Canadian Northern to the Pacific was and remained a purely private venture, a matter of private enterprise if one can call it that. We know that all the railways, including the C.P.R., were assisted by various grants of one kind or another, but they were not in any sense public enterprises in that they were directly sponsored by the government.
The Canadian Northern continued all through this period to be a private railway being built entirely privately. Whether the Laurier government gave them encouragement

Supply-Transport
to go ahead, or whether they did not encourage them, I think, is a matter that will be debated for a long time to come and we certainly will not settle it in the committee this morning.
However, with regard to this project as a transcontinental project, the Canadian Northern was very much the third one and came quite a long time after the National Transcontinental was inaugurated as a transcontinental system. Indeed, an effort was made at one time by the Laurier government to get the Canadian Northern and the Grand Trunk Railway to come to some kind of agreement so there would only be one line built in addition to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Looking back now we can all be wise with hindsight and can see that it would have been a lot better if that had happened, because a great deal of the Canadian Northern had to be torn up after it was built. As a matter of fact I think some of the section between Edmonton and Edson was torn up before a train ever ran over it because the steel was needed for war purposes in the first world war.
I have read the remarks of my hon. friend from Laurier very carefully and I do not think he insinuated-I am sure he did not mean to insinuate-that the Borden government was responsible for this situation at all. What he said was that they found that a situation had grown up in Canada where there were three transcontinental railways and there was not really enough business for them. There never has been enough business for them, because in fact one of them was interrupted and never did become a transcontinental system.
That is all the hon. member for Laurier was seeking to say, and I do not think he was seeking to impute any blame to anybody. Certainly in any remarks I made I was not seeking to impute any blame. The only reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the committee is to emphasize the important point made by my hon. friend from Laurier, about which I think every Canadian should be really concerned at the present time; that is, that we should not let the same kind of situation grow up with the air lines.
That is what we are concerned about. We see even today that Mr. MacPherson in his report is having to suggest that very considerable sums of money be paid out of the treasury to keep the railways going during a period of transition because the users are not able to pay for the service that it is still considered necessary to have in the national interest.
This will no doubt be true with air lines as it is with railways. In some areas we may
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
want air lines which will not pay for themselves, but it may be sufficiently in the national interest to have them. However, I say we should ask ourselves very carefully whether we wish to allow a situation to arise where we have two competing national air lines, neither of which can pay for itself, and where the taxpayer is going to have to foot the bill as he has done over the years for the railways. That is the point we are trying to make on this side of the house, and that was the point my hon. friend from Laurier and the late C. D. Howe were so greatly concerned about when we were in office.
We are suggesting that the government should be equally concerned about this important national interest and about the protection of the national treasury. That is the real point. I just wanted to try to clear up the misunderstanding and indicate that these things were not introduced for any purpose other than as an analogy to try to underline and emphasize how important it is.
There is no doubt whatever-Trans-Canada Air Lines have shown this over the years- that one transcontinental air line can pay, and pay very well, to the treasury; but since the introduction of the competing service we have seen what has happened. My hon. friend from Laurier warned us about it before it started. He has drawn it to our attention ever since, and we have seen what has happened. I do not take any position as between Trans-Canada Air Lines and the C.P.A. I think they are both excellent organizations. They are both very well operated in every way. I would say they are the two best air lines on the whole continent as far as their operations are concerned, as far as their safety is concerned, and as far as all those things that go to make a good air line are concerned. I do not wish to make any comparisons between them at all. However, I do say it is our primary job in committee of supply to protect the treasury of Canada, and we should not allow a situation to arise with respect to air lines which, far from protecting the treasury of Canada, is going to make it impossible for either air line to pay and is going to force the taxpayers to subsidize the services or have some of the services scrapped. That is the point.
I hope my hon. friend from Laurier will agree that I am stating the position accurately. He knows so much more about this matter than I do, and I hope he will agree that I am accurately stating the position he took yesterday.


Mr. Macdonnell:: That is not exactly what was said.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the hon. member wishes to make a point at this time I shall be very happy to sit down and let him make it.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: Mr. Chairman, I have only a few words to say on this matter. I have no desire to enter into a controversy. As a matter of fact I accept almost every word the hon. member has said about the back history of the railways. There are one or two points with which I might deal, but I do not think it is necessary for me to take up much time of the committee. I wish to explain why I suddenly found myself on my feet yesterday, almost without knowing it. I am reading now from page 5067 of Hansard in the midst of a speech by the hon. member for Laurier. He said:
I am rising chiefly to point out that under the former administration we were determined to prevent from arising a situation such as that which arose under the Borden government with railways when too many transcontinental lines were built and none of them could pay.
Maybe I took it too seriously, but I felt this was leaving the impression that the orgy of railway building which the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate has described was undertaken under the Borden regime. Borden came into power in 1911. The orgy of railway building in this country was, I think it can be said, in the first decade of the century. It is perfectly true that if we are talking about the setting up of the national railways, that did not come until after the first war. I do not dispute that the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate was accurate in his statement. My only concern is with the name of a man for whom I have great respect, and I should not like the implication to remain that he alone was responsible for an error of judgment in proceeding too enthusiastically in the building of railways in the first decade of the century.


Lionel Chevrier: If I might be allowed to interrupt the speech just started by the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, I should like to say to the hon. member for Greenwood that a careful reading of what was said points not to the fact that the situation about which he complains arose under the Borden government, but that the problem arose under that government, and I should hate to see the same kind of problem arise with reference to air lines. That is all I had in mind in my statement.


Mr. Small:: I raised the same point yesterday. I do not know whether the hon. member for Greenwood was in the house when I did so. I too listened to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier and I was left with the same impression as the hon. member for
Supply-Transport
Greenwood. I knew the hon. member for Laurier was not right in saying that this difficulty was an emanation of the Borden government. It was a carryover from the Laurier regime, though in the circumstances I do not criticize that administration for what was done.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: I must add one word here, because I do not like to see the reputations of people who played a great part in the building of these railways discredited without good cause. May I say that I think Sir William Mackenzie and Sir Donald Mann had ambitions greater than mere money making. They could have sold out and made a lot of money, but they had ambitions above that and I should like to pay my tribute to them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I lived in Manitoba from 1911 to 1914. I know there are many parts of Manitoba which would not have been opened up but for the work done by Sir William Mackenzie, Sir Donald Mann and Mr. D. B. Hanna, who really built the railroad. I must take slight exception to one of the statements made by the hon. member for Greenwood when he said that the orgy of railway building-and I myself would not have used that word-took place in the first decade of this century. The building continued until 1914 or 1915 and I think perhaps if the Borden government could have prevented the Canadian Northern Railway from going on to build a third line through northern Ontario some of those difficulties could have been overcome. However, that part of their line was built after the Borden government came into office and not before.
I do not believe anybody foresaw those things, but having that precedent we can foresee what might happen in the air line field and we shall be culpable in the eyes of posterity if we allow the same situation to arise with respect to air lines. That is my whole point.
Having made that point I wish to return to what I was saying with regard to an interjection made by the Minister of Transport- and perhaps if the debate going on alongside the Minister of Transport could cease the hon. gentleman would be able to hear what I am saying-


An hon. Member:: I do not think he is missing much.


Léon Balcer: I shall not miss a word, I promise you.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I shall not pursue that point. I was drawing attention, and because this is of such vast importance to



SI04 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Transport
my constituency and to people in every fishing riding on the Atlantic coast I drew attention three times, and I am going to repeat the words used by the minister about small boats-
Mr. Woolliams:: Before the hon. member goes on I wonder if he would answer a question about transportation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Does the hon. member not regard boats as transportation?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but I was wondering whether the hon. member believes we should have a monopoly of air service in Canada now and in the future.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can answer that question very easily. We have never had a monopoly. An intelligent decision was made by the Mackenzie King government at the end of the war, in the year 1944, which was carried on-


Mr. Pallell:: I thought the war was still on in 1944.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member's colleague from Bow River asked a question to which I am sure he desires an answer. Perhaps if he could help me restrain some of his hon. friends I could give that answer. In 1944, when transcontinental air lines were in their infancy, when indeed there were no transcontinental air lines except T.C.A.-incidentally, the reason there were no others was that no one else felt it was worth while to have them-a decision was made that there should be only one instrument for international and transcontinental services for a considerable time to come, until we could see how this whole situation was going to develop. That was done precisely because Mr. C. D. Howe had had a long experience in connection with the railways and the problems which had been created by having services which were greater than the country could support. He had the wisdom not to want to have that kind of situation develop in the air.
I say without hesitation that if in order to have an air line which will be paid for by the users and not by the taxpayers we can only afford to have one in Canada, I am in favour of having only one.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: A monopoly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, a monopoly; precisely. If you have two lines that are going to be bankrupt and subsidized by the treasury, or one line that can make money, I am in favour of one line that can make money, That is simple. If, on the other hand, you could have two lines that could both make

money, I think that is preferable. I think any sensible person with the kind of economic views I hold would take that view.


Mr. McCleave:: The worst of it is, nobody with the kind of economic views held by the hon. member could possibly be sensible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was a typical contribution from the learned member for Halifax. The point I am making is that what I am anxious to avoid is a subsidy on air travel, to any unnecessary extent, paid by the taxpayers of Canada. We know that with a sprawling country such as our own, with vast areas to open up and keep in contact with, some kind of subsidy will be necessary in some areas. In the national interest there have always been subsidies, and we shall have them for a long time to come. We should not try to maximize subsidization, we should try to minimize it; that is my position. It is a very simple, thrifty position. It is perhaps a little old fashioned, but I really believe that we should try to save the taxpayers' money. If that is a terrible confession to make in this house, I make it none the less, and am not ashamed to do so.


Léon Balcer: You have no monopoly on that.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Now, sir, there was not a monopoly on air services in Canada. The government decided that in other areas there would be opportunities given for free enterprise, and that these areas would be delineated through the medium of the air transport board, for which my friend the hon. member for Laurier was responsible during all its formative period. It did a splendid job in encouraging young men, who came out of the air force, to get into the air line business

relatively small companies-and gave them reasonable assurance that in the areas in which they became involved they would have the traffic, so there would be a reasonable chance for them to make these operations pay.
This policy represented a great contribution to that splendid decade of development we had in this country from 1946 to 1956, and it was most unfortunate, in my opinion, that the policy was abandoned by the former minister of transport. I hope the present minister will go back to it.
In so far as some of these services were concerned, I agree completely with what one hon. member on the other side of this house said earlier; this cutthroat competition which was allowed in this area has already driven quite a number of these air lines to the wall.

I did not intend to speak about this subject of air lines at all, because it is really not my field but that of my friend the hon. member for Laurier. All I know about it are the A B C's, which I learned from him. I was drawn into this subject as a result of one or two questions which were asked and I should like now to come back to the question of ships in connection with which, notwithstanding the fact that I lost mine, I still have a more immediate interest and concern.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Did you not receive any compensation for the loss of this ship?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was insured by me under private enterprise, and I was fortunate enough to collect the insurance.


Léon Balcer: Was it a small boat or a big boat?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It was 110 feet long, and I leave it to the minister to decide whether it was small or big. The minister is not, even by indirection, going to get me to give any definition of what a small boat is, because that is exactly what I am trying to get him to do. The minister has said that the government intends to help the fishermen who are working in very small boats, and that it is going to look after them as well. The minister interjected yesterday during my remarks when I quoted him for the third time, and said, as found at page 5075 of Hansard for that date:
A boat 65 feet long is certainly not a big ship.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is not the point involved. I do not know why he mentioned a boat 65 feet in length, because his policy includes boats from 45 feet in length. I suggest that a boat of even 45 feet, while it may not be a big ship, is not a small boat in the sense in which fishermen understand it; it is a large vessel. Small boats are a good deal smaller than that. The boats being used by the majority of fishermen are a good deal smaller than that.
The government's policy in this respect is to provide assistance for the operators of what we consider large fishing boats. While the government has done a great deal-this is a very serious criticism I have of the government, and I say at once that this criticism might be applied also to its predecessors-it has not done enough. Of course the public expected this government to correct all the errors of the previous government, not merely to excuse themselves because we had made them.


Léon Balcer: But you made so many.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest the minister has a great opportunity now to do something
Supply-Transport
which we did not do. I suggest the difference between a man who fishes using a small boat and a man who fishes using these larger vessels is the difference between a family farm and a commercial farming operation. This government is doing something for the commercial fishing operation, but when the minister made his statement in this regard the other day he did not indicate any policy of providing assistance to what we might call the family fisherman, to adapt a phrase.
I should like to know whether this policy means that the government in fact is planning to assist owners of boats shorter than 45 feet and, if it is not, perhaps the minister could clear that up at once.


Léon Balcer: May I ask the hon. member a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If you will answer mine, you may.


Léon Balcer: Is he against the policy to provide an encouragement to the hon. member's fellow citizens of Newfoundland to own boats larger than 45 feet? I realize that many fishermen in Canada operating off our coasts use very small boats, but also that they face tremendous difficulties because they do so. We want to encourage people to build larger boats, and feel that bringing this legislation forward will encourage those individuals using the very small boats to use what we call a small boat but a little larger, that is to say boats between 45 and 65 feet in length.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What the minister is asking me is whether I object to having soup and dessert because I have asked for meat. Of course I am in favour of soup and dessert, but I am asking whether the minister is also going to provide the meat.


Mr. Spencer:: You are asking for gravy.


John Whitney Pickersgill: An hon. member has said something about gravy. I am referring to the government's policy and that may be his characterization of it, but it is not mine. I am very much in favour of the policy of assistance for fishing boats the minister has announced, which my hon. friend from Gloucester asked for the evening before it was announced. The policy announced by the minister provides something not quite as good as that asked for by the hon. member for Gloucester, but it is very nearly the same.


An hon. Member:: It is one o'clock.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, may I just finish my sentence? I am very much in favour of this assistance, but I am even more in favour of something being done to help the

Supply-Transport
inshore fishermen who, even with government assistance, could never raise the additional capital necessary to build these larger vessels; and I refer to the family fishermen.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: The
hon. member's time expired at 12.50, but inasmuch as he was interrupted he may have the floor at 2.30, if that is the wish of the committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I feel that would be unfair, and that the floor should be given to someone else.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few brief comments at this time on the estimates of the Minister of Transport but before doing so I should like to join with the members who have preceded me in offering my congratulations to the minister on the leadership he has given to this department since assuming this office. He has indicated beyond any shadow of doubt that he is a minister who will look after the transportation problems that face this country and do so in a manner that will fully justify the promise he has shown through the years as a member of this house.
I wish to tell the minister just how happy the people in my part of the country are over the announcement he made on May 12 regarding assistance to the shipbuilding industry. This is a tremendous step in the right direction and will be of great benefit to the shipbuilding industry, to fisheries and to the people of this country who are seeking employment in those fields.
I might tell the minister I feel that further consideration should be given to the question of the assistance available in the construction of long-liners. Assistance is now available to long-liners between 45 feet and 65 feet in length. It may be that we should extend this assistance to a little larger type of wooden craft since, as the fishing industry has advanced, there has been a demand for a longer type of boat.
I might also make some mention of the recent cross fire between the minister and the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate regarding small boats. I do not think we need to extend the length of those vessels to the length of the luxury liner that the hon. member recently lost. I know he might

be anxious to look to the government for assistance in constructing a 110 foot vessel but-


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are covered; I was asking for the small ones.


Robert Carman Coates: -we would not want to go quite that far. At the same time the hon. member did refer to small vessels. I think the minister's explanation was that this assistance will allow those fishermen who today are not able to acquire craft of 45 feet in length to have the benefit of the subsidy, and it might very well put them in a position where they can acquire them. This is a forward step in that direction and one on which the minister should be congratulated.
If one looks over the budgets of the various provincial governments today one finds almost without exception that each shows a surplus. Unfortunately, this is not so with respect to the federal government because of the tremendous assistance provided to the provinces and to every aspect of our economy. If the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is interested in assisting the fishermen who are mainly involved in inshore fishing in smaller type vessels, maybe he can speak to his good friend the premier of Newfoundland who receives probably 65 per cent of his total budget from the federal government. It might be possible for him to take some small part of this and make it available to that type of fisherman.
I should also like to associate my remarks with those of the hon. member for Pictou. This very energetic member gives his constituency the type of representation it deserves. I refer also to the hon. member for Queens. Both of these hon. gentlemen have brought to the minister's attention the need for a replacement of the Charles A. Dunning ferry on the service between Pictou county and Prince Edward Island. There is no doubt that the people in Prince Edward Island deserve the very best service that the Canadian government can provide. The vessel to which I have referred is now outmoded, and the demand for ferry service in that area is such that consideration should certainly be given to the provision of a new vessel to take care of this very necessary service.
May I now turn to a matter of very urgent concern to my constituents in the disaster stricken town of Springhill. This has to do with the spur line between Springhill Junction and the town of Springhill. I should like to thank the minister for the very sympathetic consideration he has given to my requests on this particular subject, and also for the very sympathetic way in which the C.N.R. has

looked at this matter to date. It is a most complicated matter since the line is owned at present by a private company. The board of transport commissioners has indicated in a decision that they will allow the company to abandon the line, and since that time I have met with Mr. Gordon and the minister. I have discussed the matter with the premier of Nova Scotia who has also been in touch with the president of the C.N.R. and the minister. I am very hopeful that it will be possible to find some way for the C.N.R. to assume the operation of this spur line.
The request made by the citizens of the area is that only three and a half miles of the line be assumed by the C.N.R. This would mean that the town would have a railway line available to it when it was necessary to bring in materials. I might point out in this regard that a battery factory has recently been established there which almost of necessity needs the line to transport sulphuric acid from the junction.
The new coal mine established in Spring-hill, which is presently undertaking new developments in the area that will mean additional employment if they prove successful, could also benefit materially from the continued operation of the spur line. When a decision is reached on this matter I certainly hope it will be a favourable one assuring that Springhill will have the transportation facilities available to it that are necessary to attract new industry to the area.
I wish to turn to another problem of direct concern to my constituents, the re-establishment of a ferry service between Parrsboro and the Annapolis valley. There had been a ferry service in operation for 90 years until 1940 when the ferry which plied between Parrsboro and Kingsport was removed on the assumption that it could be utilized better in the war effort in another area of Canada. My constituents did not object at that time for it was their belief that they should do everything within their power to assist the war effort. However, at the end of the war they quickly realized that what had been taken from them was not to be returned. This was most unfortunate and it became even more so as the years went by for the beautiful town of Parrsboro found itself cut off from the main transportation route upon the establishment of the trans-Canada highway in another area of my constituency. Since that time the people there have made many efforts to have the ferry service re-established.
I might say it is to the credit of the government that very serious consideration was given to the establishment of a scheduled
Supply-Transport
service between Cumberland and the Annapolis valley. However, this meant the construction of deep-water piers. Estimates of the cost of construction varied between $6 million and $10 million, and in the light of the circumstances involved the Minister of Public Works found that he was unable to provide this amount. As a result, only recently those interested in this service have been making efforts to have consideration given to the re-establishment of a tidal ferry service. If this were done a study could be made of the traffic available and it could then be determined whether it would be feasible to make an expenditure of the size needed to build deep-water piers.
I should like to bring to the minister's attention the fact that the Nova Scotia government has two ferries at the present time which will be available for other uses this fall when the bridge over the Bras d'Or lakes is completed. These two ferries are the John Cabot, which could handle between 20 and 22 motor cars, and the Percy C. Black named after a former member for Cumberland. He was an outstanding member of the House of Commons and the Nova Scotia legislature for many years and made a tremendous contribution to the history of Canada. If these two vessels could be altered they could be utilized in this service.
I am informed by the provincial government that the necessary alterations would cost about $100,000. This is a fairly large expenditure, one that it would be difficult for the provincial government to undertake by itself although that government did indicate that if the federal government would construct the piers they would be willing to undertake the alterations of these two vessels. Since the federal government is in my belief obligated to replace this ferry service and has indicated that it will not agree to an expenditure of the size necessary for the construction of deep-water piers, it is my view that it should be willing to enter into an agreement with the provincial government in order to assist it in the alterations necessary to make these two ferries satisfactory for this service.
I might point out to the minister that in the 90 years during which the ferry service was available to my constituents and the people of the Annapolis valley the federal government made available a subsidy of between $4,000 and $5,000 per year to assist in the operation of the service. Since the federal government has been fortunate enough to save this sum for some 20-odd years, it seems

Supply*-Transport
only right that ways and means might be considered of making at least a portion of this amount available to the provincial government to carry out the alterations necessary to prepare these ferries for this service. I understand that the facilities at Kingsport would have to be extended.
I might point out that the Minister of Public Works has recently seen the completion of a very fine new wharf at Parrsboro, and repairs are presently under way on the breakwater in that area. This means that with a slight expenditure we would probably be able to have facilities available in the Parrsboro area which would be satisfactory for the loading and unloading of motor vehicles. I would appreciate the minister giving very serious consideration to this proposed ferry service because it will mean a great deal to the economy of Parrsboro, Parrsboro Shore and the area of Five Islands in the constituency of my good friend the hon. member for Colchester-Hants.
I might point out also that the federal government has recently made available to the province of Nova Scotia a contribution of 50 per cent of the cost of the construction of a new highway along the Parrsboro Shore. It would only seem logical to me, since we have now spent approximately $300,000 of our own money to prepare these tourist roads, that we should make every possible effort to attract the tourists to this area. Certainly, the re-establishment of this ferry service would be the best possible way of doing that. In my opinion, this would be of tremendous assistance to the agriculture industry in both the Annapolis valley and Cumberland. It eliminates at least 115 miles from the route between Annapolis valley and the New Brunswick border. There is no doubt but that any possible means of getting our goods closer to the market is something that deserves serious consideration.
I believe those are the two main items I wish to bring to the minister's attention. I should like to again offer him my thanks for the assistance he has made available to both the shipping and fishing industries of my province.
(Translation):


Mr. Eudes:: Would you allow me, Mr. Chairman, to tender, as did the previous speaker, my congratulations and wishes to the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) on his appointment to the post of minister of the important department he now administers.
I wish him as much success as had his predecessors having particularly in mind the

hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), promoter of the St. Lawrence seaway, which is the envy of every other country since its necessity, its economic soundness and opportunities are being realized.
The hon. member for Laurier has so put his stamp on that department that whenever the estimates of the Department of Transport are discussed, we can rightly wonder whether hon. members on the government benches do not still consider him as the minister in charge.
The policy announced to the house in connection with ship operating and shipbuilding on Friday, May 12 last, and I quote the very words of the minister:
-is intended to make it possible for Canadian ship operators to obtain new vessels from Canadian shipyards at reasonable and competitive prices instead of being forced to have them built abroad because of the lower construction costs that prevail in other countries.
This is a commendable policy and is to the credit of the government. However, the way it was introduced and the method of its implementation leave some doubt as to its legality.
On the same date, the minister advised the house that:
Parliament will be asked to provide, by way of departmental estimates, funds-
For the purposes set forth in his statement. I wonder whether this procedure is in accordance with the spirit of the constitution.
In the same statement, the minister advised the house that:
The methods of determining approved costs for this purpose and other particulars relating to administration of this plan will be prescribed by regulations to be approved by the governor in council.
But how could the governor in council make regulations unless they can apply to an act duly approved by parliament?
As an example, I refer you to chapter 294 of the Revised Statutes of Canada under which the government first received authorization from parliament before granting subsides to wheat producers. Because of that authorization, which took the form of an act, the governor in council could then make the appropriate regulations.
To those remarks, which are made in a spirit of co-operation, I add the wish that the proposed policy of the minister will bring back to our shipyards the prosperity of former years and provide to hundreds of voters in my constituency an opportunity to resume the jobs they lost when the yards closed down.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would now like to add a few brief remarks relating to certain matters which were brought to the attention of the Minister of Transport May 18 last, by my colleague from Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschate-lets). Like the Maisonneuve-Rosemont riding, the Hochelaga constituency, that I represent in this house, borders, in all its width, to the southeast, on the St. Lawrence river. It is crossed throughout from west to east by the C.N.R. railway tracks, and its western boundary is located a few blocks from Jacques Cartier bridge.
You will realize, from those preliminary remarks, that the welfare of the people in the Hochelaga riding can be affected to a great extent by the policy implemented by the Department of Transport.
I shall deal first of all with the railway lines operated by the C.N.R. Those lines extend from Moreau street, former location of the station of that same name, and cross Hochelaga riding from the southwest to the northeast.
They were built in 1913 by the Canadian Northern Quebec Railways Company. At that time, this section of Montreal island was part of the town of Maisonneuve which was annexed to the city of Montreal toward the end of the second decade of this century. At that time, those tracks ran through vacant lots, crossed by a few streets with only a few houses on them.
At the time, the population of the area affected by those railway tracks did not exceed a few thousand, but is now over 200,000.
Since this trackage was taken over by the C.N.R., the topography of that section of Montreal has completely changed by reason of the growth in population and consequent development.
Many new streets were opened up. Countless residential, business and public buildings, as well as churches and schools, have been built.
Those lines were built for two specific purposes: a daily transport service, both ways, by three passenger trains, one of which ran up to Chicoutimi, and freight transport, a small amount of which was intended for the few factories established along the lines. The other freight cars were directed to other lines, farther west, to be exchanged or handed over to the Canadian Pacific Railways.
It is undeniable that the presence of those railway tracks explains the lag in the development of this part of Montreal, as compared to other parts of the island.
Supply-Transport
Railway trackage within cities has never been considered as an attraction. Freight trains are unsightly, they are noisy; they hold up both pedestrian and automobile traffic. All this, together with the direct hazard they are for citizens who use the streets intersected by those railway lines have been, since 1913, so many unattractive features which, as we are now regretfully compelled to realize, have hindered the progress of this eastern part of the city of Montreal.
It happens that the purpose for which those railway tracks were built no longer exists today.
Moreau station disappeared 15 years ago. Passenger trains using that station as a terminal at the time have been rerouted and now operate out of Central station.
Except in a very few cases, freight trains use the elevated tracks situated more to the north on the island of Montreal.
It means that these tracks between Moreau and Viau streets are only there now to serve some 20 manufacturers which could as easily use another means for shipping and receiving goods.
They are also used by tank-cars from oil refineries in Montreal east. These could and should use another existing route by merely making a few changes.
When you consider the lay-out of those tracks, you can see that between Moreau and Viau streets they cross more than 25 streets, which means as many level crossings.
Now, the area comprised between those 25 streets is one of the most thickly populated on Montreal island.
Whether they go to church, to school or want to take the nearest bus, those people have to cross the railroad tracks.
One can imagine the dangers and the delays resulting from those level crossings which for a few years now have even been gateless.
About traffic hold-ups I have a very definite case for the minister's attention.
I live on Prefontaine street, a few hundred feet north of those railroad tracks. I can assure him that the traffic is held up daily on account of the freight cars running on those tracks, some times for half an hour -and this in spite of many representations made to the Canadian National authorities and to the predecessor of the present minister and in open and repeated violation of section 314 of the Railway Act which limits such periods of obstruction to five minutes.

Supply-Transport
My colleague, the member for Maison-neuve-Rosemont, and myself supported by the association of Montreal east businessmen, are again asking the Minister of Transport to ask the Canadian National to reconsider their decision and to give up using those railroad tracks which have become practically unnecessary and unprofitable compared to the loss and lessening of welfare inflicted upon a population of over 200,000 persons. This population must suffer all the inconvenience resulting from the existence and operation of those tracks, because some reluctance is being experienced when it comes to withdrawing the privilege of a siding granted to a score of industries that use it only occasionally.
In short, it is a conflict between public interest and that of certain individuals or corporations. I hope that the minister will use his influence and authority to see to it that public interest prevails.
Mr. Chairman, I should like now to take up another matter which has to do with the item before us, the need for a new bridge east of Jacques Cartier bridge.
At the present time, Montreal and the south shore of the St. Lawrence are linked by three bridges: Jacques Cartier bridge, Victoria bridge which is the property of the C.N.R., and Mercier bridge which is under provincial jurisdiction.
A fourth one, Champlain bridge, is under construction.
To sum it up, even if Montreal east has a much larger population than Montreal west-although the count is difficult-it has only one bridge, the Jacques Cartier bridge to which have been added the two lanes reserved to street cars at the time the bridge was built. Those two lanes have alleviated the problem created by the unbelievably rapid and continuing growth of recent years in the number of motor vehicles using that bridge.
But they are by no means the solution the public which is also the taxpayer are entitled to expect from the government about such an urgent and important problem.
Indeed, on both shores of the St. Lawrence river, below the Jacques Cartier bridge, we have seen an industrial, commercial and residential development which upsets all forecasts of only 30 years ago planned to promote connecting roads between them.
The new plants built or under construction on the north shore, and especially on the
[Mr. Eudes.l
south shore, in the Varennes, Vercheres and Contrecoeur areas, require growing communication with the metropolis, particularly with areas directly opposite, on the north shore.
As those communications operate both ways, one can easily imagine the waste of time and, therefore, the higher costs of production and transportation resulting from trips thus made necessary, along streets permanently jammed, to reach Jacques Cartier bridge.
I could enlarge on the subject to show, for instance, how the new bridge would significantly help solve the traffic problem in Montreal, and promote the general development of trade and industry, particularly the tourist industry which represents an important item in Canadian economy.
For the minister's benefit, I will recall the debate we had in this house on March 9, 1959, on a resolution introduced by the hon. member for Laurier, and I will merely ask him to consider this suggestion to build a bridge over the St. Lawrence river, downstream from Jacques Cartier bridge, a project which would have the immediate effect of providing work for the thousands of unemployed in the Montreal area.
Before concluding my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words in support of an excellent suggestion made by my colleague from Maisonneuve-Rosemont following an editorial published in La Presse. He had suggested that the public be again given free access to the Montreal harbour and that the shores of the St. Lawrence, the finest gift we have received from Providence, be restored with some of the attractions they have been deprived of by industry, business and progress.
The St. Lawrence belongs to no one in particular, even where it flows near plants and wharves. It belongs to the public, even if the public have let the government build up those shores for the general prosperity of the country.
The fact remains that the public, namely each and every one of us, should have free access to the river, and the government should transform its banks in such a way that private individuals could, without interfering with the practical use of the river for the necessities of progress, admire from the shores of the St. Lawrence the magnificent view of Montreal, watch the arrival and departure of ships and follow the movements of navigation and the various activities in this, Canada's

most important harbour, which, especially since the opening of the seaway, has become one of the most interesting harbours in the world.
With regard to Montreal harbour, which in the past few years has been accommodating almost all freighters calling in Canada, the minister will perhaps allow me, Mr. Chairman, to stress the conditions of the sheds at the disposal of passengers and their friends who accompany them when they leave or welcome them when they arrive.
The cleanliness of these sheds-and that is the least that can be said-leaves much to be desired. No comfort or conveniences are offered people who use them and sometimes have to wait for many long hours. There are neither shops, nor restaurants, nor newspaper stands, for instance.
Why not consider building a ship terminal in Montreal worthy of the metropolis and its harbour?
I associate myself with my colleague, the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Deschatelets) in asking the hon. gentleman to consider the questions to which I have just drawn his attention, because I am sure that he will be able to strike the right and necessary balance between the public and individual interests.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, like previous speakers, I want to congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) on his appointment to the post he now occupies. His great qualities as a statesman and his knowledge of the matter justify the hope that he will be able to carry out his responsibilities to everybody's satisfaction.
I would have liked to join the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes) in expressing appreciation and admiration for the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), for the work he did when he held that post, but because of the many gaps for which the latter was responsible I just wish the present minister good health, and much courage and perseverance in his efforts to fill those gaps.
That being said, I want to deal with matters of more immediate interest to the people in my riding and explain to the minister the needs of my constituency.
The minister and probably all the hon. members are quite familiar with the fine city of St. Hyacinthe. I know he will easily understand the needs I explained to him, because, on many occasions, and more particularly during the elections of 1957 and
Supply-Transport
1958, he, like the hon. member for Laurier, visited the constituency which I have the honour of representing in this house.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport knows that the city of St. Hyacinthe is, if I may say, divided in two parts by the railway tracks of the Canadian National. Indeed, we usually refer to the section southeast of the Canadian National tracks as lower town, whereas the section north of the track is called Bourg Joli.
In the late 20's and early 30's, there was remarkable prosperity in the city of St. Hyacinthe. As a matter of fact, the building of two or three large plants north of the tracks brought to that section of the town which we agreed to call Bourg Joli many homes which are today among the finest in the city.
Indeed, people who live north of the Canadian National Railway tracks belong to two large parishes. To the west of Bourdages street, we have a group of people in the two different plants. That working community is the result of action taken by some of my fellow citizens who joined, or synchronized their efforts to make low priced homes available to the working population.
The Sacre Coeur parish, which lies to the east of St. Ann street, is steadily growing and has now become one of the finest parishes of the St. Hyacinthe diocese.
Bourg Joli now has an estimated population of 7,000 to 8,000.
Before 1940, three streets led to that community. Around 1940, the municipal administration of the time had Bourdages street and Laframboise boulevard closed up and a tunnel built under the C.N.R. tracks, thus leaving only one street to reach Bourg Joli. I do not wish to criticize the administration of the time because I feel those steps had to be taken to meet the needs then prevailing, but with the present expansion of St. Hyacinthe, in that part of Bourg Joli, I feel that this single roadway is inadequate and I would ask the Minister of Transport, who knows St. Hyacinthe very well, to give serious consideration to the possibility of building a second tunnel leading into Bourg Joli.
The presence of about a dozen manufacturers on the north side of the C.N.R. tracks occasionally causes traffic jams, especially at peak hours, that is at midday and at six o'clock at night. Such traffic jams delay not only the factory workers but the general public as well.

Supply-Transport
I must also point out, for the minister's information, that St. Charles hospital, where services are second to none, is also located north of the C.N.R. railroad tracks. You can readily imagine, Mr. Chairman, all the difficulties and dangers that could result if, at a time when a seriously ill or dying person had to be taken to the hospital, there happened to be a traffic jam in the present tunnel. You no doubt realize all the disappointments, delays and damages that could result from such a situation.
So, Mr. Chairman, to help the minister reach an early conclusion, I should like to place on record a letter I have received from the clerk of the city of St. Hyacinthe together with a resolution passed by the town council. Here is what the clerk of the city of St. Hyacinthe had to say, and I quote:
On behalf of the municipal council, I am sending you herewith a certified copy of a resolution passed by the council at its meeting of November 4, in which you are urged to make representations to the federal government for the carrying out of various public works.
Please accept the thanks of the city council for your kind attention to this resolution,
Yours sincerely,
J. P. Brault.
The resolution attached to this letter read in part as follows:
That this council make representations to the federal government through Mr. Theogene Ricard, representative of the district of St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in the House of Commons, in order that early consideration be given to undertaking or causing to be undertaken public works or other works in the city of St. Hyacinthe and the adjoining area in the course of next winter;
Section 2 of the same resolution lists the various works recommended, such as a tunnel under the C.N.R. railroad tracks at the eastern entrance of St. Hyacinthe, which is to be started soon, and construction of a federal building to accommodate the various federal services in the city of St. Hyacinthe, which I understand is to be started in the near future.
I therefore ask the Minister of Transport to give special consideration to the representations of the city council of St. Hyacinthe, which I endorse, in order that a start be made on those works as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, before closing my remarks, I should like to say a word or two on the Richelieu waterway. In the last two days, we have heard a number of speeches on the subject. I have followed with close attention the speeches made by my colleagues and particularly those of the member for Laurier,

the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville and the member for Chambly-Rouville (Messrs. Chevrier, Dupuis and Johnson).
I am personally interested in the matter, just as are my constituents, because two of the finest parishes in the constituency I have the honour to represent in this house, namely the towns of St. Charles and St.-Denis-sur-Richelieu, are located on the shores of the majestic Richelieu.
I must admit, Mr. Chairman, that despite the arguments put forward by my colleagues, no one has been able to show me that the Richelieu scheme, if it were carried out, would be an economic venture. Therefore, on the basis of the interests of my constituents, I cannot but endorse the position taken by the present Minister of Transport in wanting to look at every angle of this scheme before taking any decision. I share the minister's opinion and I feel sure a study of the matter would be worth while, because I do not believe we should do the dirty work for the people outside who might want to share in the profits.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I wish to repeat that I have full confidence in the present minister's ability. My constituents and myself have confidence in his management of the whole question of transportation in Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Chairman, I should not like the Minister of Transport to think that I am stepping completely over the traces this afternoon when I fail to be as complimentary to the administration as perhaps some of my confreres have been who spoke earlier today. There are a few items in connection with the transportation industry about which I am rather unhappy. There are a few more items which I feel are changing today a little faster than perhaps government concepts have changed to meet them.
To begin with, as a member from Edmonton, Alberta, where exists an air service of a type operated by many big air lines, and several smaller ones, an area that we in fact like to call the crossroads of the world, I find it just a little disappointing to realize that the first result of the opening of the new air service at the new international airport should be a worsening, shall I say of the air service between Edmonton and Calgary.
The new international airport is located at Nisku, about 20 miles out of the city of Edmonton. Operations are being carried out from a temporary terminal there, although it is an improvement over the terminal building at the old airport. The new terminal which

the department is now building, when completed, will be magnificent, and I should like to say at the outset we are very pleased to have this fine addition to our airport. We are also very pleased that the noise of the jets will not be directly in the city of Edmonton and, therefore, will not be such a nuisance, as it is perhaps in Dorval. However, we do have a great many air lines operating out of Edmonton which use aircraft of a type other than jets.
There are five or six flights each day, each way, between the cities of Edmonton and Calgary, utilizing Viscount aircraft, and I should like to suggest that the airport which exists now in the middle of downtown Edmonton is perfectly capable of handling those flights. While the facilities which exist there are not the best, they are sufficient to handle that job, and it would be of great convenience to businessmen to have these planes land at the old airport, which is just a few minutes' journey from the main business section of Edmonton and the downtown hotels. The flight between Calgary and Edmonton by Viscount takes 45 minutes, but since the flights have originated and ended at the new international airport at Nisku, another 30 minutes must be added to the time of the trip between these two cities. It is disappointing to have, as the first result of the opening of that new airport, the worsening of that flight from Calgary to Edmonton by the addition of half an hour in the length of time required. There is of course a small added expense because of limousine service required between the downtown area and the new airport.
I should also like to assure the minister that those of us who travel frequently from Edmonton to eastern Canada are certainly appreciative of the new fast jet service which is provided, which has cut down travelling time by two or three hours. I should not like to give anyone the impression that we have only lost, in efficiency of service, as a result of this new international airport.
The old airport in downtown Edmonton is still capable of handling Viscount flights, and I suggest there is no valid reason, so far as I am aware, in view of the fact that other air lines are presently carrying out operations from that airport, why Trans-Canada Air Lines should not continue their Calgary-Edmonton operations from that airport rather than from the new airport at Nisku. Pacific Western Air Lines still operates from that airport for their northern flights, as does Canadian Pacific Air Lines for a portion of their runs. In addition, numerous other private and chartered air lines still operate from this old airport.
90205-6-323
Supply-Transport
I have been told by T.C.A. that they do not think they want to go to the expense of having two separate ground crews, one at the new airport and one at the old. I merely suggest that certainly the most efficient method of handling this is for a pool ground crew to handle all air lines operating into Edmonton. It seems this idea should work most easily because we have several air lines in the same position. As it is now, both T.C.A. and C.P.A. are in the position where they should be running a split service, but only Canadian Pacific does it. This should keep the cost of ground service at the airport within reason, and should enable us to maintain at least that very high standard of service that we had enjoyed for so long in Edmonton. I think that part of the difficulty has to do-and here is where I am perhaps going to disagree a little with the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate-with the fact that the accent for a long time has been on the necessity of making sure that our air industry is given all the help it could get so that it could grow with the growing times and meet the growing needs of the country. However, I do believe there comes a time when you must put the brakes on and remember that the only reason why you are building an efficient air industry is that it might provide better service to the public. I believe we have reached the point across Canada where it is no longer necessary that there be a monopoly.
I will agree that at the outset it might have been necessary to have a monopoly for T.C.A. long enough to get itself established, to learn the business, to acquire the personnel, the airplanes and the facilities to handle the business, and that competition could have been ruinous at an earlier stage. However, there comes a time when sufficient business has been generated, and that by keeping just that level of business any efficient operator should be able to continue to make a profit and to serve the public in the manner in which we should like to see it served. I believe we are beyond that stage now in Canada. We have generated a lot of business. It does seem to me that Trans-Canada Air Lines in its plans of operations continues to build in the belief that it will be forever a monopoly; that it is not planning to meet competition if it ever comes along, but planning to make sure that there shall be no reason why anyone should ever want to permit competition.
I do not believe that competition in itself is good, Mr. Chairman, but I believe that competition is good in the results that sometimes flow from a reasonable amount of it. A monopoly is bad because it does not have anything with which to compare itself. It

Supply-Transport
soon slows down because it loses the incentive that is presented by the original hump. I suggest that in its earlier days T.C.A. was more dedicated, harder working and had more determined people working for it when it had to struggle just to get its feet under it. I suggest that the same thing applies not just to T.C.A. but to any other monopoly in the world. Once the incentive is gone, once you have got over the hump, so to speak, once you feel a certain amount of success and can see no competition, it is only human to slow down a little bit and I suggest that this has happened in Canada.
There is no reason that I can see why the increase in air traffic on domestic routes and on the trans-Canada routes should not be open to competition. From speaking to Canadian Pacific Air Lines personnel I understand they would be content if they would be allowed to compete for the increase. To me, Mr. Chairman, this seems to answer the objections of my friends, such as the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate, who are in favour of a monopoly. They have that amount of business which must have justified the monopoly at the start and they can keep it, but if they want to continue to grow, then they must continue to grow in the face of competition that will keep them on their toes, and 1 suggest that the people of Canada will be better off because of it. We cannot help but gain. I do not think it threatens the existence or the life of T.CA.., since they will be guaranteed that amount of business that has built them up and has kept them going. If private enterprise wants to come in and fight with them for a share of the increase I think we shall get better service out of it; that T.C.A. will sharpen up its service and that C.P.A. will do likewise, and we shall all be a lot better off. I do not think any of those companies will lose money.
I am a little distressed by the thought that C.P.A. cannot land in the United Kingdom on their polar flights from Edmonton. The flight from Vancouver stops at Edmonton on the flight to Europe but it cannot land in England; it has to land in Amsterdam. Trans-Canada Air Lines have a distinct advantage, and I suggest an unfair one, in that they can pretty well pick and choose where they want to go. They are not subject to the same restrictions as to where they will and will not fly. By its special arrangement and special relationship with the government it merely announces its intention to take on a new route and it starts to fly that route. Since we have given some recognition to the principle of competition by private enterprise, and since we have allowed C.P.A. to compete to a certain extent, I do think in all

fairness and common sense the amount of competition which C.P.A. should be able to give should be that amount which would give them substantial feeders into their overseas route so that they will derive some real benefit and shall be able to take away from foreign companies that business which they have the capability to handle.
It is not only just the overseas routes that I am concerned about or even the trans-Canada routes. Edmonton is a city with its eyes to the north. We like to think of ourselves, and have been known for years, as the gateway to the north. We are the suppliers of the north certainly, and the northwest, and all the transportation companies in that part of the country have their headquarters in, or operate through, Edmonton to a certain extent.
In the research committee we recently studied Eldorado, which is a crown corporation having a couple of subsidiaries known as Northern Transportation Company, a water carrier, and Eldorado Aviation, an air carrier. This study was in connection with an application by Pacific Western Airlines to take over the air business of Eldorado Aviation. Pacific Western Airlines operates out of Edmonton on the eastern side of the Rockies mostly, but also has a prairie run, and some out on the coast. It is the main Mackenzie river route carrier.
In the north, as in the rest of Canada, we have the air transport board which decides who shall be allowed to run air carriers, how much competition may be allowed, and so forth. It sets the rates and regulates the business very closely in order that we may have a healthy air industry. I suggest again that a study of our northern transportation problems will show the same serious defects which I say I found in the trans-Canada run.
The air transport board has been and still is, I know, a very dedicated body. They take their duties very seriously. They work very hard at trying to understand the problems of the north and seeing to it that the air industry is kept healthy and strong so that it may be of the most benefit to this country. However, I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that dedication to duty itself may be to some extent a little blinding. I suggest they have forgotten the original objective of a healthy air industry that is of service to the country. I think that a close examination of the problems existing in the air industry in the north will show that they have concentrated so much on building a healthy air industry that the prime purpose of service to the north has been somewhat neglected. The concept of competition in the first instance was that in a certain area only so many carriers could

operate because there was only so much business. This sort of area monopoly may be necessary to a certain extent and it certainly accomplishes part of what it sets out to do.
But, Mr. Chairman, the needs of transportation in the north have been changing. Types of airplanes and methods of carrying things have been changing so rapidly that I suggest our regional method of coping with these transport problems is now out of date. We are using larger airplanes which, when properly used and kept busy, can reduce the cost of carriage to a very small amount so that we can see the very serious transportation problem in our northern regions being reduced to a considerable extent if we can get full utilization out of these big, modern planes.
Unfortunately we do not have planes following the business. There is no such thing as a ready amount of transportation business so that people can just walk in, buy the airplane they want and start servicing the business. They must, so to speak, dig up uses for the plane. They must start to find a new need for it and find the extra cargo which is going to justify the additional investment of providing a big plane and that will keep it flying to that extent of its usable time that will bring costs down. Only then are we really doing something about the transportation problem.
Here is where the area concept of the air transport board constitutes an obstacle. In order to take full advantage of cargo carrying capacity, the large plane needs more flexibility. It has to be able to fly not just in one little area. Instead of merely flying back and forth between Norman Wells and Edmonton, for instance, it may be found that there is in Yellowknife a product which can economically be carried directly to Montreal from Yellowknife, another product from Montreal to Edmonton and something else from Edmonton to Yellowknife so that the plane is flying a triangle service and is always loaded, which is the way to make money. That is the way they should be operating instead of flying into the north full and coming back empty as aircraft have been operating into the north for years. The area concept will not allow an aircraft operator at the present time to do what I have outlined and I suggested that these matters need to be looked at.
I do not suggest that the problem is a simple one to solve. These areas were set up after much deliberation and I know they are being looked at closely quite frequently by the air transport board. However, I am suggesting that there has always been too much interest in the air industry and not enough
90205-6-323i
Supply-Transport
interest in service. I should like to give an example to illustrate why I say there is not enough emphasis on service.
In western Canada we have a very active oil industry. I am sure all members have noted with considerable interest the way in which Canadian oil exploration companies and some American ones have responded to the government's urging and the opportunities that there are in the north to drill for oil and to do exploration work all the way up the Mackenzie valley and, in fact, into the Arctic islands. A week or two ago I talked with some shippers interested in the oil industry. I asked if it was possible to get an oil rig into the north country and out again by barge in the same short shipping season, that is, take it in by barge when the river opens, drill a well and bring it out again by barge before freeze-up. One gentleman told me that no oil rig had ever been taken in and brought out in the same year.
An oil drilling rig is a very expensive piece of equipment. The costs of operating it run into thousands of dollars a day taking into account its value, depreciation, regular expenses and so on. To this day there is no airplane in Canada tested by the Department of Transport that is capable of carrying a complete oil rig to a site and out again. I know of one man, and there are others who would like to have the chance, who found that he could fly in a DC-3 equipped with skis or floats to a lake near a well site and unload a small tractor to bulldoze a strip large enough to take a DC-4 or a C-119 with a complete oil rig and all its supplies. This operation was carried out only once in Canada to my knowledge.
The operator of the aircraft told me, and I have some verification from oil companies, that on that one well drilling operation alone he was able to save a quarter of a million dollars for the drilling company. The operation was a quarter of a million dollars cheaper by air because the rig was taken in and brought out within a few months and did not have to be tied up for a whole year. This man was only allowed to do this once and no more. He could not fit into the necessary categories or classes of air service. In other words, the present air carriers whose licences are broad enough and who have a monopoly in that area have not tried to acquire the plane to be able to give this service and the one who did try was found to be breaking the law because he was infringing on their rights and he had to stop.
I had occasion to speak to the air transport board about a man who wanted to get permission to use a C-119 or flying box car with specially powerful engines because of its unique loading property in that the tail

Supply-Transport
opens up. A new light drilling rig has been developed in the United States and it would be possible to put such a drilling rig in this aircraft and fly it to these locations. This man wanted to try it, and here is what actually happened.
On making application to the air transport board for a licence to carry out the service, he was told he would have to make up his mind which sort of licence he wanted to apply for. He was not quite sure what class his service would fall under and the air transport board told him to make up his mind which service he wanted, apply for it and they would then tell him whether he was right or wrong. In view of the need of service in that part of the country, I suggest that surely the air transport board should have put its facilities at the disposal of this man and said to him, "Here is the advice we can give you. This is what will be needed. This is the class we would like to see you operate under, apply under this class." This was not done. They refused to do that. They just said, "You apply and we will tell you whether you qualify".


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Is he suggesting that the regulations of the air transport board are not flexible enough to promote the advancement of different types of air traffic into the north?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: That is just about the sum and substance of my argument.
Not only that, but the board also said to him, "You are a little premature with your application because we do not think you have an aircraft and until you have an aircraft what is the use of applying"? He said, "I am going to use a C-119". They said, "It has not been cleared by the Department of Transport for civilian use in this country and we do not want you to apply for a licence until your aircraft has been cleared for such use".
Thereupon he applied to the engineering division, I believe it is, of the Department of Transport and asked if they would give him a clearance on that airplane. The Department of Transport's reply was that since the testing and qualifying of one of these planes was a very long and costly process they had no wish to go to the trouble of trying to do this until they were sure the man was really going to operate and therefore he should apply to the air transport board and get his licence first. So, we have the Department of Transport saying, you cannot get this plane certified until you get your air transport board licence and the air transport board saying we will not take an application until you get your plane certified. To

this day, we do not have the plane certified and we do not have a licence. The oil industry in the west, therefore, does not have the airlift which it needs in order to efficiently carry out exploration. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I have many letters in my files from oil exploration companies showing their interest in this project.
I could point out another possible way in which a more flexible air policy in the north would perhaps save us a little money. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, that what is needed to open up the north country is not only much more imagination on the part of the government but more imagination on the part of the many transport carriers so that costs can be reduced. In this way, the north will be opened up much faster. I have had an experienced transportation man tell me that he could see no reason why groceries should ever go into the north in any other way but by airplane. When you consider the difference in cost between water transportation and air transportation, especially when the DC-4 type of plane is used, you find that that difference is more than taken care of by the turnover in the stock and the interest on your money. If you are supplying your merchandise by barge in the north you have to keep more than a year's supply on hand. If you are supplying by aircraft, then you only need about one twelfth of the capital you would otherwise need because you can restock your shelves every month or every two weeks if you so desire. It is this turnover of capital that makes the tremendous difference.
The amazing fact is that the only corporation in the north of which I am aware that has made any searching analysis of costs to ascertain the advantage of air transportation over water or vice versa is a crown corporation, namely Eldorado Aviation. Eldorado has built up its own fleet of air carriers. From what I have seen of it, I believe it is a most efficient organization. The company officials told me that before they would divert any of their freight from water to air, they had to be shown that this was going to save the company money. They could see the advantage in terms of convenience, but convenience also has a dollar sign attached to it. It is only worth so much. The savings on investment and convenience were factors to be considered. The officials said, if it is cheaper to carry by air then we will allow you to carry by air. This is what Eldorado says to its subsidiary company, Eldorado Aviation. As we have seen, Eldorado Aviation has built up to a DC-3 and a DC-4, and they are hauling freight at such a rate the people in Uranium City are very envious.

I was there in January and the storekeepers are quite annoyed at Eldorado Refining because that company is able to sell in their company store much below the costs of the other merchants. The merchants of that town think it unfair that Eldorado should have the advantage of this type of air service, while they have to pay the expensive rates on P.W.A. Of course, I am not suggesting that Eldorado rates are cheaper merely because that organization is more efficient. It is true that P.W.A. runs a different kind of service. They cannot put different planes into operation to suit the requirements, and there is not that degree of co-operation. All I am doing is pointing out an example to the committee of the fact that, given a little more flexibility and a little more imagination, along with the development of larger planes for specific purposes, it is possible to provide much better service at lower cost for the people of the north country. This is what is needed in the north.
If I may come back to my starting point, I would say that I find too much attention has been paid to the welfare of the air industry. We had to pay a lot of attention to the welfare of that industry in order to get it going because the air industry could provide the kind of service we wanted. However, I suggest that we have, in part, lost sight of that original objective, providing good service. Now, more than ever, we need to provide service in the north. We need more flexibility and we need to take a new look at how we are going to allow our air services to operate in the north. I think, perhaps, the same could be said of the water services too.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Before the hon. member resumes his seat, would he permit another question? He referred in his remarks to the government having enough imagination and to the people handling air transport in the north not having enough imagination. I wonder if the hon. member meant that the air transport board did not have enough imagination?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: I would suggest that the air transport board is very dedicated to doing a job. I would say their initial problem was to make sure we got a healthy air industry going in the north to supply this air transport. I believe the board lost track of the reason for our desire for a healthy air industry. They now approach the problem first in the light of how it is going to affect the air industry whereas they should really look at the north and say, what does the north need. They would find that in this roundabout way they would accomplish more for the air industry than by this method of relegating all
Supply-Transport
other considerations to the background in favour of this approach of helping a particular air carrier establish in this area.


Mr. Pugh:: I should like to direct my remarks to two main points. The first point I want to consider is the bridge subsidy with regard to freight rates in Ontario. In 1957 the fruit and vegetable industry in my area, particularly the mountain area of British Columbia, had four main problems. This government has acted to assist in solving three of these problems by means of legislation and other means. The one remaining point that needs attention is the freight rates in so far as they affect our shipments out of the mountain area to the rest of British Columbia and the prairie provinces.
Actually what we are up against is a fairly high freight rate brought about by the fact that fruits and vegetables are not carried at the cheapest rate. The point I wish to make relates to the competition from Ontario and Quebec producers of fruits, vegetables and canned goods. The bridge subsidy, at its inception, may well have been the answer in helping Ontario and Quebec producers compete on the prairie provinces against goods from the United States. The result has been, however, heavy competition with the producers of British Columbia. In my opinion whoever looks after the bridge subsidy and freight rates should take into consideration the fact that if the bridge subsidy is necessary then there should be aid given to the British Columbia fruit and vegetable growers situated in the mountain areas in order that they may ship to these markets.
Incidentally, I may say that as far as fruit is concerned one way in which we have overcome this freight differential is by producing a quality product. But you cannot go on getting better and better fruit all the time.
The second point I wish to make follows along the lines of the remarks of the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona who has just taken his seat. I only wish to touch one phase of his remarks, and that is in regard to C.P.A.
I think the hon. member stated the question well. He is not too worried about the flights outside of our country, but he is certainly worried about the transcontinental route. At the present time C.P.A. flies one service east and one west per day. They have one transcontinental flight per day and they have been operating this for two years.
I would ask the minister to have a long look at any application which is now made by C.P.A. to increase the frequency of their transcontinental runs, because I think that

Supply-Transport
quite apart from all the things that have been mentioned today there is good reason for this increase.
I do not want to delve too much into history, but the history of Canada is bound up with the C.P.R. The C.P.R. originally linked Canada together; it was an important factor in that regard. As the C.P.R. has grown it has developed the greatest travel system in the world. If you examine it you will find they operate steamships, railways, hotels and trucking services. They have also been a great factor in land development in western Canada.
They have gone into air transport extensively over the years. They have a reputation which is pretty hard to beat as an intercontinental air line. That reputation is based on service. Service is one thing they have given to Canada in all facets of their passenger travel services and the transport of goods.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman speaking of T.C.A.?


David Vaughan Pugh: Has the hon. gentleman asked a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes.


David Vaughan Pugh: What is the question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said, "Is the hon. gentleman speaking of T.C.A.?"


David Vaughan Pugh: No, I am speaking of C.P.A. I have no bone to pick with T.C.A., I may say, and if the hon. gentleman had been here and had listened to the last speaker in regard to C.P.A., I have stated that I am merely endorsing his remarks; that I am in complete accord with them.
To go on with my point, Mr. Chairman, C.P.R.'s growth and the position it has taken in Canada-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


David Vaughan Pugh: My hon. friend laughs at the C.P.R. perhaps, but during the last war no one laughed at the rail services they provided for Canada. During the last war no one laughed at the steamship services they provided throughout the world for carrying troops of all nations. This company has a tradition, and a Canadian tradition.
I feel, as did the last speaker, that monopoly should only be allowed to go only so far; that there is a place for private enterprise in our transcontinental air service. I feel, and I feel it strongly-and I say this apart from all the points mentioned by the last speaker-that there is a necessity for increased air transport in this world. We are not static in any way. The trend is to air travel and air transport of all sorts and descriptions.

I should like to lend my aid, if it is necessary, to the furthering of any application by C.P.A. As the world goes along we may yet see another conflict. At that time transport will be a most important item, and transport by air will be an absolute necessity.


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, if I could interrupt this lobby on behalf of C.P.R. there are one or two things I should like to discuss-


Ernest James Broome: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the hon. member really means that. We are really speaking in regard to problems in our own areas. The hon. member for Okanagan Boundary is talking about things which he understands and the hon. member should give him credit for stating the case as he sees it.
This is not a lobby; it is simply trying to bring common sense into this matter.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know whether my hon. friend rose to discuss a point of order or a question of privilege, but I see neither, Mr. Chairman. I have nothing to withdraw from what I said. I made the statement for two reasons. First because I felt the committee was rather quiet and should be awakened and because I thought there was no better way in which to awaken it than by saying I should like to talk about something other than the lobby on behalf of C.P.R. I hope the committee will not take that remark in any derogatory sense; it was not meant in that sense at all.
I also rose because I was informed, not by any official source, of course, because I could not obtain this information officially, that there were only 19 other speakers on the list, so rather than sit here listening I thought perhaps I could take 10 or 15 minutes to discuss these points which I have before me.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Lionel Chevrier: Apparently, Mr. Chairman, that is not relished too much, but be that as it may. One of these statements has to do with a question I put to the Prime Minister recently and I should like to direct the attention of the minister to it. It arises out of an editorial that appeared in the Financial Post entitled "Stacked against the customer".
This editorial goes on to say that following the Warsaw convention it has now been determined, through a lawsuit in the United States, that the carrier's liability in an international flight is limited to $8,300. I am sure there are few people who fly on international flights who are aware of this fact. The editorial says:
It was brought to public notice by a recent U.S. case. William Kapell, a famed American musician aged 31 and at the peak of his high earning power.

was killed when a Honolulu to San Francisco plane crashed. His widow sued for $1,150,000 but got only the Warsaw maximum.
Damages higher than $8,300 may be obtained, under the treaty, only if "wilful misconduct'' can be proved.
I need not tell any hon. member who is a lawyer that in order to prove wilful misconduct in an airplane crash, when little or nothing is left, or with even the few material remnants that are left, it becomes almost impossible to establish such a claim.
In the circumstances there was an attempt to double the liability in 1955 when a protocol was signed at the Hague. I am informed that 30 countries must ratify the Hague protocol before it becomes effective, and up until now only 19, not including Canada, have done so.
I would ask the minister, his officers, and also the Secretary of State for External Affairs to give this matter more than ordinary consideration. It is true that the protocol was signed in 1955 when we were still in office, and regarding what was done during the two years 1955 to 1957 I have only a general idea because of what I was told; I was not a member of the government in those days. However, that is not the point.
I am sure the minister will immediately agree, as will every hon. member of this committee, that it is important to, if not double the liability, then increase it substantially. It would seem to me this is a matter to which Canada should be giving serious consideration. There may be reasons for withholding consent but at least I would ask the minister to give the matter careful consideration.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Would the hon. member permit a question? Could he indicate what he thinks would be the best figure. I realize he has suggested doubling it. Is that the figure he would suggest?


Lionel Chevrier: No, I think it should be much higher.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Can the hon. member suggest a figure?


Lionel Chevrier: No. I think the first thing to do is to approve the protocol signed at the Hague, then either through the Canadian delegation to I.C.A.O. or on some other international level give consideration to the whole problem, and since I.C.A.O. sits almost continually at our headquarters building in Montreal where we are represented it seems to me there is the place where consideration might be given to a matter of this kind. This is a technical matter. It is a matter upon which I do not attempt to give any advice. I think the advice must come from the experts, but until we have some more
Supply-Transport
definite information I think we should aim at the protocol. There is perhaps something more definite and if it were to come from the delegation I am sure the minister and the government would want to give it every consideration.
There is another question and that is the situation of the pilots on the St. Lawrence. I will take a moment to deal with that. While I refer to the pilots in the main along the whole route, more particularly in the international section, as the minister knows there are some seven groups of pilots under his jurisdiction, four groups totalling about 200 whose territories cover purely Canadian waters, the Quebec district from Quebec to tidewater; the Montreal district from Montreal to Quebec; the Montreal harbour, and the Cornwall district from Cornwall to Montreal.
There are on the other hand three other groups totalling about 92 men whose territory covers international waters. There are three international pilotage districts, district No. 1, from Cornwall to Kingston; district No. 2, the Welland canal and waters connecting lakes Erie and Huron and district No. 3, waters connecting lakes Huron and Superior. As the minister knows, his predecessor brought a bill to the House of Commons two years ago, which was not withdrawn from the house but which remained on the order paper until an agreement could be reached with the United States concerning pilotage matters in the international section. It took some time before agreement was reached, but finally there was an agreement and the minister brought the agreement before the house and it was approved. The point I raise now is this: how are the terms of this agreement working out? I know there have been some difficulties. I know that in the international section the Canadian pilots have claimed that once a United States pilot got through the international section he should not take a ship down as far as Montreal. On the other hand, United States pilots have argued they can go right through.
I am not affirming any position at the moment because I know what was in the mind of the minister at the time. I think I remember what the minister said in the house. I believe the present minister should tell the committee what is happening and bring us up to date as to the working of this arrangement made between Canada and the United States in these three international districts. It is on May 1 that the so-called pilotage section, part IV of the act to amend the Canada Shipping Act came into force. That is the measure which took about two years to negotiate between our two countries. Part IV, the pilotage

Supply-Transport
section, applies I believe to international waters. There is also the question of fees that arises and I am not going to deal with that but I think perhaps the minister could give the committee a report on the operation and working of that section of the Canada Shipping Act concerning pilots in the international section.
I deal now with another matter having to do with Trans-Canada Air Lines. The minister will remember that following a change-over from the former aircraft used by T.C.A. to the new jet liners 104 pilots were put out of work or at least 104 were affected by the changeover. It was indicated at the time that most of these would find employment either in Canada or in Aer Lingus or at the service of K.L.M. The last time I spoke in this chamber on this subject it appeared that the number of pilots who had found employment was in the neighbourhood of 45. I hope the position is better today than it was at that time and I trust the minister will want to bring us up to date. I hope it will be possible to say as was announced at the time, that every one of these pilots has found employment with some other air line at comparable salaries.
There is a question which I asked about the Vanguard jet-prop aircraft in the house when I inquired of the minister whether three men were going to be required in the cockpit as compared with three in a similar aircraft in the United States. I find that part of my statement was in error and I tell the hon. member for Vancouver South that he was correct in the statement he made at the time.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Very accurate. Very careful.


Lionel Chevrier: No, the hon. member is not always too careful. He is not, because he made a number of statements on the question of the C.N.R. directors concerning which I have no right to talk now which I found were not accurate but that is not the point. I have no hesitation in admitting I was in error, but here is the point. What I should have said was that the federal aviation agency in Washington had ruled that all airplanes weighing more than 80,000 pounds must carry a three man crew on the flight deck. The Vanguard weighs 140,000 pounds. In Canada the officers of the Department of Transport have accepted the complexity of flying an aircraft rather than weight as its deciding factor but there was some difficulty arising out of the decision in Canada as compared with the ruling in the United States which may cause some problems for T.C.A. planes. The whole question is, of course, one of air safety, one of the safety of air navigation, and I presume the Department of Transport has given consideration to that but if there is going to be difficulty between the two countries I am

sure it will be necessary for the officials to reconsider their position. I think perhaps the minister might want to say a word in connection with that matter.
Finally, I should like to say a word about another matter to which I think the Minister of Transport should direct his attention. It concerns the Canadian institute of communications.
I note in the estimates, in one of the items, a matter which deals with membership in international organizations wherein the department makes a small contribution for membership in those associations. I should like to invite the minister and his departmental officials to give consideration to the membership, by a grant in aid of the Canadian institute of communications.
One might well ask what this institute is, and I should perhaps say it is an international body set up by federal charter, incorporated on December 18, 1959, to promote communications research and education in Canada. At present it has a provisory board of directors, resident in the cities of Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver. The board of directors are in part as follows: the chairman, Mr. Walter B. Herbert, director, Canada foundation, Ottawa; vice-chairman, Mr. R. J. McCleave, M.P., dean of the school of journalism, Halifax; treasurer, Mr. Paul Gormley, director of public relations, Canadian highway safety council, Ottawa; and the hon. secretary is Rev. John W. Mole, O.M.I., University of Ottawa. The object of this institute of communications has to do with research and educational work in Canada.
Incidentally, I assured the senior hon. member for Halifax that I did not intend to refer to this matter this afternoon, and I immediately apologize to him for doing so. The only reason I do in his absence is because there were so many speakers on the other side of the house and so few on this side, because we have made our contribution in the debate, I felt perhaps this was an opportune time to do so. I intended to do so in any event in respect of item 404, but I will save the time of the committee by doing so now.
I was about to say that the Canadian institute of communications was formed in response to the initiative of UNESCO which set up the international association for mass communication research at Paris. The IAMCR wishes to work through national councils in each country. The object of such a national council in Canada, therefore, would be to help the movement of communications research and education in this country to derive benefit from, and contribute to, the worldwide effort in this domain.

It is proposed to set up a permanent body later on composed of 40 persons, which would be divided as follows: 8 for the Atlantic provinces, 8 for Quebec, 8 for Ontario, 12 for the prairie provinces and 4 for British Columbia.
That is all I wish to say about this institute of communications, which appears to me to have not only an excellent objective to perform, but can be of tremendous assistance in this field of research and communications education. I should like to simply ask the minister, in conclusion, to give consideration to a grant in aid of this institute, because there are in his department, as he will see, many groups and associations of this kind, all of which I am sure are meritorious, but this one, too, deserves consideration, and the amount which would be required to assist it in the excellent work which it is performing, is small in comparison with what is provided in other fields.


Ernest James Broome: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, certainly.


Ernest James Broome: Would the hon. member not agree with the Department of Transport, that the complexity of an airplane is a much better and more accurate yardstick by which to judge the number of personnel required than the one he has suggested? Second, did I interpret him correctly when he said we would be forced to adopt United States regulations if we were to fly into United States ports?


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
gentleman has a habit of misinterpreting and misunderstanding me when I speak. I am sure that it is not done voluntarily to the slightest degree. I did not make the statement contained in his second question. I did say, however, that it might well lead to serious complications between the two countries if, for instance, the Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association, and some similar body in the United States, might both feel it would be difficult for T.C.A. to fly its planes to United States soil because of regulations which were different than those which were established by Canada, and we would then be in serious trouble. That is the type of trouble I am sure should be avoided now.
As to the first question the hon. gentleman asked, I need hardly tell him that I usually have the greatest confidence in the officials of the Department of Transport.


Ernest James Broome: And in the minister?


Lionel Chevrier: And in the minister as well, if that will please him. I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the present minister, as I have had for every minister of transport since I held the portfolio myself.
90205-6-324
Supply-Transport
I brought this matter to his attention so that he could give it the consideration which I think it deserves.


Mr. Hanbidge:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I may be allowed to ask the hon. member a question before he resumes his seat?


Lionel Chevrier: Certainly.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: The hon. member has mentioned the Warsaw protocol, and I should like to know whether the case he cited referred to an action for negligence against the air line company rather than an action for damages against the insurance company.


Lionel Chevrier: I think it is the latter.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: You mean an action against the insurance company?


Lionel Chevrier: My recollection is that the damages for $8,300, were paid by the insurance company. I do not see reference to this in the editorial, but I am of the impression that the insurance company, under a subrogation clause contained in the contract, instituted proceedings against the air lines.


Robert Leith Hanbidge: It would not be of much use to take out an insurance policy for $100,000, would it?


Léon Balcer: That is a different thing involving a contract between two persons.


Lionel Chevrier: I think there is another point involved which arises, because it depends on where the individual is going. This is a case affecting an international flight, wherein the Warsaw convention, and not protocol, was brought in as a defence in United States courts, and was successful in that not more than $8,300 should be paid the plaintiff.
(Translation):


Mr. Keays:: At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, I should like, on behalf of my constituents, to commend the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) and to tell him how proud we are of his appointment to the post of Minister of Transport. He deserves our heartiest congratulations for the efficient manner in which he heads his department.
(Text):
The policies of certain branches of the Department of Transport deeply affect my constituents who are, and I think justly so, very interested in any action taken by the government in so far as it affects their transportation problems, especially those of the sea.
This island gem sits in the centre of the gulf of St. Lawrence, and has faced transportation problems for many years.

Supply-Transport
Some 50 years ago the first mode of transportation from the island to the mainland was the launching of a cask in which was placed a letter addressed to the postmaster general of Canada informing him of the immediate need for steamship connections between the mainland and the islands. This letter also requested that if they could not send the answer by boat to send it back in the same cask. If I am forced to speak about those problems today it is because of an article appearing in La Presse of Montreal some three days ago, which is entitled:
(Translation):
Quebec approaches Ottawa-Answer being sought to the problem of the Magdalen Islands.
(Text):
The minister of transport and communications of the province of Quebec was telling the Quebec legislature that he was coming to Ottawa to solve the water transportation problems of the people of my constituency. I had never intended to tell this house about the problem and what this government has done toward a partial solution of this water transportation difficulty. During the fiscal year 1960-61 the federal government contributed to Clarke Steamship, which operated a passenger-freight service between Montreal, Quebec, Gaspe and the Magdalen islands, a subsidy in the amount of $259,077. The provincial government contributed $64,700 as a subsidy to this transportation company. In the same year the federal government paid to the Magdalen Islands Transportation Company, operating from Pictou to the island as well as Charlottetown to the island, a subsidy in the amount of $174,000 and in the same year to C.T.M.A., operating from the Magdalen islands an amount of $6,667 for service between Chetieamp and Halifax. Clarke Steamship withdrew their services from Montreal to Quebec to the islands because of the decision of the Canadian maritime commission that no more subsidy should be paid owing to the fact that there were alternative, better or cheaper, means of transportation. The Magdalen Island Transportation Company also withdrew their boat plying between Pictou and the island because of its age, and the C.T.M.A. existing service in that area has plied between Chetieamp and Halifax for many years. The people of those islands have been requesting better transportation to and from the islands from various governments. As the committee will readily realize, there are only two possibilities, transportation either by air or by sea. The people requested more frequent trips between the islands and different ports in the maritime provinces, and also a better boat to carry cars to and from the island.
[Mr. Keays.l
Over a number of years many petitions were sent to different governments and this year this government acceded to the request by inviting different transportation companies to tender on the service between Pictou and the islands, Charlottetown and the islands, Souris and the islands. Clarke Steamships were the lowest tenderers and received permission to do this work and also a subsidy of $298,000.
This has been a great improvement in so far as transportation to the island is concerned, Mr. Chairman, because it permits the transportation of passengers and freight as well as making it possible to bring fresh meat to the island owing to the existence of refrigeration on the ship North Gaspe. Instead of having two trips per week they now have three, and during the months of July, August and possibly September, four trips from the mainland to the islands. Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, this is appreciated by the people of the islands and it gives them an opportunity to get out during the fine season of the year or to have their relatives visit them during the same season.
However, there are other problems which arise when you wish to have more frequent trips. One of these problems has been the elimination of the stop at Grande Entree on the east end of the island. I do hope that eventually this problem will be solved and that the government's wish to improve greatly the service will be realized and that, if requested, a study will be made of the possibility of operating a roll-on roll-off boat service to the Magdalen islands. When this happens I hope that many of the water transportation problems will be solved.
Apart from the subsidy of $298,000 granted to the Clarke Steamship Company, there is also another service which has been subsidized, namely the one operating between the Magdalen islands and Halifax passing through Chetieamp, Nova Scotia. The C.T.M.A. have received a subsidy of $30,000 to operate this service. They have also received a subsidy of $30,000 to operate a service between Isle Madame, Guysborough and Canso, Nova Scotia. At the moment this is strictly a freight service, but I am sure that with the new policy enunciated by the Minister of Transport recently concerning subsidies toward the construction of ships that the people who operate this service will take advantage of these grants to build other ships to give bigger and better service to those islands so far off the shores of the mainland.
There has also been another subsidy granted, and that was for a service in the gulf. The federal contribution to this service is roughly $42,500. Another subsidy is also being promised to another service between

Montreal, Gaspe and the gulf. Naturally this subsidy is conditional upon the province paying an equal or larger amount.
The geographical position of the Magdalen islands forces the people there to bring in much of their merchandise from maritime ports. However, in turn the maritime provinces take fish products from our islands. You will realize, therefore, that the federal government has made a very large contribution toward the solution of the water transportation problems in my constituency.
The only other problem that seems to be of any concern is the transportation of passengers from the cities of Montreal and Quebec to the islands. I believe this can be accomplished much better by improving the air service to the islands. Unfortunately the provincial government thought it right to cancel the subsidy previously granted to a local air transportation firm operating out of Gaspe, namely, Trans-Gaspesian Air Lines, and as a result of this action the air line will eventually be forced out of business. The people of the Magdalen islands are eager to maintain their relations with the people of the province of Quebec generally and are able to travel by this air line between the mainland of Quebec and the islands. If the government of the province of Quebec is deeply concerned about the passenger transportation problem and if the minister of transport and communications of the province of Quebec is going to come to Ottawa for additional subsidies to carry merchandise to the islands, I suggest to the Minister of Transport that possibly he should go to Quebec and ask his counterpart in the provincial legislature to contribute something toward the transportation of people to the islands.
While the article in question is not in a sense derogatory so far as the federal government is concerned, I note that there is an impression that the federal government has not done anything with regard to the transportation problems I have mentioned. Let me point out, Mr. Chairman, that during the year 1960-61 the federal government contributed by way of subsidies directly affecting the islands an amount of $439,744 while the provincial contribution was $104,700. During the year 1961-62 to date the federal government has contributed $420,500 but now no grant is given by the provincial government. I believe the provincial government should also contribute to the bettering of the transportation services between the islands and the mainland.
It may also be interesting to note that to date the federal government has contributed to the province of Quebec a total of $821,123 in subsidies. I will admit that the province 90205-6-324J
Supply-Transport
is always looking for more but I believe the federal government has made a very worthwhile contribution.


Mr. McGrath:: May I ask the hon. member a question? Is the total figure he gave of $821,123 on a yearly basis?


James Russell Keays: It is on a yearly basis. Before resuming my seat I should like to commend the officers of the Canadian maritime comission who have the tremendous task of deciding exactly what amount of subsidy shall be recommended for any petitioner. All hon. members will know that the subsidies are based on the difference between revenue and the operation, depreciation and administration costs of the ship in question. I think that this year the federal government has done a remarkable job in that the Minister of Transport has saved the federal treasury an amount of approximately $60,000 while at the same time providing these people with better transportation facilities. Examples such as this are common with this government and I hope they will continue to be.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, since the time this afternoon is obviously going to be used up anyway, there seems to be a good deal of reason for having some of it used by the opposition. I have some things I wish to say and I will dispense with congratulations to the minister. I might make a suggestion to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman. Possibly he might ask all his colleagues to have their congratulations simply printed in Hansard without being delivered in the house because I am sure we could save at least a day in the session this year.


James Aloysius McGrath: You should do likewise with your congratulations of yourself.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member says that any congratulations I make of myself might be omitted. They will be. I noticed the interest that the hon. member for St. John's East showed in the subsidies that the hon. member for Iles-de-la-Madeleine pointed out were being paid annually to the various services in the province of Quebec. I am sure what was going through the hon. member's mind was what went through my mind at that moment, namely, what an extraordinary long time it has taken the treasury board to complete consideration of the proposal for an east coast ferry that was before treasury board in August of 1959 during the course of the provincial election in Newfoundland.
At that time, as the hon. member for St. John's East and the hon. member for St. John's West will no doubt both recall, the then leader of the Conservative party in Newfoundland made a public statement to

Supply-Transport
which I wish to refer. I am not sure whether he is still leader of the Conservative party. He is not in the legislature and I do not think they have bothered to choose a leader since. In any event, when Mr. Hollett was the leader he made the public statement-


James Aloysius McGrath: Would the hon. member permit me to interject to keep the record straight?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not so sure I would not rather have the interjection without the extra phrase because I do not think it will keep the record straight.


James Aloysius McGrath: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I referred at length to the east coast ferry in my remarks yesterday, I believe, during this debate. My main reason for interjecting at this point is to deal with the hon. member's reference to the previous leader of the Conservative party in Newfoundland. He was in fact the house leader and we have a house leader of the party right now in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: In other words, I was quite correct that there is no leader of the Conservative party in Newfoundland at all. That is what I suspected.


James Aloysius McGrath: On the contrary.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is too confusing for me, sir, and no doubt that is why it is so confusing for the electors of Newfoundland. Whether they have a leader or whether they have not a leader seems to make very little difference. This, I realize, has nothing to do with the minister's estimates. What has to do with the minister's estimates is that this very estimable gentleman, Mr. Hollett, who was in the last legislature but is not in this one, gave a solemn assurance to the people of Newfoundland that, at the very moment, the treasury board was giving consideration- that was two years ago-to a proposal for an east coast ferry. So far as we know, the east coast ferry is a lot farther from the treasury board now than it was then. I am just wondering if there is any real project for an east coast ferry or if the government intends to wait until after the final decision has been made about the dissolution of this parliament to give us another promise for another election.


Mr. Browne (St. John's West):: The hon. member should ask his colleague how long it took to get the Carson on the go.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know how long it took to get the Carson on the go. I know some of the reasons why it took so long to get the Carson on the go. As the hon. gentleman knows full well, there is nothing on the drawing boards or anywhere else in respect

of this east coast ferry. There is still argument as to whether or not one will be built at all. I have no doubt that every time the question gets anywhere near the Minister of Finance he turns thumbs down on it. I have no doubt, sir, that as has happened with so many other projects, the only time we will hear anything that appears to be definite about this project will be about the time of dissolution of this parliament. Even then, it will be pretty "iffy", as most of these promises are.
However, the point about which I rose to speak was something quite different. I merely referred to this because, like the hon. member for St. John's East, I was rather struck by the disparity between the wonderful treatment given to the Magdalen islands, according to the member.


James Russell Keays: We have not got a good air service.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman wants still more. At the present time, the government seems more concerned about improving the service between the Magdalen islands and Prince Edward Island than it is about giving that air service to the Magdalen islands the hon. member asks for. Perhaps if the hon. member would resign his seat and cause a by-election, he could get that air service for the Magdalen islands. Perhaps he would not think that too great a sacrifice to make. He could emulate his colleague the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska, who is reputedly getting an airport for his constituency, although nobody knows where that airport will be built. I suspect nothing more will be heard about it after May 29.


Mr. Drysdale:: To whom is the hon. member referring?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was referring to that gentleman to whom the Prime Minister always referred as "my friend Charlie, who is so badly needed in this house".


John Andrew W. Drysdale: The hon. member has been talking so much about resigning that I thought perhaps he was thinking of resigning.


John Whitney Pickersgill: What I rose to speak about, sir, was the service given in Newfoundland by Canadian National Telegraphs. Under the terms of union, the telegraph and telephone services, which were operated by the department of posts, telephones and telegraphs of Newfoundland, were taken over as a federal service by the federal government. The telephone services, apart from those telephone services that were provided by the Avalon Telephone Company and one or two other companies, were taken over by Canadian National Telegraphs. I know there has been some criticism of Canadian National

Telegraphs and I have, at times, criticized them myself, even when I was in office. However, I do want to say here that I think this organization has made a tremendous effort-on the whole a successful effort-to improve service in Newfoundland.


William Joseph Browne: Since we came into office.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Ever since 1949. I have noticed no difference whatever, for the better or worse, since the hon. gentlemen came into office. I assume that hon. gentlemen opposite treat the Canadian National Telegraphs in the same way as their predecessors did, that is there is no political interference. I assume that, and I hope my assumption is correct.


James Aloysius McGrath: You should know it is correct.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know it is correct because obviously the hon. member for St. John's West, the Solicitor General, was trying to imply it was not correct and there was some political interference. He was implying this government had done something about it that had not been done by the previous government.


William Joseph Browne: I am interjecting to say that I think the hon. member has no cause to complain against Canadian National Telegraphs. They are doing a good job in his district.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They are doing a good job all over Newfoundland, and that is exactly what I was saying. There seems to be no quarrel between the hon. gentleman and me, except possibly in semantics and, perhaps, that is an obstacle to communications. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are much more serious obstacles to communications in Newfoundland than semantics. There are tremendous practical difficulties in the building up of communications in Newfoundland.
When I say that I am not complaining about Canadian National Telegraphs but on the contrary I am commending them for the tremendous improvements that have been made since 1949, both in telegraph and telephone service I am rising to make a suggestion to the minister. I know that we on this side are accused by the government of making no practical suggestions. I have a highly practical suggestion to make to the government, and it is this. As a part of next winter's winter works program, the government should undertake a real blitz in Newfoundland to expand telegraph and telephone service, especially telephone service. The only reason they are not expanded faster is that Canadian National Telegraphs have a certain budget each year; that is the only reason.
Now, eight or nine years after confederation, when everybody knows that because of
Supply-Transport
Korea and other things, there was a tremendous shortage of electronic and telephone equipment and it was very hard to get. This is not the case today. There is no lack of any of the things that are necessary to modernize the telephone and telegraph services except money. There is labour there. There is timber in Newfoundland, and there are the plants on the mainland which make the wire and the instruments. Everything that is needed is available in this country, and the lack is enough money. I believe the Canadian National Telegraphs, like the Canadian National Railways system, is supposed to be run as a business enterprise. I approve of that. They should be run as business enterprises, and if possible they should pay. However, the Canadian National Telegraphs cannot be expected to bear the burden of any additional costs which would be incurred by putting on a real push.
What I am going to suggest to the government is this. The government, as a winter works program, could pay half the labour cost of all the additional work that the Canadian National Telegraphs could do in order to modernize in all parts of Newfoundland, just as if the Canadian National Telegraphs were a municipality. In that way they could keep down their costs. The government could also provide an additional budget for next year as part of this program to stimulate employment, and they could get on with this job a great deal faster than has been possible with the limited budget up until now.
If this were done, two things could very well be undertaken in the wintertime as well or better than at any other time. One would be to get out the poles. It would be far better to do that in the wintertime, but you cannot get out the poles unless you know for sure they are going to be used next year to open up the lines. Also the stretching of the lines could be done just as well in the winter as any other time.


William Joseph Browne: Mr. Chairman, does the hon. member seriously mean that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I do seriously mean that, and this is a subject about which I am reasonably well informed.


Léon Balcer: The hon. member is endorsing our winter works program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, but I am suggesting a winter works program that would really work.


Léon Balcer: It would be on the same principle as our program.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am suggesting-


Léon Balcer: I think the hon. member is right; it was a great success.

Supply-Transport


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I really cannot object very much to the minister interrupting me occasionally because I myself have been known to interrupt once or twice in the house. But of course I did not say anything of the kind.


An hon. Member:: You never do.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have said, and I say again, that the winter works program is inadequate, but I have never condemned the winter works program in itself; I have merely said it is inadequate. I am trying to suggest to the minister one way in which he should give his colleagues, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Finance-he is the real obstacle, as we all know-a real push and make the winter works program much more adequate than it now is.
The difficulty we have in Newfoundland- and it is greater than in any other province, as hon. members from Newfoundland know- is that there are very few organized municipalities. In Newfoundland there are not the means of providing work in the areas where it is most needed. I refer to the outports of Newfoundland. There are not, in most cases, the means of having these shared programs with the municipalities.
However, there is in the C.N.T. an organization which urgently needs to be modernized; they urgently need this modernization speeded up. They are well capable of directing this activity; they have very competent officers. This would give them no difficulty. I wager that if they were told now, not next fall, that their budget was going to be doubled-it is no use telling them next October

they would get ready and obtain the men and contractors to do this job.
They could have the men organized to get the poles out and get the whole thing planned so that this job could be done on a much larger scale than has been the case in the past. It would cut down the drain on the unemployment insurance fund and relief; it would give useful work to a great many men during the fall, winter and spring, and it would provide a service which pays when it is provided in most parts of Newfoundland. It is not as though this service were losing money. Most of the C.N.T. service in Newfoundland is a paying proposition. I will admit that there are a few lines into a few remote places which do not pay, but most of them do.
Therefore this would not be wasting money, as we have to waste it now on relief and get no return for it.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The Solicitor General does not agree.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not care very much whether or not the Solicitor General agrees. I am dealing with facts, facts that are very

well known to those of us with experience of the outports of Newfoundland.


John Alpheus Charlton: Do you not have snow and frost there in the wintertime?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course there is snow and frost there, but as the hon. gentlemen must know-it has been true in the history of Canada for 300 years-men have gone out into the woods in the wintertime to cut timber. There is nothing new about that; and that is one of the biggest parts of this proposal for speed up and expansion of the C.N.T. capital program.


John Alpheus Charlton: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate must have misunderstood me. I was referring to building lines in the wintertime. I suggest that the hon. member's province has some snow and frost and it may be difficult.


Paul Joseph James Martin: One always has snow and frost in the winter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One does not always have snow and frost in the winter, notwithstanding what my colleague, the hon. member for Essex East, has said. Three winters ago, when we had a premature election foisted upon the people of this country, there was no frost and snow in Newfoundland until after the end of March. Hon. gentlemen know that well and thank heaven there was not, because it would have made it impossible for them to have carried out their campaign. There are often open winters of that kind in Newfoundland.
However, the fact that the ground is frozen is not at all an obstacle to the building of a line. It is very frequently much more difficult in the springtime, when the roads are soft and when the bogs are wet, to do these things than it is in the wintertime.
The fact of the matter is, as I have just been reminded by my colleague from Laurier, that a radar line was built in Newfoundland in the wintertime not so very long ago. A great deal of construction goes on now all over this country in the wintertime.
I say that if the government, through this winter works program, would make a contribution to the labour costs, and if they would increase or, say, double the budget of the C.N.T. and really get on with this job, it would be a contribution to the economy of Newfoundland and would reduce the number of unemployed next winter. Also, it would be a largely self-liquidating project.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. gentleman permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Why did not my hon. friend's party undertake this program when they were in office from 1949 to 1957?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have already answered that question, but I will be delighted to answer it again for the benefit of the hon. gentleman, who apparently was not following very carefully.
In that period there were two very good reasons why this was not done. Up until about two years before the former government went out of office there was a shortage of electronic equipment and other equipment of that sort. I know this very well because I was pressing the C.N.T. all through this time to modernize, and they could not do it because they could not get the equipment.
But this has not been true since about 1955 or 1956. However, as everybody knows, in the years 1955 and 1956 there was no serious problem of unemployment, even in the winters of 1955-6 and 1956-7.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course, that is why there was no-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, the statistics have been put on the record often enough that if the hon. gentlemen could learn, they would have learned that fact long ago. This is precisely why the people of this country are so fed up with Her Majesty's present advisers. We did not have winter works programs, because they were not needed. I hope I have answered the hon. gentleman's question.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Howard Russell MacEwan: Would the hon. member say whether he has any old lumber on his own property in Newfoundland that he would offer for use as telephone poles?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret to have to say that although I own a house in Newfoundland, I do not own the land on which the house is situated; it is merely leased. So there would be no way, that I can see, in which I could possibly profit by this program except as a Canadian citizen.


William Alexander McLennan: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate will allow me, I should just like to say one word of congratulation to the minister on the fine work he has done in introducing the shipbuilding program. This will be very beneficial to the west coast of Canada. I am sure the
Supply-Transport
minister is doing an exceptionally good job in the position he is now occupying. That is perhaps worrying the opposition a little bit, but I am sure the minister will be there a long time and as time goes on his stature will increase. I wish him all the luck in the world in his new position.
In British Columbia we have quite a sizeable river, the Fraser, which I think is as important to the province of British Columbia and the west coast of Canada as the St. Lawrence is to the east coast. Undoubtedly, in the last number of years, many years as a matter of fact, I do not think it has ever been recognized as being of the importance that it has, and has never had the same consideration as has been given to the ports of eastern Canada. However, I think this government, from what they have told me, have recognized its importance and are going to see it gets a square deal. It is undoubtedly the largest fresh water all year round port in North America and possibly one of the best fresh water and year round ports in the entire world.
In the last calendar year the port of Westminster-actually it is called New Westminster-which is the home port of the Fraser river, has had close to 600 deep-sea ships and with a little bit of development it could triple its importance; and now with the great work that the Minister of Agriculture is doing in selling wheat to the Orient, with a little further development the Fraser river could become the Liverpool of North America.
There are some 70 miles of deep-sea shipping facilities on both sides of the river. That would make approximately 140 miles of potential docks and in the municipalities of the delta, Richmond, Surrey, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Langley and possibly Maple Ridge, there are thousands of acres bordering the river which are ideally suited for industrial plants. I am sure the municipalities there are willing to co-operate with the government in the development of the river and the development of this land. True, we have the port of Vancouver but it has got fairly well filled up and the only place on the lower mainland to go for a real port is the Fraser river which requires development.
Since coming to this house I have been advocating to the department the establishment of a Fraser river harbour commission or a Fraser river authority with jurisdiction over the deep or navigable part of the river. I would urge the minister-I know he is well aware of this because I have spoken to his officials on several occasions-to establish this commission with representation as wide as possible from the municipalities which are interested in the establishment of the

Supply-Transport
ports on the Fraser river. In any of these areas if there is an industry established or any development done it helps that portion of the area as well as all the lower part of the mainland of British Columbia.
I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which has already been referred to on several occasions, namely the menace which the present river bridge creates to river navigation where it crosses the Fraser at New Westminster. This bridge is a swing span which narrows down the channel for deep-sea ships. I realize it is an old bridge and possibly not worth while spending a great deal of money on but I would suggest that consideration be given to building a new bridge possibly in a different location because the one that is there now is in the wrong location. If not, and the old bridge is suitable for years to come, I would suggest the minister give consideration to taking out the swing span and putting in a lift span so as to improve the navigable part of that river.
I should also like to bring to the minister's attention the proposed Brookswood airport site which is in southern Surrey, two miles from the international boundary. I understand this is the most fog-free part of the whole Fraser valley, or of the west coast as far as that is concerned, and would make an ideal site for a light plane base or a supplementary airport to Vancouver airport. I think it would be good business on the part of the government to purchase this land before it is built on or developed because it is the only place of any size that is available in the whole area and it will be much cheaper to buy now than some day in the future when the area has been developed and this part of the country has been built up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr, Drysdale:: It is with a great deal of satisfaction I follow my hon. friend from New Westminster. We in British Columbia stick strongly together, and it is a pleasure to be following him at this time. With the permission of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate I should like to extend my sincere congratulations to the Minister of Transport and, if I may, to congratulate him on his patience in enduring the many suggestions he has received in the past several days. I think the diversity of the suggestions, their depth and number, indicates the size and importance of the Department of Transport.
I should like to draw his attention to one or two matters which I think are of prime importance. First, I want to say that I think one of the most significant and important speeches made recently was the one given by the Prime Minister at the convocation at Dalhousie on May 19 during the course of

which he made the suggestion that an international space agency be set up-an agency which would be representative of scientists, lawyers and educational institutions, one which would have the objective of safeguarding free and equal access by all nations for space exploration.
The Prime Minister made what I consider to be another sound suggestion, and that is the establishment of an international space year, in his words, so that a full study may be made of the demilitarization and utilization of outer space.


Paul Joseph James Martin: How does this come under these estimates, interesting as the subject matter is?


John Andrew W. Drysdale: I thank the hon. member for Essex East for his remark and I shall now show him the connection. I wish to refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Laurier. At page 4759 of Hansard he indicated he thought the transport department should be divided into two parts and in his suggestion he thought there should be a minister of air and, of course, a minister of railways and canals. A similar suggestion was made by Mr. Grant McConachie, president of the Canadian Pacific Airlines several months ago. I think the hon. member for Laurier took the attitude he did primarily on the basis of a breakdown of the work load. As a former minister of transport he realizes the extensiveness of the department and the burden on the minister. But I should like to approach this from a different aspect. I agree that there should be a breakdown in the department but 1 should like to see the establishment of a minister of aeronautics and space. The minister of that department would have the responsibility for all matters dealing with civil aviation, telecommunications and meteorology, as well as the workings of the national research council in respect of space development. I understand too it is hoped that Canada will send a satellite into space using a United States rocket for propulsion and I think this type of work would come under the direction of a minister of such a department.
Perhaps hon. members are wondering why I suggest this at this particular time. I do so because I feel Canada is in a unique position. The city of Montreal is the centre for the international civil aviation organization and the international air transport association, both of which are vitally concerned with travel in space. The McGill institute of air and space law is also located in the city of Montreal. Coincidental with this, we have two or three large prestige buildings being constructed in Montreal at the present time, and I would suggest that

one of these, such as Place Ville Marie, would be the location for the organization such as the Prime Minister has suggested. I do not believe this organization could be situated in a better place than Montreal. Canada is a nation of rationality and neutrality and, considering that along with the fact that these two world-wide organizations, I.C.A.O. and I.A.T.A. are already established in Montreal, which indicates the importance of that city, with its proximity to New York and the United Nations, I feel that this is sufficient justification for this important step. I feel that the Canadian government should take the steps necessary to establish such a ministry.
I suggest Canada has already taken the leadership in establishing these organizations in Montreal, and should again take the leadership by organizing an international space year, and thereby assist in establishing Canada's leadership among the nations of the world. The international geophysical year produced excellent scientific co-operation among the scientists of the world, and I suggest that similar co-operation will follow the organization of an international space year. I suggest that this should be brought about as soon as possible, and that Canada should take the lead in this field.
I should now like to turn to matters of perhaps purely local concern. In British Columbia there exists what is known as the Vancouver international airport, although it is located on Sea island, just outside the city of Vancouver, entirely within the municipality of Richmond. On June 21 of this year we are having another referendum to decide whether the city of Vancouver is going to sell the airport, or whether it is going to proceed on its own with the construction of a $15 million air terminal. I have looked with a certain amount of jealousy and a profound amount of admiration at the excellent facilities at Dorval, and feel that it is imperative at this time that similar facilities be provided at the Vancouver international airport.
We have a rather interesting situation there in that the city of Vancouver owns approximately 475 acres of that airport, while the Department of Transport owns some 2,450 acres. The city acquired the airport some 30 years ago and to date has made capital expenditures amounting to $1,675,000, while the Department of Transport has spent $12,490,000. I emphasize these tremendous amounts of capital expenditures because there has been misleading information given to the voters in the city of Vancouver to the effect that the Vancouver international airport is a gold mine and should be retained by the city. The city of Vancouver has the advantage
Supply-Transport
of the federal government making the majority of the capital expenditures, taking care of the major part of the maintenance and, through leases from the Department of Transport, the city is able to charge landing fees and sell aviation fuel, which amounted to a revenue of some $400,000 in 1959, which was clear profit, not required to be handed over to the federal government. In 1959 it was estimated that if operating costs paid by the city and the Department of Transport were combined, the net loss in that year would have been some $850,000.
A referendum was held in 1954, in which 59.4 per cent of the voters voted to sell the airport. Approval of 60 per cent of the voters is required to effect such a sale. In December of 1960, another referendum was held in which 57.7 per cent of the voters were in favour of the sale. At present the majority of the city of Vancouver council members are in favour of selling the airport, as are the members of the board of trade and other organizations. I raise this matter at this time because another referendum is to be held on June 21, 1961. The city of Vancouver, which owns 475 acres of the property, has been unable to effect the sale to this date.
There is a proposal to establish a $13 million to $18 million jet terminal, and I am interested in this matter because it concerns the whole of the lower mainland of British Columbia as well as the city of Vancouver. I hope the citizens voting on this referendum will realize the obligations which the city must accept if the airport is not sold, and will realize the benefits which will accrue to the people of the lower mainland with the establishment of this jet terminal.
In respect of Sea island, I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that it is serviced from Lulu island in the mouth of the Fraser river. Present access to Sea island and the international Vancouver airport, as well as the Royal Canadian Air Force base, is by means of the Oak street bridge to Lulu island, and over the Moray channel bridge to Sea island. Some 3,000 residents live on Lulu island at the present time yet the only access to Sea island and Lulu island is by one bridge, the Moray bridge. The Eburne bridge was the responsibility of the provincial government but, due to the deterioration of this particular bridge, the provincial government decided to close it on March 13, 1961, as a result of which the Moray channel bridge, which is a two lane swinging span bridge now operated by the bridge attendants from the Eburne bridge, provides the only access to Sea island. This bridge must be opened at varying times to allow the passage of tugs and barges on the

Supply-Transport
river. I made a visit one Saturday afternoon during the last Easter recess and was fortunate, or unfortunate, depending on how one looks at the situation, in approaching the Moray channel bridge at a time when it was opened to allow tugs and barges to pass. Apparently the tugs and barges have the right of way and, although the bridge was only open for some 15 minute at that time, I counted 50 cars on my side of the bridge and 60 on the other east side waiting to go across.
I suggest this situation is of great concern because the bridge on occasion has been blocked for maintenance and repairs as long as five or six hours, as a result of which Sea island was completely isolated. This is of great concern first of all from the point of view of national defence and, second, because of the great inconvenience caused travellers going to the Vancouver international airport.
Recently a firm of consultants, John Graham Ltd., made a traffic analysis on behalf of the municipality of Richmond. I should like to list certain figures contained in this report in connection with the Vancouver international airport. The number of passengers carried in 1958 totalled 850,000; in 1960, 1,050,000. The estimates for 1965 are, 1,600,000; 1970, 2,300,000; 1975, 3,100,000; and 1980, 4,100,000.
On page 38 of the John Graham Limited report it is recorded that the volume in 1960 peak hours exceeded the practical capacity of this bridge. According to the various ministers concerned, the bridge was constructed to provide access to the federal government properties on Sea island. I would suggest that this bridge is not performing its function.
On the same page of the report there is a recommendation that a four-lane bridge should be constructed between Sea island and Vancouver. I submit that the Minister of Transport should give very serious consideration to this suggestion and I think he should also investigate my alternative suggestion of a tunnel under the Fraser river, going directly from Granville street to Sea island. I feel that it could be and should be the responsibility of the federal government to provide this necessary and much needed access to the facilities at the Vancouver international airport. In the event that the federal government becomes the owner of the international airport on June 21 the minister should give even more serious consideration at that time to the suggestion of having at least a bridge or a tunnel connecting Vancouver and Sea island. We have a precedent at the present time. The provincial government has constructed the Oak street bridge which goes on to Lulu island from Vancouver and the Deas island

tunnel which goes under the Fraser river into the Delta area. I think the minister should give this matter very serious consideration because the Vancouver area is the gateway to the east and to the Orient. It is an expanding and developing area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bigg:: Mr. Chairman, government departments inherit the promises and often the problems of their predecessors. This department is no exception. Sometimes a candidate in his ignorance increases those responsibilities on the part of himself and his party and when he comes to Ottawa he gets a rude awakening. I had this.
The C.N.R. has failed to close a gap in northern Alberta and northern Saskatchewan in its railway line. When one looks at the map he sees it is so obvious it is an uneconomic and shortsighted way to run a railway that I took it upon myself to promise the people of my constituency that as soon as I got to Ottawa I would look into this thing and no doubt with the proper amount of pressure something could be done about it. Well, I think I have exhausted my resources in this matter. I put all the pressure possible on the department concerned. I was sent to Montreal with a mandate to interview the top brass of the C.N.R. On arrival in Montreal I got what I believe is the usual treatment a backbencher gets from the ivory tower. I would say if you can believe it that the attitude was one which no servant of the crown should offer to a sitting member, particularly if that member comes in a spirit of co-operation, looking for information rather than offering unsolicited advice on how to run a railway.
Before I was able to outline the problem from my viewpoint and ask the necessary questions it was suggested that I return to Alberta, mind my own business and forget about the whole thing. Now, this is not why I was elected. I was elected because I am rather an aggressive person and my constituents really believed that when I got down here I would do a certain amount of rational fighting. If it has to be in-fighting I can do that, too. But I took a very calm and fact-finding approach to the problem and I found out that the top brass of the C.N.R. are not imaginative. Therefore, I put it up to the department to give serious consideration to placing as top brass and top management at the head of the C.N.R. people who will at least listen to the problem when it is presented from the district concerned.
Enough of this; I want to tell the committee what the problem is. The C.N.R. has a line north of the Saskatchewan river running easterly toward Saskatchewan, and a further

railway north of the Saskatchewan river for half the province. It ends at the town called Heinsberg, about 20 miles from the Saskatchewan boundary. Between there and the Saskatchewan boundary is open parkland with no engineering difficulties. The C.N.R. railway coming up from the east ends at about the same distance from the Alberta boundary in the same type of territory. In order to take freight from Heinsberg to Winnipeg it is necessary to go through Edmonton, an extra distance of 328 miles. The same would be true for any freight going from Frenchman Butte in Saskatchewan to Edmonton. You have to go a considerable distance into Saskatchewan and double back on the main line. I am not a railroader or I would have liked to take up the challenge to run the C.N.R. myself. I was asked if I would like to do that. I declined because I am not a railroading man; I am just a backbencher.
I do not know very much about railroads, but I know you cannot haul freight 328 extra miles and be efficient or make money for the people of Canada who are paying the bills. I was told that if I could show them on paper how they could make money by building this 40 miles of railway they would build a line. Well, I cannot prove that railroads will make money today but I do think that we can cut down our deficit. I do think that by cutting out the extra haul of 328 miles you could save the taxpayers of Canada a considerable amount of money which is now going into subsidies. I am disappointed that we pay this type of top brass $75,000 because I believe that a railroad man on a considerably reduced salary could put the C.N.R. back on its feet.
One of the most important things in running any organization is morale. Today the C.N.R. is completely demoralized. I have ridden on this line some dozen times back and forth to Ottawa and from the section foreman upwards there is great discontent in the rank and file. They are concerned about the security of their jobs being threatened and they do not like working for people who have lost faith in their own railway.
I say to the minister and members of the committee through you, Mr. Chairman, we should give serious consideration next week when the bill comes up which specifically deals with the brass to putting a new chief at the head of this railway. That is what I suggest we need. When we won the battle of Alamein it was largely owing to the personal leadership of General Montgomery. When Britain won the battle of Trafalgar it was because of Nelson. I think the time is long overdue to put a man at the top of the C.N.R. who loves his railway, a man in whom the
Supply-Transport
rank and file of the railway would have complete confidence and to whom they would give natural loyalty.
(Translation):


Gérard Loiselle: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to note that the minister has returned to his seat, because I should like to deal with problems concerning the Department of Transport.
First of all, there is the problem of the Champlain bridge approaches on the north shore. Early in February, the new Montreal administration set up a committee to consider the northern approaches of Champlain bridge; the access roads to the Point St. Charles dump; a grant in lieu of a tax for Montreal harbour; the right of way for vehicles using Jacques Cartier bridge to reach St. Helen island; a proposed causeway leading to that island, as well as other problems of lesser importance.
This committee was formed of Mr. Guy Beaudet, manager of Montreal harbour and of Messrs. Lucien Saulnier, chairman of the executive committee, Lucien L'Allier, director of the public works division, Jean La-coste, director of the traffic division, and Claude Robillard, director of the town planning division.
I have always insisted on better northern approaches to Champlain bridge which is now under construction, but which should have been open to traffic early in September 1962, according to the former minister of transport.
This project, as members know, was started under a Liberal government. As things are going now-and as I said even last year- I am still of the opinion that it is a Liberal government which is going to inaugurate it. Nevertheless, I want to mention right now the approaches which, to my way of thinking, are simply awful.
At present, on the north side and according to plans, all approaches converge to the entrance of Atwater tunnel. I have said it last year and I repeat it now, Atwater tunnel has been built to replace the bridge over the Lachine canal. This tunnel is already too narrow for rush hour traffic. I do not see how it could absorb all that Champlain bridge traffic on three lanes in both directions.
I said, last year, that this was disastrous. If the department persists in refusing to build additional approaches elsewhere than through the tunnel, I should think such an attitude would be shameful.

Supply-Transport
I said before and I stated earlier today and I repeat it now-it is absolutely impossible to see how three-lane traffic to and from Champlain bridge which is now being built, can be handled by a tunnel which is already too small to absorb the rush hour traffic.
This morning, I asked the Minister of Transport a question with regard to an agreement signed yesterday between the city of Montreal and the national harbours board. I would have liked to see that document in order to know whether it deals with the matter of approaches.
A press item says:
Approaches to the Champlain bridge will, in the beginning, be at ground level.
What is the meaning of "in the beginning" and "ground level"? Does it mean that part of it will be at ground level for a few months and that, later on, some elevated lanes will be built in replacement?
All we know, is that an agreement was signed but we are not informed of its terms.
Again in the same article:
The approaches in the city of Montreal are in two sections providing access and exit to and from the bridge into existent streets mainly through Atwater tunnel.
That is what I was saying. Once again, I think it is unbelievable that people should want to throttle Atwater tunnel and bottleneck our neighbouring streets with the traffic to and from Champlain bridge. I never understood, and still fail to understand, why we should have to go down on our knees and make endless calls in order to obtain anything whenever additional federal work is to be undertaken in Montreal.
Mr. Chairman, I remember very well that when the approaches on the south shore of Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges were built, a remarkable job was done. As a matter of fact, approaches from and to the south of those two bridges are good. And it should be pointed out that it did not cost the municipalities concerned anything except in the way of land which belonged to them.
On the other hand, in respect of approaches on the north shore, in Montreal, the federal government's attitude is entirely different. Moreover, just to prove my statement, the approaches to and from Victoria bridge on the north shore are simply atrocious. Indeed, every evening, during the rush hour, i.e. from 4.30 to 6.30, Bridge street, which leads to

Victoria bridge and Wellington tunnel from the east side are blocked. The Montreal authorities are planning to build the elevated highway at the intersection of Wellington and Bridge streets. This is a $2 million project, and I am not aware that the federal government has agreed to co-operate in any way. To build the elevated highway, the Montreal authorities will have to expropriate a whole side of Bridge street, which is a residential area, and here again, no subsidy is expected from the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, for three years now and again today, I have been deploring the approaches at the north end of Champlain bridge. As I stated a moment ago, and as I repeat now, it is a disgrace, and in view of the federal government's inaction, I call it a scandal. Can you imagine that people could decide to build a bridge costing millions of dollars, and make no provision for decent approaches?
It is like a painter who, having finished a painting, would store it in his attic for lack of a frame. We know that the frame often enhances the painting.
Again, sir, I hope that in the agreement signed with the Montreal authorities, provision has been made for approaches other than through Atwater tunnel.
On the other hand, I must recognize that this agreement includes a particular project which is very satisfactory to my constituents.
I refer to the agreement between the city of Montreal and the national harbours board for the construction of an access road to the Point St. Charles dump. This dump, which is located on the river shore in my constituency, has been a source of constant difficulties, and for 20 years every public representative has been asking that the dump be closed or that an access road be built so that trucks would not have to go through residential streets, as they do now.
I was somewhat surprised, however, that according to the latest information I received, an access road passing beneath Champlain bridge was to be built under this agreement with the federal government.
However, here is what I find in this morning's issue of Be Devoir:
The executive committee also accepted an agreement whereby an access road to the Point St. Charles dump will be built under Victoria bridge.
Has a new solution been reached? That is all for the better. I am all the happier because the article further states, and I quote:

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Lucien Saulnier, stated that thanks to this agreement, garbage trucks will have disappeared from Marguerite Bourgeois street within a month.
Now, the people who live on Marguerite Bourgeois, a residential street, have always rightly complained about the fact that trucks carrying garbage or snow, use that thoroughfare to reach the dump.
In another field, namely the construction of the east-west super-highway, there is a problem to which the city of Montreal may not be giving proper consideration.
Indeed, the municipal authorities seem to feel that the only solution is to build a subway. Well, I do not share that opinion even though I sit on the city council. We have too many surface problems to settle and we could do that much more cheaply than by building a subway.
One of the most important projects is the construction of the east-west super-highway which will pass near the river, on federal property. It seems to me that the city of Montreal and the federal government should come to an agreement for the early execution of that project.
Such a super-highway would eliminate at least part of the traffic which must go through the city, whether eastbound or westbound. It would relieve traffic on Sherbrooke, Notre Dame, Dorchester, St. James and even St. Paul and the vehicles which now go through the harbour district could use the super-highway to go east or west, thus relieving the traffic on the streets I have just mentioned.
The more so since the Montreal transportation commission could inaugurate an express bus service on that expressway, similar to the service now established on St. Denis and St. Lawrence streets, to accommodate the east-west traffic and vice versa.
I hope that we will shortly see progress in that regard. In addition, I hope that the east-west expressway will be built as soon as possible.
Turning to another matter, Mr. Chairman, I would like again to call the minister's attention to a suggestion made by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont (Mr. Des-chatelets) yesterday, when he said that a lookout should be built in the vicinity of the harbour of Montreal in order that the people of Montreal may visit the place. As a matter of fact, I am sure that many Montrealers hear about the harbour but have never visited it and are not aware of what goes on there. We
Supply-Transport
are aware of its facilities and we realize its importance. It is one of the largest ports in Canada, and it must maintain its importance. Montrealers must be able to get on-the-spot information on the port. To that effect, I should like to put forward again the following suggestion made by my colleague:
Even a lookout, like those that were erected at the time of the St. Lawrence seaway development, could be set up, so that, from a height of 50 feet, people could see all the activities of Montreal.
Even if certain suggestions are made by the opposition, I hope the Minister of Transport will kindly consider them, because we often heard in the past ministers asking for suggestions to solve various problems.
I think that for the last three days the minister has been getting suggestions, both from his colleagues on the government side and from members of the opposition, and I would be glad if some of the suggestions made by members of the opposition were accepted or at least that they be given favourable consideration.
In closing, I should like to point out another suggestion made about certain problems in Montreal, and which concern the federal government. It is about the setting up of a committee or commission including members of the Montreal administration and other persons appointed by the federal government.
I said a moment ago that Mr. Beaudet and some members of the Montreal administration were members of a commission. After three or four months' sittings, recommendations were made, which, although not perfect, have none the less facilitated the settlement of three or four problems in Montreal.
Allow me, Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, to remind the minister that I insist on the proper development of the southern and northern approaches to Champlain bridge. I do not know the terms of the agreement, but the minister promised me this morning that he would table it in the house as soon as he received it. The tunnel can take care only of the normal traffic. It is already too small and it is no use building a six-lane roadway if the tunnel is not improved.
I am closing with this. I know you want to call it six o'clock. I am just as anxious to go home as my colleagues. Nevertheless, I am convinced that, unless the bridge approaches are improved so as to take care

Supply-Transport
of the traffic during rush hours, it will be most unfortunate. Last year I suggested the building of elevated roadways, but, whether they be elevated or underground, as long as they move the traffic to Dorchester street, I will be satisfied.
Therefore I hope the minister will give consideration to some of my suggestions and use them.
(Text):


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item carry?


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I certainly have no objection to item 1 being carried but I intended to answer a few of the various inquiries that have been made of me by hon. members. If the committee is agreeable, however, we might pass this item and then I could be given an opportunity of making my statement after the item has been passed. I would be agreeable to this procedure.


Lionel Chevrier: On the point which the minister has raised, I may say that from the experience I have had the estimates have taken quite a long time. The minister has had quite a long siege. I, personally, and I am sure others who are here, would be quite willing to accede to the minister's request, but it should be on this condition, that the minister will reply when we get to the next item after item 1 is passed. Then, we will be
given the right to ask questions, although we will not want to make speeches. On that assumption, I think we would be willing to allow the item to pass.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Shall the item pass?


Mr. Peters:: No, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: The tail wagging the dog again.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire what the legislation and the estimates will be for next week.


Gordon Minto Churchill: For Monday and Tuesday the program will be as outlined. I am not certain we will reach all the items that I called for Monday. Rather than taking the estimates of the Department of Transport next Wednesday we will start with those of the Department of Justice, followed by those of the Department of Fisheries, on which we have already spent some time.
On Monday evening, after I have had an opportunity to consult with some of my colleagues, I may be able to name two more departments for the balance of the week.


[Stage Direction]
At four minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Has the commission of Inquiry, appointed on June 25, 1959, to Inquire generally into all matters arising out of the unfulfilled provisions of treaties 8 and 11 as they applied to Indians of the Mackenzie district, held any meetings: and, if so, upon what dates and in which places were these meetings held?
2.	Has the said commission made any report and recommendations', and if so, what are the details of the said report, and the action taken with respect to the recommendations?
Answer by: Hon. Ellen L. Fairclough (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):
1.	Yes. Meetings were held from July 5 to July 17, 1959, at the following settlements:
Aklavik, Fort McPherson, Arctic Red River, Fort Good Hope, Fort Franklin, Fort Norman, Fort Wrigley, Fort Simpson, Fort Liard, Fort Providence, Hay River, Fort Resolution, Fort Rae, Snowdrift, Fort Smith.
2.	Yes. The commission recommended against the establishment of reserves in the proportions provided for in the treaties and suggested that the government open negotiations with the various Indian bands with a view to ascertaining whether in lieu of their land rights under the treaties they would be interested in monetary compensation, a combination of both, or some other form of compensation.
In connection with this general recommendation the commission made certain recommendations concerning the value of lands, mineral rights, fishing and hunting rights, establishment of Indians in settlements, welfare services, etc., all of which have been under study by an interdepartmental committee.