1961-05-18

POSTPONEMENT OP ARRANGEMENTS FOR PHOTOGRAPH OF HOUSE IN SESSION

Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the house that when it became apparent that there would be notable absences of members from both sides of the house today, I took the liberty of postponing the proposed portrait. When the budget address is given I hope we may be able to get a more representative picture of the house.



PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY ADDRESS TO BOTH HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT TO BE APPENDIX TO &quot;HANSARD&quot;

["Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and in French of the joint communique issued by President Kennedy of the United States and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) bearing today's date, following discussions held on May 17, 1961, in Ottawa."]
Hon. Donald M. Fleming (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous consent and in keeping with the practice of the house on past similar occasions, I should like to move, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson):
That the address of the President of the United States of America, Mr. John F. Kennedy, delivered yesterday before the members of the Senate and of the House of Commons, together with the introductory speech by the Prime Minister and related speeches, be included in today's House of Commons debates as an appendix and in yesterday's in the bound volume, and thus form part of the records of this parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table two copies in English and in French of the joint communique issued by President Kennedy of the United States and the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) bearing today's date, following discussions held on May 17, 1961, in Ottawa.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to ask the house leader when we can expect some of the long
list of proposed bills to be put on the order paper, which is now fairly well cleared up?


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: They will be ready for the house just as soon as the house is ready for these other items. We are going on now with estimates for the balance of this week. There will be plenty of material available for the opposition next week and the following week.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hazen Argue (Assiniboia):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of President Kennedy's strong plea for stepped up economic aid. I am wondering whether the Canadian government is giving further study to this proposal, whether any committee has been set up to study it, or whether there are any plans for joint study with the United States.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be the wish of the house to defer questions concerning the discussions which have been held between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States during the visit of the past two days until the Prime Minister's return to the house this evening or tomorrow morning.



INQUIRY AS TO RETURN OF REMAINING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Loiselle (St. Ann):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister I should like to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Sixty-one Canadian missionaries arrived yesterday from Cuba, and a press report this morning mentions that there are still 57 such missionaries remaining in Cuba. I should like to know whether there is any possibility that the government will furnish the means of transport for these missionaries.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to take this question as notice and see that a reply is provided at the earliest possible moment.

Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSING



SUGGESTED REASON FOR INCREASED ACTIVITY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders ol the day:
Mr. J. R. Garland (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. While all hon. members are pleased to see house building activity showing signs of recovering from the near collapse of a year ago, is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the higher level of starts reflects the desire of the lending institutions to place their funds before the N.H.A. rate is reduced?


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I could hardly imagine a more argumentative question than that. If you will allow me some measure of latitude to deal with it as I think it should be dealt with, I shall be glad to do so. I think you might rule, however, that it would have the attributes of a debate on the subject.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the minister is correct, that the hon. member is not so much interested in getting information as in making a point.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour I should like to direct a question to the minister's parliamentary secretary. He may take the question as notice if he has not the information. My question rises out of a telegram I received which reads as follows:
Carpenters at Moosonee voted overwhelmingly in favour of strike action. Conciliation board report directs parties meet with government departments involved.
Has the minister received a request for intervention in the dispute concerning carpenters presently employed on the radar installations at Moosonee, Ontario, and if so, can he indicate to the house whether he is prepared to appoint an official of the department?


Mr. R. D. Thrasher (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take the question as notice.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question is based

upon a starred question of May 3 which was made an order for return. This question asked for certain statistical information about the late Mr. John Waslychen, who was an inmate of the British Columbia penitentiary. I wonder whether the minister can inquire to see whether or not this information might be made available before the estimates of his department are considered.


Hon. E. D. Fulton (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I was inquiring about that matter just before coming down to the chamber. 1 was shown a draft return which I felt was acceptable, except that I thought one part of the answer should be expanded to give the information asked for. That should be done within the next couple of days.



DECREASE IN EXPORTS THROUGH PORT OF QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Bourgef (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I should like to ask a question of the acting minister. Has the minister been made aware that the exportation of wheat from the port of Quebec is continually decreasing? If so, what action is contemplated by the government to remedy the situation?


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Acting Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation which the hon. member mentions. However, I will be very glad to refer this matter to the department in order to secure an answer at the earliest possible moment.
(Translation):



REPORTED DIFFERENCE IN RETURNS TO EASTERN AND WESTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Samuel Boulanger (Drummond-Arihabaska):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture or in his absence, for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. My question arises from a report publishd in Le Devoir of this morning to the effect that farmers in the lake St. John area are being subjected to unfair competition due to the fact that they are paying from $10 to $20 more per ton for feed grain than the western farmers. I am therefore asking the minister if any action will be taken to correct this situation.
(Text):


Mr. W. H. Jorgenson (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I shall be happy to bring this matter to the attention of the minister.

(Translation):



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. O. Lalour (Argenleuil-Deux-Monfa-gnes):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State.
To provide for the replacement of Dr. Labelle, head of animal health division, Department of Agriculture, Montreal office, the civil service commission has announced competition number 61-P-AGR-24.
Could the minister tell me the names and addresses of all the applicants and also whether all the candidates have been properly called before the civil service commission and heard by the members of the commission or their deputies?


Hon. Noel Dorion (Secretary of Stale):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take this question as notice and see to what extent it can be answered.


Joseph-Octave Latour: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question, could I ask the minister-
(Text):


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question has been taken as notice, and a supplementary question would not be appropriate.
(Translation) :



LIVESTOCK


Joseph-Octave Latour: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture, or whoever replaces him, a question?
An epizootic disease called "hog cholera" has been noted in the province of Quebec for several months. According to available information from other quarters, Dr. Troalen of Montreal, an official of the animal health division of the Department of Agriculture is responsible for research with regard to the cause and cure of epizootic disease.
On April 12 last I wrote to the Minister of Agriculture asking for a report on the situation. Would he inform us now whether he is going to produce it in the near future?
(Text):


Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: I did not receive notice of this until after I came into the house. I will have an answer prepared later.
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CENSUS



POSSIBLE USE OF INFORMATION FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I see that both the Minister of Trade and Commerce and his parliamentary secretary are away today; nevertheless I should like to put this question and ask if the minister would consider making a more specific and thorough statement on the information gained by the census figures to be taken next month, in view of the general speculation and criticism in many parts of the country that this information may be used for political purposes.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I doubt very much whether that question is in order at this time, but I will refer it to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hubert Badanai: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Transport. On March 2, in the course of an address to the annual meeting of the Fort William chamber of commerce, the minister made a statement to the effect that an extension to the lakehead airport costing approximately $650,000 would be made this spring.
Can the minister inform the house whether tenders have been called in connection with this project and, if so, whether any contracts have been awarded?


Hon. Leon Balcer (Minister of Transport):: It is a fact that I made such a statement, but unfortunately there have been several revisions to requirements, particularly in connection with operational requirements for such facilities as telecommunications and traffic control, and this has delayed final layout planning. The project is still on our active list for tender call later during the current fiscal year. It has reached the stage of readiness for submission to treasury board for approval in principle of size and cost involved.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Johnson (Chambly-Rouville):: I had a question to address to the Prime Minister, but in his absence, since it deals with external affairs, I should like to address it to the parliamentary secretary to the Secretary

Inquiries of the Ministry of State for External Affairs. Did the Prime Minister and the President of the United States have any opportunity to discuss the Richelieu waterway during their meeting in Ottawa yesterday?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I am surprised that the hon. member for As-siniboia should appear to be awaiting the answer to this question with such interest.
I shall be glad to accept the question as notice and see that it is forwarded to the Prime Minister.


Hazen Robert Argue: You disappoint me.


An hon. Member:: You are always disappointed.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister, asking him whether he can explain to the house whether or not employees and staff members of the national commission for UNESCO, which is under the Canada Council, are appointed after competition.


Donald Methuen Fleming: Mr. Speaker, surely that is not a question to be asked on orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that question would be more appropriate for the order paper.
(Translation):



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the hon. member for St. Henry asked me whether I had received representations from the authorities of the city of Montreal concerning the replacement of the road-bed of C.N.R. lines in Montreal. As I had not understood his question properly, I should like to correct my answer.
We did receive a brief from the city of Montreal which dealt with several subjects of interest to both the municipal and federal authorities, including representations on the matter put to me by my hon. friend. I want to say to him that my officials, as well as those of the Canadian National Railways are still negotiating on this matter with the Montreal authorities.


Mr. J. P. Deschaielets (Maisonneuve-Rose-moni):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us when this brief was received?


Léon Balcer: I have the brief here, but unfortunately no date appears on it. If I remember right, it was received at least four or five weeks ago.
(Text):



CAPE BRETON


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hazen Robert Argue: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition asked his penetrating supplementary question on Tuesday, and the Prime Minister replied that the question should be directed to the Minister of National Revenue; and in view of the fact that both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Revenue are absent today, I wonder whether the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys could give the house any information as to whether the government is making any change whatsoever in its subsidies for the coal mining industry so there will not be a complete shutdown of these three mines.


Hon. Paul Comtois (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any statement at this time.

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


Mr. McMillan:: Mr. Chairman, on Saturday afternoon I referred to the fact that it would be better for this government to bring in a bill to help shipping rather than by a $1 item in the estimates. I said at that time I thought the government should be able to give an estimate as to the requirements in this respect, and if the estimate was not high enough no member in this house would refuse to vote a further supplementary estimate. I do not propose to refer to that further at this time, but I do wish to refer to a matter which has to do with several people in my district.
The oldest street car line in Canada ran between St. Catharines and Thorold. It was horse-drawn. It started in 1874. This line was electrified in 1882, and over the years it was gradually extended from St. Catharines

to Port Dalhousie, to Niagara-on-the-Lake, and from Thorold to Niagara Falls to Font-hill, to Welland and Port Colborne. Those lines provided suburban passenger and freight service among those municipalities, and they had switching rights to the regular railways for their freight. From 1908 to 1923 those lines were operated by the Canadian Northern Railway, and in 1923 they were taken over by the Canadian National Railways. The railway was known as the N.S. and T., the Niagara, St. Catharines and Toronto Railway.
With the development of motor transport the passenger services have been taken over by motor buses. The services have been gradually curtailed until today, as far as passenger service goes, the Canadian National Railways serve just the city of St. Catharines, the town of Thorold, and the plants south of that town. The rail services, however, carry a certain amount of freight.
On April 7, 1961 the employees who have been paying into a pension fund of the Canadian National Railways since January, 1935 received notice that the Canadian National Railways would cease to operate in this area after August 1 of this year. It may be that the Canadian National Railways will have someone taking over their franchise and equipment, presumably a municipality, but 75 employees, many of whom have contributed to the C.N.R. pension fund for many years, will be seriously affected.
Sections 112 and 113 of the pension plan, contained in a booklet supplied to the C.N.R. employees, seem to indicate that every employee who joins the service after January 1, 1935 and before attaining the age of 45 years, may be entitled to $300 per annum as a contribution by the company toward his pension plan. Section 121 is intented to provide for those employees who leave the railway service, or who retire early. In short, it provides for the return of the employee's contribution with interest and the cancellation of the employer's contribution. At page 7 of the pension plan booklet the following is found:
Your service will not be considered terminated if you are laid off but only if you leave or are discharged.
In the present situation the employees are not taking vountary leave, nor are they being laid off for any personal reason. Their jobs are being terminated because of decisions of the Canadian National Railways relating to a change in policy. These employees cannot be absorbed into the other branches of the service and are being forced into unemployment. They can, under a formula, qualify for pension for early retirement, but it seems to me that the company's contributions do not
Supply-Transport
have anything to do with these early retirements payments. These early retirement payments in my view represent the return of the employees' own money.
For example, one man who will be short of 65 years of age by eight months, with 43 years' service, will receive only two fifths of his full pension. Another who will lack six months service for full retirement benefits, with 38 years' service, will receive only two twelfths of his full pension. I have here a list of 75 names of faithful employees of the C.N.R. Not one will receive more than two fifths or 40 per cent of his full pension and others with 33 years' service, and over age 60, will receive much less, or about 17 per cent of their full pension. After all, this looks like a return of their own contributions, paid back to them in pension form. The payments made by the railway in respect to their pensions have nothing to do with any money they receive back. Seventy five families in my area will be affected and I believe the economy of our area will be adversely affected. The people of Canada, through the Canadian National Railways, under this proposed scheme will be breaking faith with these employees.
This issue points up what I have mentioned in this house on earlier occasions, the need of earlier vesting in pension plans. If we had earlier vesting in pension plans these people would have a portable pension. No doubt some of these men would be hired by the authority that takes over these particular bus lines, but they would have to start from scratch in building up a new pension plan. In the meantime, those with 40 years' service and even those with more than 30 years' service will be too old to obtain other work and will be left out on a limb. This is not fair, and such a situation should not exist in our society. I wish to hear from the minister on this question, and I appeal to him to do something for these people.
If the C.N.R. has paid $300 per man over the years, that represents a lot of money. In all fairness I think some of this money should accrue to these employees. These men should have some vesting rights. It does not seem to me to be fair that a man should pay into a pension fund up to within a few months of retiring-and according to law he has to serve right up to the last day-before he has any vesting rights in respect to the employer's contribution. In this case the people of Canada are leaving these employees out in the cold without much pension even though some of the employees have almost reached retiring age.


Mr. Smith (Lincoln):: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry I did not hear all the remarks of my

Supply-Transport
friend the hon. member for Welland, but I am happy to support some of the statements he has made. I wish to thank the hon. member for advising me that he intended to speak on this matter at this time. It is a question that affects a great many people in the riding which I have the honour to represent.
These employees of the Canadian National Railways are being displaced by reason of the fact that the company is discontinuing the local bus service some time in the near future. I suggest to the minister that in view of the long and important transportation service the C.N.R. has supplied to the people in the Niagara peninsula he take a personal interest in this matter of discontinuing the service.
The city of St. Catharines alone has a population of approximately 84,000 people, and this local public transportation system is extremely important. Therefore I recommend to the minister that his department co-operate to the fullest extent with the municipalities in that area in providing a continuing service to the public, as well as in adequately and generously providing a fair settlement of pension and other employment separation problems for all employees who will be displaced.
I understand negotiations are under way between the council of the corporation of the city of St. Catharines and the Canadian National Railways to provide ways and means whereby the city may purchase the assets of the local company and operate the service as a municipal public utility. I also understand that negotiations are under way between the employees of the C.N.R. bus operation in St. Catharines and the C.N.R. officials. I offer my wholehearted support to both the city of St. Catharines and the railway employees in their negotiations with the Canadian National Railways and I urge the minister to make sure that there is ample time allowed for a just and reasonable settlement of both the employees severance problems and the question of future ownership of the company before the C.N.R. discontinues operations.
I extend to the minister my full support with respect to the statement of new government policy concerning shipping operations and shipbuilding. In my opinion this is the most important and constructive decision this government has made in recent years. It is a policy designed to save the Canadian ship operators from complete deterioration which might well have taken place if Canadian ship owners had been forced to continue transferring their ships to British or other registry in order to remain competitive with the foreign vessels trading in our inland waters at the present time.
Shipbuilding which is an old industry in Canada, and a long established industry in

my riding will benefit greatly from the proposed new regulations providing for ship construction subsidies. Subsidies toward the cost of shipbuilding may be new in Canada, but they are not new in almost all other countries which engage in shipbuilding. While I do not think subsidizing industry is a permanent solution, Canada's shipbuilding industry has had to contend with serious problems of competition from subsidized European and other shipbuilding yards, and I am sure this new assistance will speed up maximum production in all Canadian shipyards and will provide thousands of new jobs not only in the shipyards but also in other allied trades.
I wish now to say a word about Canada's proposed new coastguard service. This is a matter about which I have spoken in this house on several occasions over the past few years. I have urged that Canada should have at least one first class salvage and rescue vessel on each of the great lakes capable of providing fire protection and doing towing and general salvage and rescue work. I have long felt that we rely too much on the United States coastguard service. With the coming of the seaway and the recent tremendous increase in pleasure craft on the great lakes a service of our own, to work in conjunction with that of the United States, in my opinion is urgently needed.
I again draw to the attention of the minister the need for regional airports with adequate facilities for non-scheduled and scheduled passenger and freight transportation in areas that are highly industrialized and are not adjacent to major airports of Trans-Canada Air Lines. In the Niagara peninsula, part of which is in my riding, we have such a requirement. Most of the municipalities in the area have formed a commission and operate an airport which is owned by the Department of Transport and is located near the city of St. Catharines. Over the past three years the Department of Transport has provided such facilities as night lighting and directional beacons, and has purchased additional land for future expansion.
However, the big problem today is the fact that the runways were built for light planes and are both too short and too light in construction for DC-3 planes to land and take off from them. Some of our industries with large company planes have been obliged to house them at Buffalo or Niagara Falls, New York, which is a great inconvenience. We have a very active Royal Flying Club with a large number of small planes, as well as many privately owned small planes. It is a customs airport, but it lacks the essential runway with a length of 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet.
In the Niagara peninsula there is no airport with runways over 2,800 feet in length,

and they are all of light construction. Therefore an airport with suitable facilities is badly needed in the area and the St. Catharines regional airport would appear to be the most suitable one for development. With the large amount of industry in the peninsula requiring airport facilities, and with the possibihties of shipping by air fresh fruit and vegetables grown in abundance in the area the need for a regional airport is most urgent and its success and use would seem to be assured.
This is a matter that has been before the Department of Transport for some time. While they have been generous to us-as I say, they have given us certain facilities- nevertheless I contend that the Niagara peninsula, which has a large area and a large amount of industry of one kind or another, certainly has the need for a regional airport with runways from 4,000 feet to 5,000 feet in length. The Department of Transport pilots have problems when they go in there with their planes. As a matter of fact the minister of immigration caused a little bit of excitement when she visited there some time ago and her plane went through the light runway.
I should like again to register my opposition, on behalf of the people of my riding, to the principle of tolls on the Welland ship canal. These tolls, together with tolls on the St. Lawrence river seaway canals, make lake Ontario a toll-locked lake and different from the other great lakes in Canada. Industries located on lake Ontario are thereby penalized. We agree that the full cost of operation and maintenance of the Welland ship canal should be recovered by way of service charges such as linesmen's fees, wharfage, lockage fees, etc., but we are opposed to the principle of tolls to recover capital costs. The Welland ship canal was completed some time in the 30's and is all paid for with the exception of some deepening that was done lately; and while the toll charges at the present time are not too heavy, nevertheless in the future, if the twinning of the single locks were done, the toll charges if increased could then become a great disadvantage to industry in the area.
I urge that consideration be given to an early start on the twinning of the remaining single locks on the Welland ship canal. The need for this action is becoming most acute. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in the past two years there have been many traffic jams on the canal which have held up the flow of traffic very badly. The need for twinning is becoming more urgent every day. We often hear rumours about an allAmerican canal being built from lake Ontario to lake Erie. I think its construction could perhaps be stalled or held off for some time
Supply-Transport
if the remaining single locks on the Welland canal were twinned. There certainly is not at the present time sufficient business for two canals connecting lake Ontario and lake Erie. However, there is certainly room for improvement on the Welland canal, and this improvement might very well be accomplished by the twinning of the remaining single locks.
In making those recommendations to the Minister of Transport, I must also congratulate him on his appointment. We of the Niagara peninsula are looking forward to having him come to our area some time in the near future to have a good look at this Welland ship canal, the scenic beauties of the Niagara peninsula and the many historic and interesting places in the area.


Mr.   Carler@: I should like to extend my congratulations to the minister on his new appointment and to wish him well in his new field of endeavour. I should also like to express to the officers of his department my appreciation for the consideration they always give to the problems I bring to them both here in Ottawa and in the regional office at St. John's. In particular I wish to express my thanks for the services of the icebreakers to our lobster fishermen this spring. Those icebreakers cleared away the ice and enabled the fishermen to start the fishery at the beginning of the season.
In connection with the icebreaking service I wish to bring to the attention of the minister one or two complaints I have received from Port aux Basques and North Sydney. The minister very well knows that unusual ice conditions prevailed this year. Sydney harbour and Port aux Basques harbour were blocked with ice for a long period of time and ferry communication between the mainland and Newfoundland was interrupted for a period of eight or nine days while the ferry was stuck in the ice and was unable to get into Sydney harbour. At the same time the icebreakers were employed in keeping other harbours open. Perhaps because of the unusual severity of ice conditions not very much could have been done this winter.
However, I have been asked to remind the minister that this ferry service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland is part of the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada. We feel that, other things being equal, it should receive priority so the service can be maintained whenever conditions will permit. We feel it should be on the priority list for the service of icebreakers when they can be used in this way, instead of perhaps being employed to keep other harbours open where the priority is not of the same order.

Supply-Transport
Last Friday the minister announced a new shipping policy for Canada. Whatever our attitude may be toward subsidies-and I do not think anyone can deny that there are both advantages and disadvantages in government subsidy of any industry-I think most hon. members will agree that the shipping and shipbuilding industries are special industries, essential to the economy of Canada, and must be kept alive at all costs even if they require subsidization.
The actual benefit the shipping industry will receive from the policy announced by the minister last Friday cannot be assessed until we know what the regulations are going to be which will govern that assistance. So far these regulations have not been made known; therefore we are not in a position to evaluate just how effective this assistance will prove to be. It seems at the moment that while it will remove one of the obstacles with which the shipping industry has to contend-I refer to the extra cost of ship construction-most of our ships have been forced to foreign registry not so much by the capital investment involved in construction but by the operational costs of the ships after they are built. As far as we can see from this announcement, the new policy will not in any way provide assistance toward the cost of operation.
When the minister draws up these regulations I think it would be well if he kept in mind that the shipping industry itself is in a state of transition. I hope that ships built under this new policy will be modern in every sense. I hope the ships which are built will not become obsolete in a few years and before their useful lifetime has run out. There are two trends which are noticeable in the shipping industry at the present time. One is the trend toward ships with larger carrying capacities, and the other is toward ships for specialized cargoes.
We all know about the success of the Norwegian shipping industry. That country has done a great deal toward encouraging the building of specialized ships. In fact ships are being built to carry only Volks-wagens from Europe to this country. That is the kind of specialization I am thinking about. I think we should keep that in mind when these regulations are being drafted.
The other point I want to ask the minister to consider in drawing up these regulations is this. I ask the minister to make sure that the regulations will cover the construction of wooden coastal vessels for Newfoundland. The announcement of the minister made special reference to wooden ships for the fishing fleet, but nothing was said about wooden vessels for the coastal trade. In Newfoundland we have people distributed

around the coast line living in a large number of very small harbours. The only way supplies can be carried in and out to these people is by small wooden ships of anywhere from 50 tons up to perhaps 200 tons. These are the kind of ships which could be built in our own shipyards, and I am sure the minister wants to encourage the shipbuilding industry in Newfoundland as much as in any other province. Therefore I do hope the minister will take note of this special need as far as Newfoundland is concerned, and will frame the regulations so they will cover this particular kind of coastal ship.
I would also hope the minister will see fit to include in the regulations some subsidy or assistance toward the cost of life saving equipment. This has become imperative under the Canada Shipping Act. The kind of rubber life saving raft which is demanded today is a very expensive piece of equipment. These rafts cost anywhere from $1,000 to $5,000, and a ship may have to equip itself with two or three of them to meet the standards of safety required under the act. This is one of the instances where regulations under the Canada Shipping Act impose extra costs on Canadian ship owners which are not imposed on ships that operate under foreign registry.
In addition to the increase in shipping costs I should like to bring to the minister's attention the need for additional navigation aids, not only in my own district but in the whole of Newfoundland. When Newfoundland became part of Canada the Department of Transport, very wisely I think, decided that before increasing the number of navigation aids they should modernize and replace those which were already in existence.
This has now been done, and we are very grateful. However, there is a great need for additional navigation aids. To impress this fact upon the minister I suggest that he look at a number of charts. If the minister will get a set of charts of the Newfoundland coast and compare them with charts of the coast of Nova Scotia and other maritime provinces, he will see that the navigation aids along the Newfoundland coast are much fewer and much more widely dispersed than they are on the eastern coast of mainland Canada. If the minister will compare the charts of the Atlantic coast of the maritime provinces with the charts of the great lakes he will find an even greater contrast. There are many more navigation aids around the great lakes than there are around the Atlantic coast line.
We know that part of the reason for navigation aids is to facilitate the movement of

shipping, but their primary purpose is to save lives. The life of a person in one part of Canada is just as important as it is in any other part of Canada. Therefore I do ask the minister to look at the charts, and I will provide him with a list from my own riding of locations in which we think more lighthouses and light and whistle buoys are required.
Before I sit down I should like to ask the minister to consider a change in policy with respect to the administration of public harbours. We have in Newfoundland a number of harbours which are used by sufficient shipping to require some kind of orderly control and administration. However, they are not big enough to be classed as national harbours, and the practice has been to declare them public harbours under the Canada Shipping Act and to appoint harbourmasters to administer them. I do not think this is the best way of administering these harbours, and I ask the minister to consider extending the power and authority of the pilotage commissions to enable them to administer harbours of this kind.
We have pilotage commissions in many harbours, and there is no good reason why they should not be given powers under the shipping act to administer such harbours as I have described. In my opinion it is much better for the administration of harbours to be under a local body which can deal with matters as they arise than for them to be under the control of a single person who must be guided by the regulations which are handed to him. If further decisions are required he has to get in touch with St. John's, and St. John's in turn may have to get in touch with Ottawa, a process which sometimes causes a delay of up to four or five days during long week ends in summer. Thus there is a need for more local autonomy in the administration of these harbours, and I think that could well be provided by using the pilotage commission in the manner I have suggested.
When the minister replies I should like him to make clear to the committee what the position is now with respect to the provincial acts governing pilotage in Newfoundland. At the time of confederation we had two acts, a special one for the harbour of St. John's and another for harbours outside St. John's. Then we became part of Canada and subject to still further legislation under the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act. I should like to know whether the original Newfoundland pilotage acts have been incorporated in the Canada Shipping Act, or whether they have now lapsed.
I should also like to ask the minister to provide any information he can about the
Supp ly-Transport
progress which is being made with respect to establishing a free port or a transshipment port at Mortier bay. From time to time we see press releases about the progress being made, and indications that certain firms in Europe are interested in this project. We see indications that a group on the mainland is interested in developing the port of Churchill, and that this development is linked with developments of Mortier bay. I think it would be a good thing if the committee knew just what has transpired during the past year in this respect.


Mr. MacEwan:: I have a few observations to make on these estimates of the Department of Transport, which are most important throughout the country and especially important to the constituency which I represent. I should like to thank the minister and the officials of his department for the co-operation which has been shown to me since the hon. gentleman took office, a co-operation which I know will continue. The minister is well acquainted with my area, having served in the Pictou area during the war with the Royal Canadian Navy.
First of all I wish to congratulate him and the government on the shipbuilding policy which was announced a few days ago. This is most important to Pictou and to its largest industry, which happens to be Ferguson Industries Limited, a shipyard. I understand a telegram has been sent by that firm to the minister in connection with this new development. I believe the firm was holding its annual meeting this week, intending to discuss aspects of the new program, and I also believe that officials of the company have been in touch with other firms on this matter. The new policy should be of great help in providing employment in this shipyard. Vessels are refitted from time to time for the Department of Transport, vessels belonging to the department, and I hope the minister will keep us in mind in the Pictou area when such work is being done.
There is another matter which was brought up the other day by the hon. member for Queens, Prince Edward Island. It concerns the ferry route which runs between Cariboo, Nova Scotia and Wood Island, P.E.I. The Minister of Fisheries, who is here with us, is also most interested in this route, which is operated by Northumberland Ferries Limited, a private company. The company operates two vessels, the Lord Selkirk and the Charles A. Dunning. The latter has seen long service and needs to be replaced. I have been in close touch with the maritime commission in connection with this matter, and also with the operators of the service. I know that the Minister of Fisheries, the hon.

Supply-Transport
member for Queens and myself are hopeful that recommendations will be made by the maritime commission to the Department of Transport and to the government generally so that a new ferry may be built for this route.
I think perhaps I should place on record a few statistics which I have here showing the notable increase in the number of vehicles and passengers carried on this route. I have here the figures for the years 1959 and 1960. In 1959 the number of automobiles ferried from May to August was 32,296. During the same period in 1960 the number was 41,314, an increase of 19,018 during that one year period. I know, speaking of Cariboo in my own constituency, that during July and August there is heavy tourist traffic. I have seen vehicles lined up for many car lengths from the ferry wharf, showing that a sister ship for the Lord Selkirk is needed for this route. As I have indicated, the Charles A. Dunning is now very old. It will take at least a year and perhaps two years to build a new ship, but I believe that consequent on the increase in traffic a new ship is certainly warranted. Incidentally, a fine job could be done at Ferguson Industries. Returning to the figures, I would add that in connection with passenger traffic for 1959 and 1960 there was an estimated increase of between 6,000 and 7,000 in the number of persons carried.
That is one matter of great importance. In connection with another subject, I should like to commend the minister for reviving the route from Pictou to Prince Edward Island to the Magdalen islands. The terminal is in Pictou. The office staff live in Pictou and some of the crew of the new ship also live there, I believe. I am very happy that this service has been continued although the new ship, I understand, is stuck off the coast in the ice now and is being assisted by one of the icebreakers belonging to the department. This service is most important to the port of Pictou. It helps the area and gives work to men there.
In July of 1959 the port of Pictou, on the north shore of Nova Scotia, suffered a disastrous fire which almost completely destroyed the waterfront. However, through the efforts of the Department of Public Works, facilities are now being built there. A new quay wall has been built, and I expect an announcement will soon be made regarding the construction of a new pier C costing in the vicinity of $540,000, which will certainly be of great assistance to this fire-ravaged port.
The matter of railway services and facilities is of great importance to my constituency, not only having regard to the employment associated with the provision of those services but also because of the fact that the
largest employer in my constituency is the Eastern Car Company, the Dosco plant, which manufactures freight cars. During the past year the employment situation at that plant has not been good. As has been pointed out by the president of the Canadian National Railways, the need for new railway cars is not as great now as it has been, because much of the rolling stock of that railway has been modernized during the last ten years. This same situation is probably equally applicable to the Canadian Pacific Railway.
I am sure the minister is well aware of the representations I have made in reference to railway car orders. This plant has received orders this year for approximately 300 insulated heavy type railway cars from the Canadian Pacific Railway, and I hope that, in view of tenders which have been called by the Canadian National Railways, this plant will receive at least a portion of that contract. The other two main plants supplying railway cars in Canada are the National Steel Car Company of Canada, at Hamilton, and Canada Car, Montreal.
The employment situation in my constituency is perhaps different from the situation in the areas where those two companies are located, in that the largest employer in my area is the supplier of those railway cars, and when there is a lack of employment there the men are not able to find work in other plants, as are individuals working for companies in the larger centres.
It has been pointed out and recommended by others, as well as by myself, that there is a need for this plant to go into different lines of production. In this regard, I am aware that the company has recently appointed a manager of product development, in an attempt to develop the manufacture of other types of products and to diversify the activities of that company. I hope their attempt in this regard will meet with success so the company can provide continuous employment.
Perhaps I should also refer to volume 1 of the MacPherson royal commission report while I am speaking about railways. I would like to quote one statement from that report at pages 67 and 68, as follows:
We are also convinced that these remedies will help to ensure that the railways will take their proper place in a Canadian transportation system designed to encourage and facilitate national unity and national development to the greatest degree.
I feel that many of the recommendations contained in this volume of the MacPherson report are good recommendations. Undoubtedly the government will take them into

consideration in preparing future legislation or policy in respect of the two national railways.
An hon. member has stated in this committee that nothing has been done to help the maritime provinces in the problems they face regarding freight rates. I should like to say that I am looking forward to the receipt of the second volume of the Mac-Pherson report, which will undoubtedly contain further recommendations to which the government will give consideration. As the old saying goes, Rome was not built in a day, nor will the problem of equalizing freight rates be solved in a day. This is a very difficult problem, particularly with reference to the maritime provinces; but I am sure this government, after considering the recommendations made by the MacPherson royal commission, will be able to suggest possible solutions to the problems facing these areas.
There are several other matters to which I intend to refer, but I shall do so during the consideration of individual items. I should like at this time, however, to refer to one other matter of great importance to the residents of Pictou island, which lies approximately seven miles off the coast of Nova Scotia. The only means of communication between this island and the mainland during winter is provided by an airplane which flies between the island and Prince Edward Island. This airplane is capable of carrying the mail and one passenger, and was formerly operated by a gentleman locally referred to as "the flying farmer". At the end of last winter that gentleman ceased to provide this service, and was replaced by a gentleman known as "the flying padre". The air strip which exists on the island is not a good one, and does not lend itself to easy landings and take offs especially during winter months. In order to facilitate this service on a year round basis a new and better air strip is required.
I drew this need to the attention of both the present minister and his predecessor, and was advised that the necessary land must be purchased by the province or municipality and donated for this purpose before the Department of Transport could do anything in this regard. I was also advised that there must be a local guarantee to maintain the air strip, once it had been built. Following the receipt of this advice, officials from the Moncton division of the department made a trip to the area and have since suggested that there are strips there which could be utilized.
I brought the situation to the attention of the government of the province of Nova Scotia, and was informed that it was more of a municipal problem. Since that time I have approached a municipal councillor who
S upp ly-Transport
will undoubtedly put the problem before the county council, and I hope it will come forward with a solution. I am sure the necessary land in the area can be purchased for a very low price, and that maintenance would amount to very little as compared to the importance of maintaining communications between that island and the mainland especially during the winter months.
That is all I wish to say at this time, Mr. Chairman, but I feel I should repeat that the services provided by this department are very important to the residents of my constituency, and commend the minister for his co-operation to date in this regard.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, I understand that during the discussion on this vote hon. members are entitled to raise matters concerning transportation in Canada both in a general and a particular way. As this government has not yet seen fit to face up to the necessity and inevitability of providing a national transportation policy, it automatically follows that what I have to say deals with transportation in particular. Transportation is of tremendous importance to the Canadian people and Canada's economy, and I hope the minister, with his vast knowledge, will honestly and openly give this committee information regarding exactly what is happening in the transportation field in Canada.
I wish to particularize with reference to three points. The first deals with the passenger service which is now being provided by the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I have been very interested during the past two weeks in press releases issued by the officials of both railway transportation systems. I have also been interested in the passenger service being provided by these railway systems, and the endeavours to encourage the officials of the two systems to make an effort to meet the needs of Canadian people for passenger service.
I must regretfully say that while I have been interested in these press reports issued by both the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway in regard to passenger service, I have had to come to the conclusion that it is just so much eyewash. I suggest that actually the officials of the two railway systems are doing everything possible to discourage the provision of the passenger service part of their operations. I believe we are entitled to learn from the Minister of Transport just what is going on behind the scenes and what is the passenger transport policy of the national railroads of Canada.
Let me give an indication of why I have come to this conclusion. I should like to give the minister a few examples and ask him to

examine what happened two days before Christmas and two days after New Year's as regards railroad passenger policy and accommodation between Calgary and Vancouver. What did happen? I received my information not only from those who were on the trains but also from the railroad men themselves. They are interested in passengers and in their comfort. Then why, in the period I have just mentioned, was the accommodation on the trains between Calgary and Vancouver and Vancouver and Calgary such that many passengers had to stand up all the way? Why was it that on the train that went from Banff to Vancouver there was no dining car or coffee car, so that in that 24 hour run it was hot even possible to get sandwiches? Why was it that although under the special plan of the railroad when you bought your ticket you bought not only your travel but your meals, no meals were served?
I have spoken to those who had such tickets on those trains, but there was no dining car and no coffee car on the train. I am not going to give the exact trains, because I do not want the men persecuted. I have spoken to one of the conductors who was faced with having to accept tickets which entitled the purchasers of those tickets to food on that train. He got so fed up trying to explain it was not his fault that he went into the baggage oar and stayed there for a great part of the trip. I got this information from the man concerned.
When you are confronted with that kind of situation you ask, as I am asking now, do we believe what they say in the press or do we believe the experience of the passengers and the railroad men? Let me give one further example. When I was getting ready to come down here at the opening of this session I put in my application for a certain reservation on the train. I was told I would have to wait to have confirmation whether there was any space available. Two days later it was confirmed that space was available. When I got on the train I was one of four in the car.
Let us go even further. I am going to tell the minister of a Vancouver businessman who had to go from Vancouver to Montreal and decided to take his wife along with him. He made application to reserve a room for himself and his wife in a car, and he was told there was no space available, that they would have to take separate duplex roomettes to Winnipeg, and from Winnipeg they would transfer into the one room on the train. When that man got on the train- I did not know the man myself, two porters told me about it-they had the two duplex roomettes, but the man found that most of the car was vacant. Thereupon he asked the

sleeping car conductor if he could have one room for himself and his wife to Winnipeg, because he had a room reserved from there on. He was sold a room; and this is one of the coincidences that sometimes occur. You know, Mr. Chairman, he obtained exactly the same room which he was to have from Winnipeg to Montreal, and he obtained it in Vancouver when he boarded the train.
It is because of things such as these that we ask, do we believe the newspaper publicity issued by the top brass of those railways, or do they have a policy, all the railroads put together, by which they are trying to get out of the passenger business? I know that hon. members whom I see right now have had similar experiences, or have had similar information given to them. I think we are entitled to know just what is in the minds of the heads of the railways as regards their policy on passenger service.
This leads me automatically to my second point, Mr. Chairman, namely the policy of our national railways in buying outright or a controlling interest in trucking and passenger service over the roads of Canada. I know that every hon. member receives periodically letters and information from the road transport companies of Canada. They are continuously complaining about the competition of the railroads. On the other side of the fence the railroads are complaining about the competition of those who use our roads for trucking and passenger service.
To me it is rather fantastic that both the railroads are, and have been for years, buying up the major trucking and road passenger services in Canada. What kind of sham battle is going on between the railroads and the major trucking companies of Canada when they are all owned by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.? Surely, sir, there is a sham battle going on, and it is time it was brought out in the open and we were given the true picture which exists as between the railroads and the trucking and road passenger companies which they own. Surely the time has come for this sham battle to cease and for us to be given the actual picture of the cooperation and the competition between the two, and why one should attack the other when they are both owned by the same company.
This sham battle indicates the imperative and immediate necessity of the government giving consideration to bringing the entire transport system of Canada, whether it be by railroad, by road or by sea, into proper perspective and outlining a national transportation policy which will be in the interests of our people,' whether it be freight or passenger service, so that it may be carried on in the most efficient manner as far as the

economy of our country is concerned. A sham battle is not in the interests of anyone concerned. It is not in the best interests of any corporation or citizen, nor is it in the best interests of the economy. Statements made in the press for publicity purposes do not mean anything if the actual operations belie the statements. These matters are of such importance at this time that I hope the minister will clarify the situation. I hope he will tell us whether or not the government is facing up to the problem of a national transportation policy for Canada and, if so, what is being done about it.
Transportation is a vital necessity in our country, and it should be placed on a practical, efficient basis. I do not need to point out that Canada is a vast country, approximately 4,000 miles across and one third larger than the United States in size. Canada is an export nation. In the final analysis the efficacy or inadequacy of Canada's transportation system can make or break this country in terms of it occupying a major role in the export field. Perhaps the minister would give us an indication of what is really taking place in the field of transportation.
Until a few years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway provided a ferry service between the British Columbia mainland and Vancouver island. A few years ago the service was terminated during certain periods of the year because the company was losing money. No competition had to be met by sea, although Trans-Canada Air Lines provided competition by air. T.C.A. still operates a competitive service and the number of flights between Vancouver and Patricia bay is now at an unprecedented level.
What happened? Because of the deteriorated condition of the C.P.R. service the government of the province of British Columbia felt that it had to take action. This is a government which abhors anything of a socialist nature, is opposed to public ownership and is fully in support of free enterprise. This government decided to go into the ferry business, and built two large modern ships to ply between the British Columbia mainland and Vancouver island. I recently read in the newspaper that in the first 12 months of its operation the government ferry sevice made a profit of approximately $800,000. The operation has been so successful that two additional ships are being built. Apparently private enterprise failed in this field through the C.P.R., and public ownership through the service provided by the government made a profitable return. The position of the government ferry service is similar to that of Polymer and Eldorado in the federal field. This leads one to speculate about the policy of the C.P.R.
Supp ly-Transport
in operating this service and allowing it to deteriorate to a point at which the provincial government had to move in.
The three fields about which I am curious and concerning which I should like a full statement from the minister are the passenger services of the railways, the trucking industry on our highways and the steamship services. I ask the minister to do something that no minister of transport has ever done. I urge him to give the committee a full exposition of all aspects of transportation policy. I urge him to give us an explanation of the difference between the statements made by those in control and what we see as a result of the actual operation. Most important of all, I ask the minister to give us an indication that the government recognizes the seriousness of the situation, and to tell us what is being done to provide a national transportation policy for Canada so we may have a profitable transportation system that will benefit the economy and the Canadian people.


Mr. Payne:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of all hon. members of the House of Commons and regarding the opportunity provided us to discharge our responsibilities to those who placed us in this chamber, the electorate of Canada. I refer to the inability of members to be recognized by the Chair. I suggest that it would be right and proper in this situation to revert from committee so that I may discuss this question in some detail with Mr. Speaker in the chair.


Mr. Chevrier:: Mr. Chairman, I think this is an extremely unusual procedure. I did not know it was the practice when we were in committee of the whole as we are now, discussing the estimates of the minister, to ask us to call the Speaker back into the chair to discuss a question of privilege that could have been raised earlier when the Speaker was in the chair and that could, I suppose, be raised later today or even tomorrow. On its face it would appear to me to be an unusual procedure, and I do not think we should be called upon to interrupt our present proceedings.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the hon. member who raised this question of privilege what he means. As I recall our rules the hon. member can follow this course in only one way. He is challenging you, sir, as chairman of the committee and is saying in effect that Your Honour has a bias in the recognition of speakers. If that is what the hon. member means he should say so directly. He appears to be accusing Your Honour of having a bias in the recognition of speakers.


The Chairman:: Whether or not the hon. member's statement represents a challenge

Supply-Transport
to the Chair, I think the procedure is as follows. We cannot call the Speaker back on a question like this unless there is an appeal from a decision of the Chair, which appeal is to the house. The second thing I would say is this. There is a procedure that is available. Any hon. member may move that a certain member be now heard, and it will be up to the committee to decide whether or not the member be heard. I do not think the hon. member for Coast-Capilano was discussing the bias of the Chair or anything like that. The problem of the chairman is that he cannot recognize all hon. members at the same time.


Mr. Drysdale:: Mr. Chairman, I move that the hon. member for Coast-Capilano be now heard.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: I second that motion.


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman-


Jacques Flynn: Before the hon. member speaks, I will put the motion. I think the motion should be in writing. However, I suppose it can be taken as made.
Motion agreed to: Yeas, 61; nays, 0.


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, my grievance is as follows. Fundamental to the discharge of our responsibilities in this chamber, is our ability to be heard in this chamber. On occasion I have found that I have been faced with a list which is held-


Jacques Flynn: Order. Will the hon. member resume his seat?


William Hector Payne: Yes.


Jacques Flynn: The question which the hon. member is now discussing has nothing to do with the estimates before the committee. As I indicated previously, I do not think there is a question of privilege. I would therefore ask the hon. member to discuss the estimates of the Department of Transport at this time and not to refer to the question which has been disposed of by the decision of the committee.


William Hector Payne: Mr. Chairman, I understood you wished me at this time to discuss the point of privilege which-


Jacques Flynn: No; I think the hon. member misunderstood me. The committee has decided that the hon. member may now speak on the estimates which are before the committee. The hon. member has the floor but he has it for the purpose of participating in the present debate and not for the purpose of discussing the question of privilege or the matter which I indicated was not a question of privilege in any way.
[The Chairman.]


William Hector Payne: I wish to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and the members of the committee for the consideration I have received. I will not go further and enlarge upon the reasons why I imposed on the committee in this way. I am indeed grateful for this consideration.
The main subject for discussion, as far as my remarks are concerned at this time, has to do with the port of Vancouver. The reason for discussing that subject on item No. 1 is to be found in the limitations that exist surrounding the terms of and the regulations under the National Harbours Act.
At the outset I should like to say that my congratulations go to the minister in his new portfolio. I would point out that his predecessor has given tremendous co-operation with regard to the bringing into effect of a new policy in the general area of the port of Vancouver. It is with great regret that we have seen the former vice chairman, namely Mr. Robert Rankin, leave the national harbours board and take a new and extremely important role as president of the St. Lawrence seaway authority. I say that most sincerely, because Mr. Rankin took an intimate and personal interest in the problems which I will now discuss. As a result of his replacement by Mr. Howard Mann may I say we look forward with pleasure to an association that will develop. I am sure that Mr. Mann is an able and capable individual, and that he will follow up the great work done by Mr. Rankin.
I have discussed the port of Vancouver on a number of occasions and in a good deal of detail both at this session and at previous sessions of this parliament. The great need of our port, the great lack that had developed through no planning over the years has become greatly apparent in the past few months with the sale of large tonnages of grain to the Orient.
It is rather interesting to note that most of the problems inherent in grain handling and the large shipment commitments to mainland China developed not from lack of loading space, as it is popularly thought, and to which the problem is usually credited, but rather through inefficient arrangements surrounding the port and quite beyond the authority of the national harbours board. When the Minister of Agriculture returns from his current visit to the west coast, where he has been investigating the handling of grain, I am quite sure he will confirm the suspicion he has held in this regard.
With respect to this great natural facility there is no liaison, no control factor or no management to administer and control the movement of rail traffic. No plans have been laid for many years to make available access

to the wharfage. We have confused switching charges and arbitrary arrangements not directed toward the improvement and service of the port of Vancouver but frequently entered into by the various railways, which are competing for input of freight at points as far removed as Edmonton, Prince George and elsewhere in the hinterland.
The former minister of transport caused to be brought into being an interdepartmental study group. This body was announced a little more than a year ago. It consisted of members of the civil service from the Department of Public Works, Indian affairs, the Department of Transport and personnel from the national harbours board. It is my understanding that this body has now reported. I hope that in his remarks the minister will bring to this committee some news or some word of the findings and recommendations of this body.
I hope the minister will recognize the need for establishing at an early time a much broader study, which should develop a broader authority with powers extending back of the harbour line so that proper planning in conjunction with the communities surrounding this national facility can be undertaken, as they are now undertaken in other ports of Canada. I point to the planning and land assembly programs which have been undertaken in the ports of Saint John and Montreal, to name but two.
I urge that at the same time the minister recognize the immediate necessity for bringing into being a technical body prepared to go ahead and act, taking over the interests of the railways if necessary, to provide this port facility with the services it so urgently needs. This port is a national trust. It is one of the greatest facilities this nation has been given. It services the Pacific and the great Orient trading basins, representing potentially 65 per cent of the world's population.
The problems surrounding this harbour are today apparent, and it is with some shame that I report to the committee-the committee was warned about this last year-that the Pacific and Orient line have put into service large new passenger ships. The facilities are not there to berth these vessels. Indeed, those who travel by this route and enter Canada's western gateway inform us that for facilities our port qualifies as the worst they have seen, barring only one port in India. In previous years I have reviewed the vast tonnages and the great movement of vessels into and out of this port. This is an all-year harbour not bothered by ice and not curtailed in any way other than by a lack of planning and foresight created by man.
To those who come from the prairies this national trust means as much as it does to
Supp ly-Transport
anyone living on the west coast itself. I urge the minister to take a keen and vital interest in following up the good work started by the former minister of transport and so ably handled by Mr. Rankin, so that we may not be guilty of impairing seaborne traffic so essential to Canada's economy.
There are two other subjects which I should like to discuss. We heard the other day, and at some length, the hon. member for Laurier discuss T.C.A. He did so pretty much as the ancient mother sheltering her brood. The hon. member brought into focus none of the facets which are today so important and which are certainly apparent to me from western Canada. I refer to the welfare not only of one but of all the great air carriers of this nation which are prepared to operate on the basis of private enterprise, which are prepared to give a service equal to that of any air carrier in the world, and which are prepared to pay the same taxes as are paid by any other industry in this country.
These air carriers are today facing problems. Some of these problems may be of their own making, but a great many are the making of the previous administration. The opposition today like to point to bilateral air agreements and find fault with this administration, when most of them were initiated by themselves.
To give the committee illustrations I would refer to the great west coast of the United States, that country's second most populous area. Did Canada make a magnificent deal? We secured landing rights in the most northerly and least populous city of Seattle only. At no other point on the Pacific west coast of the United States can Canadian air carriers land, nor do we have any privileges other than those granted by virtue of need and necessity for emergency.
We have an air carrier-I think it is fair and proper to name it-Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which I understand has asked for the privilege of sharing in the increase in growth of Canada's internal air traffic. I think this is a fair and just request. We have here a government agency T.C.A. spending millions of dollars on recapitalization for re-equipment and plant, always prepared to throw an extra plane into service on any line so they can show a most unfavourable revenue and passenger mile picture, and using this as a tool to deny private enterprise the right to do a job.
We can find enough money to throw millions of dollars into T.C.A. but we deny private enterprise the right to give a service it is prepared to give and for which it is prepared to pay taxes while so doing. We can find money for this sort of thing, we can find millions of dollars for a new equipment program.

Supply-Transport
Against this I should like to throw into focus the great needs of the port of Vancouver; a port which is a national trust and a national responsibility; a port which for hundreds of years to come will be the major mover of the heavy tonnage of commerce of this nation.
Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock?
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
William Hector Payne: 
Harold Edward Winch: May I ask the hon. member a question? Who for years pioneered this service in Canada?


William Hector Payne: In answer to the hon. member for Vancouver East I would say there is no doubt T.C.A. did play a certain pioneering role, but I would point out to the hon. member that many another air line in Canada pioneered routes and provided service for the public in regions where T.C.A. never made a move. I would remind the committee of the work done by Mackenzie Air Service and Canadian Airways, which opened up the vast mineral area to the north of Vancouver, serving the upper regions around Aklavik and the Mackenzie river and bringing progress to the Canadian north. It was not only T.C.A. which pioneered; these other lines pioneered. In addition, they provided service on a competitive basis and paid taxes, too, while the T.C.A. pioneering effort, if you can call it that, was to establish a service between the major centres of population in Canada, frequently at a loss and requiring heavy subsidy.
I say now is the time when we must give some thought to where public spending should go. Should we be paying $250 million for aircraft which private enterprise could provide on a competitive basis for our external and internal air services, or should we spend that money on the port facilities of this nation in order to increase the efficiency of our export industry? Mr. Chairman, I think the answer to this question is simple.
There are two further points I should like to mention briefly. Last year the predecessor of our current minister announced the formation of the Canadian coastal protective services. I realize now, as a result of the announcement made earlier this session, that the current Minister of Transport is actively pursuing the establishment of this program, and has arranged for the provision of certain craft which will make this service much more effective and efficient. On behalf of the people of my area I wish to congratulate the minister for this move, and trust that it will go forward with haste, as I am sure the need for coastguard service, on the Atlantic as well as the Pacific coast, is urgent.
I should also like to congratulate the minister in regard to the shipbuilding assistance program recently announced. Western Canada's largest shipyards are located in my area, and I can assure the minister that this program of assistance will be most useful in the provision of urgently needed new coastal ships. This assistance will help in the provision of new deep-sea bottoms on the oceans of the world, and will mean a great deal to

the thousands of families whose breadwinners work in our shipyards. I think this is a fine and imaginative program, and one which must give the minister a good deal of pride and pleasure.
I should also like to congratulate the minister for his recent announcement regarding the provision of new weather ships. These ships are indeed needed on the west coast. The old frigates, which have been serving in the Pacific, have provided poor accommodation for the crew who reside on these craft during some of the most rigorous weather that the oceans produce. These old vessels have not only been deficient in respect of conveniences and amenities for the crew while away from home, but are deficient in respect to the work they can perform at sea. I feel the provision of these new ships will make a great contribution to the provision of meteorological information which the Department of Transport so ably carries out.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I should like first of all to wish the Minister of Transport every success in this new portfolio which we all realize is a difficult one, including as it does the fields of air, land and water transportation.
I intend today to speak in regard to the Trent valley waterway. This waterway runs through the heartland of Ontario and is 230 miles in length, including 32 miles of canal locks, from Trenton on lake Ontario to Port Severn on the Georgian bay. This waterway, believe it or not, was started in 1830 by the imperial government as a means of defence, and transportation, and colonization in an attempt to open up the area. As hon. members know, this waterway was used by Champlain almost 350 years ago when he travelled form Georgian bay along the Trent waterway by portages where necessary to lake Ontario across the end of lake Ontario and attacked the Iroquois at approximately where the city of Syracuse, New York now stands.
The money provided by the imperial government for the development of this waterway was spent for the purpose of defence. The development of the waterway lagged for a good many years, until a man by the name of Mossom Boyd of Bobcaygeon acquired money to continue the project; but when he applied for permission to go ahead, it was denied. It was not until 1880 that Sir Charles Tupper became interested in the waterway and initiated an investigation as to the feasibility of finishing it. Following that investigation Sir Charles Tupper came to the conclusion that the waterway must be completed as fast as funds were available 90205-6-315
Supply-Transport
to do so, but unfortunately Sir Charles Tupper was appointed high commissioner to Britain before the project could be completed, and it was allowed to lag again following his departure.
In 1892 Sam Hughes, later Sir Sam Hughes, of Lindsay became interested and undertook to have the government complete the canal. In 1896 the government changed and under the government of Sir Wilfrid Laurier the canal was again allowed to lag. The people living in the area brought pressure to bear . on the government of the day, and Sir Wilfrid Laurier appointed a royal commission to determine whether the waterway; should be completed. This royal commission, I believe, was headed by Sir John Bertram. This commission presented a report recommending that the waterway be completed as soon as possible and the project proceeded under the Liberal government, which was defeated in 1911, but was carried on by the Conservative government of that day under Sir Robert Borden. In 1914, with the commencement of the first world war, the project was carried on as a stopgap measure by the provision of a marine railway from Swift Rapids to the Big Chute. A promise was made at that time to complete the canal with locks immediately following the end of that war. Over 40 years have now passed since then, and the same bottleneck exists now that existed at that time.
Hon. members may wonder why the government of that day ever built the marine railway there. I suggest it was simply a measure to put in a stop dam to provide water to produce electric power for the munitions plants in the town of Orillia.
During the years this waterway has become a great water highway. More boats pass through the waterway in a day now than during a month at that time. Hotels, summer camps and cottages have been built all along the route, and marine motels are now being built. The investment in tourist camps and motels which has been made by the people of this area has amounted to millions of dollars. The investment in buildings is not the only expenditure that would be made. In addition there are the cost of upkeep and maintenance, to say nothing of the new buildings that would be built if the bottleneck of the marine railways was removed representing millions of dollars paid to labour. For the staffing of those motels, hotels and marinas, thousands of dollars more would be spent in labour costs. Many of our university and senior high school students would find work in those places during the summer holidays in increased numbers.

Supp ly-Transport
To repeat the opening up of this waterway at the north end will bring more buildings, more cottages, more hotels, more marinas and more motels. It will provide many hours of employment in the erection of the buildings, and then in the maintenance and staffing permanent employment will be provided, which will be greatly accelerated over the years to come. The building of lift locks will provide a great many jobs, many more than marine railways, which are incompetent and unsafe at best, or cradles or any other scheme that I know or have read of. Lift locks should be installed as soon as possible first because of their efficiency and second, because of their speed in handling boats, their saving of water and their safety and passenger comfort. Occupants can stay in their boats while the boats are carried up.
I just wish to make this statement. At one lock there is a lift of 65 feet and at the other it is over 50 feet. This is the equivalent of six to seven storeys or six to seven stairways in the ordinary house. A great many people who own these boats are getting along in years. I have seen them on more than one occasion face these steps with dread and fear. The marine railways are absolutely incompetent to handle the boating public today, as are any other form of cradles or Other works. With the hydraulic lift lock they can stay in their boat and be raised without any waste of water. Also, larger and heavier boats can be handled. Only 15 tons can now be carried over the marine railway. This is doubly necessary now because I have been recently advised that there is some difficulty in letting the smaller craft go through the Welland canal. It appears very likely, therefore, that more boats of a heavier type will have to be handled through this waterway. This will mean additional sources of revenue.
I just wish to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the marine railway cuts down the size of the boats that can be handled because it cuts down the canal to a total length of something like 50 feet long, 13 feet 6 inches wide and 4 feet draft. The rest of the canal has a uniform width of 3 feet and 6 feet draft. Its shortest length is 84 feet and its longest 175 feet, with a draft of 6 feet. Therefore it will be seen that its depth is cut just about 50 per cent when it gets to the marine railroad. In other words the bigger and deeper type of craft are to all intents and purposes prevented from making this trip.
Let us get on with the completion of this waterway. There does not appear to be any further reason for delay in its completion. As I have stated, it is needed economically, especially from the tourist point of view. We have an adverse balance of over $200 million

in our tourist trade alone, or just one quarter of our total adverse balance. This waterway should be of incalculable help in correcting this deficiency.
In conclusion may I say there are a few other areas of this waterway in which I would like to see some improvements made. First, I should like to see sewage disposal tanks provided in appropriate areas for the sewage from the boats. Second, there should be a distinctive type of summer uniform provided for the operators, who are doing excellent jobs. As you go through this waterway in the heat of summer you sometimes see those fellows with their shirts off, wearing all varieties of clothing. A man comes along operating a boat and he finds that these men are not wearing any distinctive badges to indicate that they are the people who are operating the Trent canal. Let us dress them up so they will be a good advertisement for the waterway and boat men will know who is in authority. Summer uniforms, a sailor hat-even a little epaulet on the shoulder, would indicate that those men were working for the Trent waterway. The employees on the whole are excellent fellows. They give courteous service. Let us then dress them so the United States tourist going through will give them respect, and they will have the admiration for this country that we deserve. Let us get on with the completion of this lovely waterway, one of the finest, if not the finest, in the world.
I just wish to draw attention to the fact that the Rhine river which runs from Rotterdam in Holland to Switzerland, a distance of 600 miles, carries all the commerce of that particular area. We have not done anything to tap the great potential of this great waterway, one of the finest in the world. Let me put on the record what a very fine boatman of this province thinks about this waterway, a man who has written some books on the subject and I refer to Mr. Ken Wells of Moonstone. He had this to say:
Entering through locks at Port Severn, into Gloucester pool-Gloucester pool you will not soon forget. It is utterly lovely with high tree-crowned shores and a scattering of rounded islands, through which a well marked channel winds towards a narrowing at its upper end that is again the Severn. The Severn is a river as green as jade, flowing between granite banks that lift in places nearly a hundred feet above its surface. Here, there is a cover and water lilies growing; there, a rock face which you can tie to while you have lunch or dinner. Your river cruise will end at the marine railway, which a penny pinching government has provided instead of a lock, to carry your boat over a powerhouse dam. It will, unless you are prepared to chance a lift, have to be repeated a few miles further up when a second powerhouse dam and a second marine railway will be encountered. If you do not object to this-
Let us get rid of the bottleneck.

(Translation):


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I followed with a great deal of interest the statement made last Saturday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) in introducing the estimates of his department. He did fail to mention a number of subjects and problems of particular interest to the city and port of Montreal, and I shall deal briefly with that in a few moments.
However, I should like first to comment on the program of assistance to shipping and shipbuilding which the minister announced last Friday. In reply to a question put to him on Saturday the minister indicated that in order to provide the funds needed to implement this scheme, the government would resort to the rather unusual method of including an item in the estimates instead of introducing legislation. Furthermore, it would not be an ordinary item, but according to the minister's own admission, a $1 estimate. I feel this is a rather unusual procedure and that such action on the part of the government is to be regretted. Such an attitude is contrary to the procedure traditionally followed in the case of such important subsidies. In any event, I do hope that this scheme will fulfil the aims of the minister and the government in relation to employment and to the restoration of Canadian shipbuilding.
In fact, I use the word "restoration" purposely, because one of the most important shipbuilding firms, Canadian Vickers Limited, is located in my constituency.
In the matter of assistance to shipbuilding, it was about time that the government woke up, because everyone knows that since 1957, the situation has been seriously deteriorating.
Reference was made to that fact in Le Devoir of Saturday, May 13, on the basis of information found in the Canada Year Book. The paper mentioned that in 1957 there were more than 68 shipyards giving jobs to 18,417 people and paying up to $71 million in salaries with a commercial production estimated at $167 million.
And Le Devoir added:
Since 1957, several companies had to close down, and those which stood up and were not stifled reduced the number of their employees by half.
I therefore hope that the several hundred people in my riding who were dismissed from those shipyards since 1957 will be able to find some work again after a four year interruption.
Mr. Chairman, as the representative of a Montreal riding, I had hoped that the minister 90205-6-315J
Supply-Transport
would mention various significant projects about which we are always pressing him during the question period, on the orders of the day. It seems to me that this was a good opportunity for the minister to let us know the position of the government with regard to various quite important projects and issues concerning the city of Montreal and the south shore. I mean more particularly the construction of a bridge to the east of Montreal, improvements to the port of that city, projects for making use of properties belonging to the Canadian National Railways along the river, construction of an east-west elevated roadway, financial assistance in relation to that improvement as well as other questions with which I shall deal more fully later on.
Let us deal, first of all, with the matter of a bridge in the east of Montreal. Hon. members will remember that we, of the Liberal party, have been advocating this project since 1955 and that at that time, it was being necessarily delayed by the St. Lawrence seaway work and by the beginning of the Champlain bridge project.
On several occasions, namely on March 9, 1959, and on August 29, 1958, as well as in previous years, I have referred to this project for the east of Montreal. My colleague the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes) has also taken every opportunity of dealing with this matter. And now in 1961, after four years under Conservative government, no progress has been made since 1957, even though the situation has changed a great deal; the seaway is completed and work on the Champlain bridge was started a long time ago. In addition, if I am not mistaken, during the last election, all Conservative candidates of the island of Montreal, as well as the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and the Associate Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sevigny), had put this project to the foreground of their platform.


Mr. Pigeon:: Which project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: The project of building a bridge in the east of Montreal. If my memory serves me well, the member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm had even asked that this bridge, or one of its approaches, be located in his riding.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I made that request in this house and not during an election campaign.


Mr. Dupuis:: There is no question of privilege.

Supply-Transport


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I made this request when I was asking a question in this house, and the hon. member says that I made it during an election campaign.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Chairman, I ask you to be lenient with the hon. member, because there is no question of privilege. However, he will not have many years to make up for lost time, because he lacks a little experience.
I have here the May 15, 1960 issue of the newspaper L'Echo des Monts, in which the previous minister of transport, Mr. Hees, vetoed the proposed building of a bridge in the east of Montreal. Moreover, on February 9, 1960, Mr. Hees wrote a long letter to the mayors of the towns on the south shore of Montreal. I will only read the last sentence of the letter, for it is too long to be read into Hansard in its entirety. He concludes with these words:
I therefore regret to have to inform you that I cannot accept the responsibility for that project.
That project being, of course, the building of a bridge in the east of Montreal, which had been promised and in respect of which the Associate Minister of National Defence had said that construction would begin a year or two ago.
Well, Mr. Chairman, that bridge has become an urgent need for the city of Montreal. That is why, in a non-partisan spirit, I should like first of all to ask the Minister of Transport to tell us if the present government is considering the building of a bridge in the east of Montreal. Moreover, I should like to bring to the minister's attention the following fact: The obstacles arising from the works on the development of the St. Lawrence seaway and on the building of the Champlain bridge have now disappeared. And if the Minister of Transport will refer to the correspondence exchanged on this subject in the past, he will see that the matter has become of great urgency.
May I now quote a few words put on the record on June 2, 1960, especially a statement made by the member for Laurier (Mr. Che-vrier) who then said:
Let me say a final word about the construction of a new bridge between Montreal and the south shore east of the Jacques Cartier bridge. I have on more than one occasion beginning in 1957 referred to a report which is in the Department of Transport entitled "The St. Lawrence Ship Channel and Montreal Harbour Committee of 1950; Report on the terms of reference thereof". This is a report which dealt with the construction of facilities in the Montreal harbour and east of that harbour that would have to be undertaken following the completion of the St. Lawrence seaway. The report is a voluminous one. I have only the report dealing with one reference but there are four or five references. Somewhere in this report

it is stated that a bridge should be constructed east of the Jacques Cartier bridge linking Montreal and the south shore.
Mr. Chairman, before turning to other matters, I ask the minister to reconsider the position taken by his predecessor who had refused to implement that project. I ask him to tell the house that this government intends to start work in the near future on this project which is so vital and urgent, not only for the city of Montreal, but also for the south shore and all the metropolitan area.
Mr. Chairman, I wish now to say a few words about improvements that are urgently needed in the Montreal harbour. I have here an article published in La Presse on September 12, 1960. It is entitled:
This stranger, our harbour.
The Montreal harbour has its back to the city and it seems that everything is done to keep the Montreal population away from it, to make it difficult of access, while it is the opposite that is true in all other maritime centres of the world, whether it is New York, Boston, Hamburg, Naples or London. The harbour is a marvellous place to see and it is one of those economic centres for tourists and local citizens to visit.
I find most unfortunate the attitude taken on the matter by the national harbours board. A striking example of this unpleasant and intolerant attitude, is the fact that, early this spring-the minister will remember-fishing was forbidden to my fellow citizens in the harbour of Montreal. Since the beginning of things the people of Montreal, when spring comes, have been going down to the harbour for a little line fishing. There were a few hundreds of them, most of whom could not afford to go fishing outside the city. It had become a tradition. Now about three weeks ago I was amazed to hear that the harbour had been completely forbidden to the fishermen.
I asked the minister at the time to tell us who was responsible for such a silly order, for it was really a piece of stupidity. Fortunately, this regulation was subsequently reconsidered by the national harbours board and anglers were again admitted to the harbour.
Well, let me remind you that in 1956-57, the Liberal administration voted about $57 million for the improvement of Montreal harbour. Projects of unusual importance were carried out, so that Montreal is now the first port of the country. Indeed, Montreal harbour is one of the finest in the world. The

time has come, I think, when after having taken care of the economic aspect of the harbour, we should look to the human side of it.
Last year I made a suggestion to the predecessor of the Minister of Transport in order that the Montreal population and tourists might again have access to the harbour. I had then suggested setting up a small park with benches, on the harbour site, in a word that some section of the harbour be reserved for that purpose, so that people might listen to music and peacefully watch ships coming and going.
One could even think of an observation point such as the ones that were erected when the St. Lawrence project was underway so that people could, from an elevation of about 50 feet have a full view of the port activities. I cannot think of anything better for the younger set. If we proceeded along this line tourists could then be shown the first port of the country, one of the finest and most important in the world.
I therefore suggest to the Minister of Transport that he asks a landscape architect to go to Montreal harbour and consider the possibility of developing a sector of the harbour which would be accessible to the citizens of Montreal and of the surrounding area. I should like the minister to tell us about that later in his reply.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to put my views on the record about the use of C.N.R. properties along the river in Montreal, which the city needs badly for the construction of an east-west elevated roadway.
If I am not mistaken, the Minister of Transport was a member of the government delegation which met the Montreal authorities approximately two months ago. But his comments have been rather scarce since those discussions. We were not told just what went on then and it is only this morning that the Minister of Transport, answering my colleague, the hon. member for St. Henry (Mr. Lessard), told us that four or five weeks ago the authorities of the city of Montreal had sent him a brief concerning the possibility of using that land.
Now, that brief was received five weeks ago by the minister. I feel that we should have been told today what is the government's stand concerning the request of the Montreal authorities. Apparently, the government did as usual and said: "In due time we will let you know", and the problem was shelved until someone brings up the question again. I therefore urge the minister to tell us what stand the government intends to take
Supply-Transport
on the brief sent by the city of Montreal. It is a very important matter, as can be seen from an article in the newspaper La Patrie of Sunday, March 12, 1961, which has to do with the construction of that elevated expressway over Montreal harbour:
Here is a real project fit to be developed immediately, according to our present municipal leaders. All will depend on the co-operation and dispatch of the Ottawa people. So far, there have been only discussions and comparing of ideas about the matter. At present, Montreal harbour holds up traffic a great deal, just as the same situation used to affect New York. They only had to build an elevated roadway over the harbour to relieve congestion in that area.
Just one word now, Mr. Chairman, about another project which indirectly concerns the minister, that is, assistance to the subway. We were somewhat amazed, about a month ago, to hear that the Montreal civic authorities could not find in this country the financial means to carry out that project and had to ask for assistance from abroad. Yesterday, La Presse informed us that this subway financing is not easy to effect because of the government and the Bank of Canada policy which bars the entry of foreign capital. That is why I am asking the minister to indicate whether it is the government's policy to check the help coming from foreign capital and if so, where will our municipalities get their financing? I should like the minister to say a few words about this particular project in his reply.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I come to the case of the Soulanges canal. But before I make a few comments on that subject, I should like to quote the following portion of a speech broadcast over CJMS station Montreal on April 20, 1961:
In other words, it was proposed to create on the doorstep of Montreal-the Soulanges canal is but 25 miles from the metropolis-a genuine paradise, an oasis of fresh air where the less fortunate families who live in greater Montreal could have spent enjoyable hours just by paying a bus fare without the head of the family having to travel alone hundreds of miles to practice his favourite sport, fishing.
That was too nice. Politics and the financial interests of private individuals and groups just had to intervene to bring about the failure of this project which everybody recognized as a great social and tourist enterprise.
Following that letter, I would like to read into Hansard in connection with the Soulanges canal project, this letter which was published in the May 8, 1961 edition of Le Devoir under the signature of Mr. J. M. Bourbonnais, the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. I will only quote the last part of the letter:

Supply-Transport
Hon. Leon Balcer is entirely willing to transfer the Soulanges canal at the conditions set forth by Hon. Gerard Levesque. Hon. Balcer even offered to let me make that announcement on the opening night of the sports exhibition at the Mart, last March. Therefore, I am the only one who is opposed to the project as federal M.P. for Vau-dreuil-Soulanges and I am ready to take all the blame. I have stated publicly my reasons for taking that stand. Just look at the facts, but please, be objective and tell the truth.
That letter was addressed to Mr. Filion of Le Devoir. Well, that is an unusual situation. The province of Quebec sets up a vast project and asks the federal government for the transfer of the Soulanges canal at certain conditions. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges himself states in that letter: I am the only one who objects at the offer made by the province of Quebec. Therefore, the Minister of Transport is in favour of the original offer.
I would then ask the minister to tell us why the government would yield to the demands of a member-and I do not want to discuss the reasons the member may have to take such a stand-but how can the Minister of Transport abdicate his responsibilities because a member of that area stated: No, I do not want it.
I do not intend either to discuss now the judgment of the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges. They say he has a very good judgment; I do not question that. But, when the bell rings, it is indeed unfortunate that he should forget it in a drawer of his desk instead of bringing it to the house.
Therefore, I would ask the minister to make some more remarks on this problem of the Soulanges canal, but before he does so, I tell him this: This is mainly a project of provincial interest, and nowadays it is of interest to the whole province.
I warn the minister that the Canadian government must have some really good reasons if it decides to turn down the offer of the province of Quebec and we will expect to be made aware of those reasons. I trust-


Léon Balcer: Would the hon. member
explain what offer of the province of Quebec he is referring to?


An hon. Member:: The $1 offer.


Léon Balcer: Yes, the $1 offer.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Everyone knows that the province of Quebec has asked the government that the whole Soulanges canal be transferred to them, including the Cascades area, for $1.


Léon Balcer: Then that was a request, not an offer.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I think the minister
greatly underestimates this matter, and the letter from the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges proves it. It is absolutely ridiculous for a member to say about that project: "I object, it shall not go through", when the same member adds: "I am the only one to object".
I leave that project to the minister's consideration and I urge him to raise the matter again in this house because he will hear about it again should the situation remain as is it.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a few words about C.N.R. employees. About two months ago, the hon. member for Laurier introduced a motion to adjourn the business of the house, because in Montreal from 200 to 250 C.N.R. older employees were to be laid off, as a result of the sale to the province of Quebec of the McGill street buildings.
There you have another problem taken rather lightly by the minister, supported in that by some of his colleagues, among whom the member for Chambly-Rouville (Mr. Johnson), who said: "It is up to the province of Quebec to give jobs to those people; we have nothing to do with that problem."
Right from the start, we urged the government to make representations to the Canadian National Railways, asking them to keep those older employees and see to it that they be employed in the new building the company will soon occupy. This is the responsibility of the C.N.R. On the other hand the government has the responsibility to see that in a situation such as this, the C.N.R. keep on its payroll people who, otherwise, will be laid off.
Today, we say that "unemployment is everyone's concern". Industries where work is going at a slow pace are being told to keep their employees as long as possible, because unemployment is everyone's concern.
Well, in this regard, I cannot see why the C.N.R., which now has those employees on its payroll, should not keep them because, according to the projects of this company in the new building, it would award contracts for office cleaning, which would mean that those people would be out on the street.
Again, I urge the government to reconsider this situation because the hon. member for Laurier and all the opposition members from the Montreal region are quite sensitive on this matter. I hope the Minister of Transport, in

his reply, will tell us whether a decision has been arrived at, what representations have been made to the C.N.R. and whether there is some hope that those employees will be kept in their jobs.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal briefly with another point-
(Text):


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Chown):: Before the hon. member moves to another subject, I have to advise him with regret that his time has expired. The hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. McGrath:: I am prepared, if the committee gives its consent, to allow the hon. member to finish his remarks.


Gordon Campbell Chown: Does the committee give consent to extending the time permitted to the hon. member?


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


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I am grateful to the committee for allowing me to continue. I shall not abuse the privilege. I should just like to add a word or two on a point which is of special interest to the eastern section of Montreal. I refer to the old railway lines extending from the old Moreau station, which cross Ontario street, and fan out through eastern Montreal, blocking all traffic north of Ontario street. Of course, I am not criticizing the minister on that score, but I do want to draw the problem to his attention.
First, I would urge him to make a personal visit to this area and have a look at the monstrosity of those old railway tracks which threaten the lives of children and block traffic at all hours of the day, even in the rush hours.
I must say to the minister that the hon. member for Hochelaga (Mr. Eudes) and myself have been interested in this matter for many years, and that we are quite aware that this C.N.R. line is no longer profitable; every year, the line loses many customers, and its only practical use today is for the transportation of oil from eastern Montreal.
I therefore ask the minister to look into the possibility of having those tracks removed and relocated along the port of Montreal, thus clearing up the whole eastern section of the city. Should the occasion arise in the near future, I would ask the minister to consider the matter and let us know in due course what action he contemplates to correct the situation.
(Text):


James Aloysius McGrath: I wish to say at the outset that like most hon. members from Canada's
Supply-Transport
western and eastern seaboards and from the great lakes area I welcome the recent announcement by the Minister of Transport of the government's new policy with regard to shipbuilding. This will give a new lease on life to the shipbuilding industry in Canada and bring new hope to the hard pressed fishing industry. Like all hon. members who are sincerely concerned about this subject I hope the announcement has come sufficiently early to reverse what has been a dangerous trend particularly in the fishing industry, namely to undertake the construction of trawlers in European shipyards. I hope that as a result of this new policy this work will go to our own Canadian shipyards. Perhaps when the minister replies to the discussion on this, the first item of his estimates, he will elaborate on this point, particularly with regard to the application of these subsidies to coastal shipping, that is to say, the smaller type of vessel which operates in the coastal trade in the waters around Newfoundland and the maritime provinces.
I wish to deal with a subject which, I believe, requires clarification at this time. Perhaps the minister will be accommodating in this regard. I am referring to a question which has been under study now for several years. In fact it has been under study since 1958 or 1959, I am not sure which. I refer to the subject of a passenger-automobile ferry to operate between the east coast of Newfoundland and the mainland of Nova Scotia.
For the benefit of some hon. members it might be worth while explaining that the regular ferry services operated by the C.N.R. between Newfoundland and the mainland cover only the western portion of the island of Newfoundland. It is estimated it will be ten years before any great progress is made toward the completion of the Newfoundland portion of the trans-Canada highway. Arguments have been advanced by competent spokesmen in Newfoundland, including members of the Atlantic provinces economic council, that a new ferry is essential for the economic progress of the Atlantic provinces since it would provide a vital link for approximately two thirds of the population of Newfoundland with the maritime provinces of Canada and, indeed, the rest of Canada. It would enable the people of eastern Newfoundland to maintain regular automobile and truck traffic with the mainland. The arguments in favour of this service are numerous; it is not necessary to go into them all at this time.
I should like to quote an article which appeared in the St. John's Telegram of April 25, 1961 and an article which subsequently

Supply-Transport
appeared in the same paper, issue of April 28, to indicate the uncertainty surrounding this project. As I say, it is supposed to have been under study for the last several years. Here is the news item which appeared in the St. John's Telegram on April 25 under the heading: "East Coast Ferry Definite":
The executive manager of the Newfoundland board of trade said Sunday the federal government has definitely decided to provide an east coast ferry service with the mainland for Newfoundland.
The executive manager said transport minister Balcer had assured him during a recent Ottawa visit that a new ferry would be built to operate from some port on the Newfoundland east coast.
A little later on the report says:
Mr. Balcer had announced several months ago that a government committee was studying the possibility of providing Newfoundland with such a ferry service.


Harold Edward Winch: May I ask if there is anything in the estimates of the department for this project at the present time?


James Aloysius McGrath: No; not to my knowledge, at any rate. Then, on April 28, 1961, there appeared in the same paper an article entitled "Ferry, yes? Ferry, no?". It says:
Transport minister Balcer said Thursday the question of a ferry service linking the east coast of Newfoundland with the mainland "still is under study''.
He declined to confirm or deny a report from St. John's that said he has assured a board of trade official the service would be established.
I will continue the quotation:
Anthony Ayre, executive manager of the Newfoundland board of trade, was reported to have said in a radio interview recently that Mr. Balcer had told him there would definitely be such a ferry service.
Mr. Chairman, I shall not present any further arguments either pro or con in respect of this proposed service, but I should like to inform the minister that the municipal council of the city of St. John's, as well as labour and service organizations of Newfoundland, would be very grateful to the minister for some indication as to government policy in this regard. If it is intended by the government to provide such a service then, of course, the question in everyone's mind is, how long will the study take? I am sure all my constituents, as well as hon. members of this committee, are anxious to know what the results of the study will be, and whether or not the government will decide to provide this ferry service. From indications to this date, it is my understanding that the government will provide this service, but there has been no definite statement made in the last few years.
Mr. Chairman, I should also like to bring to the attention of the minister, at this time,

as I did last year in this committee the situation regarding the ever growing marine services division of the Department of Transport. I should like to refer particularly to the inequities which exist between the rates of pay to personnel manning ships in the Newfoundland agency, the maritimes agency, the Quebec agency and the British Columbia agency. I understand these rates of pay are determined by the Department of Labour, on the basis of prevailing rates for similar types of jobs in these areas. The situation is, however, anomalous in that seamen and officers working on Department of Transport ships operated by the Canadian National Railways receive the same rates of pay as their counterparts in other parts of Canada.
On the other hand, seamen working on ships operated by the marine services division receive varying rates of pay depending upon the area in which they work. As an example of this situation, seamen working in Newfoundland on Department of Transport ships receive $185 per month, although I understand this has now been raised to $200 per month. Their counterparts, working on similar ships, performing similar duties in the maritime provinces, receive $229 per month, plus a $5 per month stevedore allowance. I am not sure of the prevailing rates of pay in the Quebec agency, but it is my understanding that they are higher yet. I suggest this inequitable situation should be corrected. I feel a Canadian seaman working on a Department of Transport ship operating off the coast of Newfoundland should receive the same rate of pay as that which applies to a Canadian seaman working on a Department of Transport ship under the maritime agency, the Quebec agency, or the province of British Columbia agency. These ships are all operated by the federal government of Canada, and the same rates of pay should apply throughout the country. I am sure the hon. members of this committee would be interested in hearing the minister's comments in this regard.
I should like to compliment the minister and his department for the excellent work which has been carried out during the past winter and spring in an attempt to cope with the extraordinary ice conditions which prevailed along the coasts of the Atlantic provinces. The ice conditions existing off the coast of Newfoundland were worse this past season than they have been during the last 10 years. The provision of the two new icebreakers-the Sir Humphrey Gilbert and the Wolfe

has been of great help at a very opportune time. I should hate to think what the consequences might have been during this past winter season were it not for the provision of these two additional icebreakers.

The situation in my constituency has been very difficult, and it is still uncertain whether the ice has actually gone out.
The Bell island-Portugal Cove ferry service was particularly hard hit this winter as a result of ice conditions. But for the provision of these two new icebreakers, the unfortunate people of Bell island would have been isolated, and would have suffered great hardships as a result of the lack of daily supplies.
I should also ask the minister to indicate when he expects to bring forward legislation setting up the St. John's harbour commission to administer that very important harbour which is now under development by the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to have the opportunity, when we are considering the various items of this department, to ask further questions of the minister concerning the jurisdiction of the Bell island ferry service. I suggest there should be some definition brought forward by this government regarding the operation on this service of a ferry which is owned by the federal government, but which operates under provincial franchise. There have been many difficulties resulting from this situation, but I do not intend to burden this committee with them at this time. I ask the minister to give this situation consideration in the preparation of his reply, and to indicate the steps which have been taken toward the solution of this situation regarding the jurisdiction of this service, so that the service can be properly operated and provided with federal subsidies if they are required-as in other provinces.


Mr. Granger:: I should like to congratulate the minister on his appointment. I have two of the largest airports in Canada in my riding, namely Goose and Gander. Coming from the Atlantic seaboard where sea transport is so important, I have a particular interest in the estimates of this department. Before going any further I should like to express my appreciation of the interest which the minister has taken in communications on the Labrador and of the steps he is in the process of taking to provide better communications on that coast. I should like to assure him that the service thus provided is out of all proportion to the cost involved, and that a vital service to isolated areas will be supplied by those additional radio telephone sets.
While speaking of communications, I should like to mention as well the good work which Canadian National Telegraphs have done. In saying this I should mention that over the years since Newfoundland entered confederation they have extended a better service to 90205-6-316
Supply-Transport
parts of my district. I should like to emphasize the necessity of expanding the program so that all the places which have an indifferent service, such as parts of Green bay and White bay, may in time and before too long have a better communications system and long distance telephone connections.
My hon. friend from St. John's East mentioned icebreakers. I think I should also make a comment about the icebreaker service in Newfoundland. It is only fair to say that this year ice conditions were entirely unusual. I realize the department cannot build a fleet of icebreakers to take care of an unusually bad year. In normal years some of them would be lying up. I think every reasonable person would agree with this statement. But the presence of a Russian icebreaker off the Newfoundland coast, and this icebreaker flying in men by helicopter to kill seals, should be an indication to us that it will be necessary in the future to supply icebreaker support to the sealing fleet. I believe that as much as possible this was done during the past season. As I said, this year was a most unusual one. The ice was exceedingly heavy and covered exceedingly vast areas; but for future planning the use of icebreakers in conjunction with the sealing fleet should be kept in mind because, as I said, the presence of a Russian icebreaker off the coast of Newfoundland is a sign of the times which none of us can afford to ignore.
Again, I think icebreakers should be utilized to extend the periods of service of the Canadian National coastal boats which serve northern Newfoundland and Labrador. Those boats have given an excellent service, but the period of operation is restricted. There is a growing feeling that, with the availability of icebreakers, in normal years the period of operation of C.N.R. boats should be extended. I said a moment ago that the service which the C.N.R. coastal boats has given is excellent; but in the late fall it does not appear to be adequate for the great northern peninsula or Labrador. It has been suggested that instead of steamers leaving St. John's and/or Lewisporte and making a trip right around the northern part of the island to Corner Brook and then back again, it might be an improvement if the ships sailed from Corner Brook and St. John's and met at St. Anthony or Cook's Harbour and then returned; in other words, if this long run were split up into two return trips. One ship would leave St. Anthony and return and the other one would leave Corner Brook and return. People in that area have suggested that. I am not an expert on these matters but I should like to pass along the suggestion which has been passed along to me.

Supply-Transport
Then there are a number of small items which I think could be looked into such as hand trucks and so on being supplied to the wharves in Newfoundland and Labrador at different ports. What I should like to speak about particularly, however, is the situation in which the town of Gander finds itself today. Gander grew around the great Gander airport, the airport which really gave Canada international status in air commerce. When we entered confederation and Gander became part of Canada the position and the bargaining power of Canada as a nation with respect to commercial aviation were enormously strengthened. Gander was developed and in time a modern town grew up around a really fine airport, and eventually a really splendid terminal was built there. In addition Gander airport has navigational facilities and other aids to air transportation which are as good as those of any airport in the world. It is a truly great and magnificent airport.
Trends in air travel during recent years have tended to make Gander an alternative rather than a regular stop in trans-Atlantic travel, for fewer and fewer air lines stop at Gander as a regular course. At the moment I do not think there are any air lines which make it a regular scheduled stop other than Trans-Canada Air Lines. When an airliner leaves New York now, say, for Europe, instead of making Gander an alternative they choose to make Goose an alternative stop. As hon. members know, Goose is a great military airport. Air transport now has a tendency to stop at Goose where it is not wanted instead of at Gander where it is needed. I think one of the reasons for this is that at least one if not two of the runways at Gander should be lengthened from the present length of 8,600 feet. In marginal weather pilots like a little longer runway. In good weather the runways are, I believe, considered adequate; in marginal weather they are not. If the weather is marginal and the pilot feels he cannot make the trip across the Atlantic without needing more fuel he has to decide whether to land at Gander or Goose, and he decides in favour of Goose and Gander is deprived of that much revenue. I have felt for a long time, and I have made the suggestion here before that it would be a sound investment if the Department of Transport added another thousand feet to one or better still to two of the runways at Gander. It is I think fairly evident, at least according to the information I have received, that with longer runways the Gander airport would be used more.
The investment which the Canadian government has in Gander is quite heavy. The investment which individuals who live in the 
town which grew up around the airport have in Gander is considerable. I am told that at the present time there are 20 houses for sale in Gander and that in the near future there will probably be 20 more. The people of Gander are really concerned about the future of the place. My own opinion is that Gander is going through a temporary period of low activity. I rather think, and this again is a personal not a professional opinion, that as time goes by and there is a growth in air freight and an enormous growth in air travel, Gander will again come into the picture. I am referring, of course, to a growth in air tourist travel which, I understand, is the bread and butter of the passenger carrying commercial air lines.
In the meantime, there is a considerable amount of uneasiness. I am bringing this matter to the attention of the minister in the hope that, at the appropriate time, he can make a statement outlining what he believes to be the future of Gander. It has been suggested that, with the growth of air freight, Gander might become a transfer point for air freight. This freight would arrive at Gander in one type of plane and be transferred to a different type of plane for carriage to Europe. If that occurred, of course, it would be a very welcome development. I would ask the minister to bear this in mind as well.
A suggestion has been made that Gander might be declared a free port in order to make it more attractive for air travel. This is one suggestion that has been brought to the attention of the minister and his colleague the Minister of National Revenue. These are some of the things which I feel should be given careful consideration because a lot of people depend upon this airport for their living and they hope to be able to remain there. Gander was born of aviation and it seems to me that for the present, it must live by aviation. I ask the minister to look into this problem, which is a very real one: what is the future of Gander? Are developing trends in aviation likely to bring business back to this airport? Will fewer of these air lines use New York, which is becoming crowded, and instead take off from points on the mid west and perhaps stop at Gander before going on to other parts of the world? These are some of the questions which the citizens of Gander are asking themselves today and which I, on their behalf, pass on to the minister in the hope he can let us know what is likely to happen to this airport.
There is another matter in connection with Gander that I should like to mention. The hunters like to come from the United States to hunt in central Newfoundland. When there was a direct service from New York into Gander, more of them came than is now the

case. I understand, unless there has been some change recently, that in order to get to Newfoundland from New York you have to go to Montreal. This is quite an expensive route. Perhaps the minister could keep this problem in mind and consider the possibility of having an air service which would link the east coast of the United States with Gander rather than routing such traffic via Montreal.
Despite the size of Gander and despite all the facilities which exist there, it is a part of the Atlantic region, if that is a correct term, of the minister's department. There have been suggestions, and I might say that I believe they are justified, that Gander should be a region by itself. In this way the officials at Gander could communicate directly with Ottawa with regard to the main problems which they have. As I said, at the present time the employees of the air lines are being transferred. There are only a few of them left. There are fewer scheduled flights going into Gander and there is a feeling that perhaps Gander does lack security. However, I am an incurable optimist and I feel this is a temporary period of low activity which new trends developing in aviation will correct. I would hope that for the sake of the people who have their life savings invested in Gander, as well as for the sake of the government which has a considerable investment there, the minister will be able to give us an assessment of the future of this airport. Perhaps I might express the hope that it would be a favourable one. However, it is more important to know the facts.
I might add that the new hotel at Gander is a great asset. If direct flights into Gander are resumed, this could very well be a tourist centre and perhaps a place where business conventions would be held. We seem to come back to the same point all the time, that Gander depends on the airport. We have a magnificent airport with magnificent facilities, and I do hope these problems receive the careful, sympathetic and effective attention of the minister and his officials. There is much at stake, both from the standpoint of dollars and cents and from the standpoint of the people themselves who have a great stake there.
In closing, I should like to mention also that the development of Labrador will depend to some extent on the construction of small airports. This is the case in northern Newfoundland as well. From time to time I have had occasion to write the minister about the needs of my area in respect of airstrips. I hope to continue to do that. I shall content myself by asking now for sympathetic consideration of the need for airstrips to aid development in the north.
90205-6-316J
Supply-Transport (Translation):


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal for a few brief moments with the relationship of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada with the board of transport commissioners, with particular reference to a question directed to the Right Hon. C. D. Howe in 1938, when Mr. Howe was minister of transport. As reported on page 935 of volume I of Hansard for the 1938 session, here is the statement made by the Hon. C. D. Howe in reply to a question from


an hon. member:: We must all recognize that the Bell Telephone Company has a monopoly of a great public service in the districts in which it operates, and it is entirely sound government to provide that a public service monopoly shall be regulated as completely as possible.
The Bell Telephone Company has not even invented the automatic telephone. It has had to pay constant royalties to use it. It is inconceivable that this firm should be vested with such arbitrary and uncontrolled powers and should be able to blow hot and cold across the country, force its decisions upon any area, double the cost of service, take money from one profitable district and use it to destroy private companies providing equal and often better service. That is the purpose behind the rising rates, and no matter what we are told, no federal or provincial board can order the company to service any particular territory, or to substitute such a service for another; the board of transport commissioners has become a mere rubber stamp, it is used to condone rates on the basis of figures submitted by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, and does not even have the authority to scrutinize the amounts paid to Northen Electric, which is 90 per cent controlled by Bell Telephone.
Here is a quotation from a speech made at one time in this house:
The part played by the Western Electric Company, Incorporated, in its relations with the American Telephone and Telegraph Company, is similar to the part played in this country by the Northern Electric Company in connection with the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
The board of transport commissioners has to accept the statements of profit and loss as submitted, and cannot go beyond that.
The charter granted in 1880 provided that the company was to service all of Canada. It was soon realized that the company was not interested in going outside profitable centres such as Quebec and Ontario. A little later, an amendment was made to the company's charter, and with the approval of the house, it was decreed that the company could go here and there across Canada.

Supp ly-Transport
The letter of the constitution was complied with, but only one company was granted the largest monopoly of public utilities and finance that could possibly be conceived in North America and in the world.
The company can now disregard the population and even the governments. As long as its public relations are running smoothly with plenty of dollars, the company thinks it can do anything it likes and is justified legally in doing so, as a result of its 1880 charter and of its ever increasing powers. Capitalization has now reached $1 billion.
If you refer to the epic and so justified struggles of the year 1902 and other periods, you would think they took place in 1961. At the time, 22 years after the company was set up, such abuses were pointed out and criticized in this house and in the other place. The Toronto board of trade then came to the defence of the Canadian people. If we look over the record for that period, we note that the company suggested that the subscribers were cry-babies. Who is right today?
Here are some concrete results:
(a)	The board of transport commissioners has no authority whatsoever over the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, except as far as rate increases are concerned.
(b)	The provinces have no jurisdiction.
(c)	This is a tremendous game and the same club is always on the winning side, namely the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, while it keeps on saying in a paradoxical way: "At your service".
The company can even go as far as claiming with impunity-and with legal justification- that it has the "absolute" right, without any restriction whatsoever, to build, erect and maintain its telephone lines along, through or on all highways, streets, roads, bridges, waterways or other such places, located in Canada.
I should like to point out to the house certain obvious results: The company divides arbitrarily the territories within a municipality, thus showing discrimination and spreading discord among local citizens, as is the case throughout central Ontario and Quebec.
The company takes pleasure in waiting that all development is completed in a given area, be it in the vicinity of Montreal, Toronto or Hamilton, and coming in afterwards in order to collect the revenue of communications by making all kinds of imaginary drawings, circles, or zoning, and nobody, neither the

board of transport commissioners, the Ontario service commission nor the public utility control board of the province of Quebec, can say anything.
When the company decides to strangle a competitor or a territory, everybody has to kowtow to it.
An investigation would show readily how many federal services are stifled by this company. It must be realized that the railways which are entitled to operate in the field of telephone communications, are the first to suffer from the control of the Bell Telephone Company and eventually the Canadian taxpayers must suffer the consequences while the company reaps high profits by charging rates that are becoming prohibitive. And such is the situation, Mr. Chairman, since the Bell Telephone Company of Canada has had its charter.
You should take a look at the spider's webs interwoven by the company so as not to lose the significant profits arising from longdistance calls of people who have common interests with a large city like Toronto or Montreal. I will let my colleagues from Toronto give their examples, but we have pleasant ones around Montreal. In fact, you can phone directly from Saint-Mathias to Montreal, by-passing Chambly or Longueuil, without having to pay any long distance charge, but if you phone to Chambly or to Longueuil, which is on your run, you are charged the famous long distance duty.
Also, if you go over the statements made by the company before the committees, here in Ottawa, you will see that the company easily solves any problems. Indeed, when parliament refused to grant an increase in the registered capital of the company which would have made it possible to buy other companies and to charge the expense to the subscribers of other areas, bringing about an inevitable rise in rates, you will note that two different answers covering the same period are given by the company. On Thursday November 28, 1957 the company stated here in Ottawa that, during a given period, it has taken over 40 companies, of which 17 were subsidiaries. It protested against intending to control the market. Now then, in a letter and a brief dated August 7, 1958, having forgotten, too soon perhaps, its previous testimony, the company writes unhesitatingly that it has purchased 150 independent companies and bought part interests, in 29 others, during the same period of 1957. Quite edifying indeed.

An investigation would also enlighten us on the underhand dealings going on in Fort William and Port Arthur where the telephone utility, which is adequate and controlled by the municipal authorities, is constantly assaulted by the company.
An investigation on the dealings of the company in Dryden could enlighten us on the usefulness of the expenditures which were made. The same applies to a great number of areas. Only an investigation that would compel the company to appear before a committee of parliament would inform the population.
The company complains of having to support substantial development expenditures. An investigation would show whether the people from central Quebec and Ontario, especially where the telephone service is inadequate, are not paying for the invasions of the company.
The activities of the company in respect of the council of Jaffray-Melick, in Ontario, where the company set up lines without asking permission, should also be investigated.
We should also investigate and find out whether the profits of the company are not swallowed up by Northern Electric.
A quick survey around Montreal, Toronto and other large cities would reveal that the subscribers at Ste. Martine, Howick, St. Ur-bain, and a good many localities barely 30 miles from Montreal, are still using manual telephone sets in this the twentieth century. The issue was raised by Montreal newspapers, especially by La Presse. And how is the company operating where it will not even give adequate service?
Let us compare the revenues derived by the city of Kenora from its 4,000 long distance telephones-the Bell Telephone Company being excluded from that district-with the ones the city of Fort William or Port Arthur gets with more than 18,000 telephones, in an area covered by the Bell Telephone Company.
Let us read once more Arnold Edin-bourgh's special report in Saturday Night on the waste of money involved in the construction of the mid-Canada line. You will see that the building company was the Bell Telephone Company and what a deadly feud developed between this company, converted all of a sudden into a contracting company -which is a line quite removed from its own-and the specialized services of the army and air force. An inquiry would perhaps disclose what objectives the Bell Telephone Company had in mind. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted.
Supply-Transport
What is the Bell company doing in Fort Francis, Ontario where each side of the streets is provided with a double service and where the calls are long distance calls even between citizens of the same area or community?
Since it is impossible to operate a school bus without permission from a provincial board; since all public services, are supervised and controlled by government agencies, whether it be shipping, air transport, radio or communications, it is unthinkable that there should be nothing of the sort for the Bell Telephone Company which hangs on to an 1880 charter giving fantastic power in 1961.
The Canadian Independent Telephone Association is a responsible organization with members all over Canada. At the October annual meeting in Toronto, a resolution was passed appointing a committee of three members one of whom is Mr. G. Laganiere. That committee is preparing a brief asking outright for a revision of those obsolete laws which today are complicating things, and requesting that the government give full and total jurisdiction to the board of transport commissioners for Canada.
We have had enough of such arrogance.
Public interest requires that such legal status be ended, certain powers were given this company for the benefit of Canada as a whole. For a long time now, it has not been discharging its duty to this country. It has not even been discharging it in Quebec and Ontario, except in larger centers. Even today, it neglects less profitable territories, even around large cities, in order to increase its revenues from long distance calls in the far north, knowing that other companies are operating there.
The Quebec and Ontario independent companies, whether private or municipally-owned, operate about 700 centrals and the Bell company 7,400. The telephone systems in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are independent from the company. The legend of the big company has lasted long enough. It left Alberta in 1906 and Manitoba in 1908, and it never existed in the other provinces. So, for a long time it has not been working "for the benefit of Canada'' as a whole. The time has come to have this situation reflected in the law of the country and to restore some order in that field. Let us not forget that in 1885, the act protecting the Bell company was repealed for a time, and for a very simple reason: resentment had been stirred by the

Supply-Transport
company's tardy progress in supplying the smaller rural and urban centers with the telephone. All the more reason then for this company today to busy itself improving such services as exist presently, and it will have enough to do. We might get better rates then and not be left any more at the mercy of that company.
Mr. Chairman, I have always been against public ownership. I would oppose the nationalization of that company, but I ask the government to consider the possibility of modifying the act so that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada may respect a little more the regulations of the board of transport commissioners and not act just as it pleases; it would be in the general interest of Canada as well as in the interest of those other companies to which I referred a moment ago.
Mr. Chairman, I am going to refer to the municipality of Repentigny, a progressive city located in the riding which I have the honour to represent here. I can assure you that the citizens of l'Assomption riding, including those of Repentigny, are disgusted with the treatment they got from the Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
That company had known for a number of years that Repentigny, due to its geographic location, would become the most important suburban municipality immediately east of Montreal, on the north shore of the St. Lawrence.
Now in order to show to what lengths arrogance and despotism can go, let me say that the island of Montreal is almost perfectly oval. The island then is not circular. It has always been known that the suburban development is taking place around Montreal island, in municipalities connected with the island by the banks of the different rivers.
The Bell Telephone Company of Canada, in its offices on Beaver Hall Hill in Montreal, has outlined circles in its plans, probably with pencil and compasses, without considering the growth of those centers or the movement of the population. So the directors of this company made three circles there, with their compasses. This plan has become a holy document. Never mind the representations from the citizens of Repentigny. As a result, the telephone service developed according to a circle instead of an oval. I will spare you all other vexatious incidents in the building of the telephone exchanges and the whole history of the famous 15 mile radius.
Thus, the municipalities of St. Anne de Bellevue and of Repentigny, each at one

end of the oval, are not inside the circle of direct communication with Montreal, said in unequivocal terms the officials of the company. Then started the fight over the telephone exchange. If the exchange were built within 15 miles from the compass point, which is at Beaver Hall Hill, my constituents could have direct telephone communication with Montreal, without having to pay long distance charges. Statistics show that the revenue from long distance calls adds up to an imposing figure.
The company bought a first piece of land, again outside the famous 15 mile radius. It bought a second piece of land, again outside the 15 mile radius. Carelessly as if to settle the case, the company without any hesitation even violated the municipal bylaws concerning town-planning, as well as construction and zoning bylaws, and even undertook construction and excavation in a residential zone without securing any permit from the municipal authorities of the town of Repentigny. A company executive even said that he did not give a hoot.
The municipal council, which I wish to commend and congratulate, an energetic and resolute council, supported and helped by the continued efforts of the chamber of commerce and other organizations, with the authority of its municipal bylaws and knowing well that no one in the country had any jurisdiction in that field, forced the officials of the Bell Telephone Company to stop the work already started without the consent of the municipal authorities.
I am glad, Mr. Chairman, that for once somebody dared raise his voice and resist the officials of that company which tries to dictate, without the slightest tactfulness, its own views to the Canadian people, including the people of Ontario and Quebec as well as those of Repentigny.
The citizens of Repentigny launched a great movement of national interest with the support of newspapers such as La Presse; they were everywhere at the same time demanding for the sake of justice and common sense, a complete revision of all acts concerning the Bell Telephone Company and asking the establishment of a royal or parliamentary commission.
The company developed some kind of service never heard of, I think, in North America, and odd to no end, probably in order to save face. At home it is called "one and a half direct service with Montreal". One may place a call from Repentigny, St. Anne de Bellevue or Belceil with Montreal without long distance

call charges, but whoever wants to place a call from Montreal to any of those places must put through a long distance call. The company saved face, but it also increased its revenue from long distance calls.
In all this, believe it or not, no controlling body or commission has any jurisdiction over the decisions of the Bell Telephone Company. In fact, it does as it pleases. Mr. Chairman, can you imagine such arrogance and such disorderliness? As I said, no one has any jurisdiction. The 1880 charter is invoked. The Bell Telephone Company can do as it pleases. It can deny the residents of a given area the telephone service if it so wishes, even if the whole population asks for it.
I therefore urge that the act be amended. No one will have any cause to complain since all public utilities in the world come under the control of an administration or a commission. That way, we would do justice to the Canadian people and do away with a monopoly that everyone disapproves.
Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I am in favour of private enterprise. I would be against nationalization of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. On the other hand, we must recognize that that company treats its employees well; they are well paid. But I urge that the company be subject to the necessary requirements. And following all the quarrels between those concerned, the municipalities and the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, I submit that the best way to settle that problem would be to amend the act in order to compel the company to follow the instruction of the board of transport commis-sionners, just like transport operators and others have to obey their control regulations.
(Text):


Mr. Tucker:: I do not intend to speak at any great length, but I feel I should say how pleased I was to hear the Minister of Transport announce last Friday that the Department of Public Works would construct for the Department of Transport at Clarenville, Newfoundland, a marine haul-out and fitting-out wharf. This, the minister said, will permit the inspection and repair of ships up to 500 tons. I am sure that this release was welcomed not only by many of my constituents but also by many coastal boat owners in Newfoundland. I hope the haul-out at Clarenville will be so successful that the government will take steps to construct a similar one at Harbour Grace, Newfoundland.
I wish to make a few remarks at this time about some matters which are very important as far as the advancement of Newfoundland
Supply-Transport
is concerned. Last year, speaking on the estimates of the Department of Transport, I made reference to the inadequate hotel accommodation at St. John's but to date there has been no improvement. As the Minister of Transport is aware, St. John's is the eastern terminal point of the Trans-Canada Air Lines, the trans-Canada highway, the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian National Steamships. It is also the terminal point of the Canadian National Railways Newfoundland services. We have very few modern hotels in St. John's. The largest is the Newfoundland hotel which is owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways. This hotel is not large enough to take care of the requirements of the people of Newfoundland, much less those of the travelling public from the Canadian mainland, the United States and Europe. The Newfoundland hotel does not provide sufficient facilities for the holding of conferences, conventions, dinners and so on. As a result, many of the functions which would otherwise be held in St. John's are held in some other city or town on the mainland.
In 1958 the Newfoundland hotel operated, after interest and depreciation had been allowed for, at a net profit of $153,224 and in 1959 it operated at a net profit of $152,039, making a total profit of $305,363 in two years. Last year again the hotel operated at a profit. We have heard a great deal in this house recently about tourism and our tourist trade especially when we were discussing the estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. We heard much of the importance of learning more about and seeing more of our own provinces, yet we are unable to get the Canadian National Railways to improve conditions in the capital city of St. John's which has a population of more than 80,000 within a few miles radius. I believe the present minister is well aware of the existing conditions, but if he is not I suggest he visit the hotel and then take advantage of his trip to visit some of the other towns in my riding where he spent some time during the second world war and where, I am sure, he will receive a royal Newfoundland welcome.
As far as trade is concerned, historically, Newfoundland has in the past looked eastward to Europe rather than to the North American continent. Prior to 1949, the date of our entry into confederation with Canada, we sold our fish in the Mediterranean markets and the bulk of our imports came from Europe and the United Kingdom. These imports entered Newfoundland through the port of St. John's which was the main distribution centre for the province. A portion of the imports was consumed in St. John's and the

Supply-Transport
surrounding area and a great deal of the remainder was transported to coastal communities in small coastal vessels and privately-owned schooners. Only a small part of this merchandise was carried westward overland by rail. The Newfoundland Railway was built mainly for passenger service and to handle only a small fraction of our imports and national trade. Newfoundland is today Canada's third largest customer. The province purchases about $300 million worth of merchandise yearly from the mainland, mostly from central Canada. Since 1949 the old trading pattern has been reversed. Confederation made Newfoundland a captive market and the bulk of the goods now entering Newfoundland comes from mainland Canada. The western terminal of the Canadian National Railways is at Port aux Basques but very little of the freight remains there. Most of it is loaded on the Newfoundland Railway and the greater part is transported across the 547 mile stretch of railroad to the eastern terminal at St. John's. The population of Newfoundland has grown until it is now around the half million mark and it is about three times larger than it was when the railway was built. This growth in population has in itself increased the amount of freight to be handled.
The Newfoundland Railway was built to meet conditions which existed prior to Newfoundland becoming a part of Canada. The C.N.R. has renovated the Newfoundland Railway and tried to modernize it in the hope of enabling it to carry the additional load which is now about ten times as great as when the railway was built. The plain fact is that this cannot be done satisfactorily and money spent in this way is not being spent to the best advantage having regard to the future requirements of our people and the quality of service which they have a right to expect. What is needed is a completely new system of rail transportation. This should include the replacement of the present antiquated system by a system of standard gauge the same as is provided for every other province in Canada. The Prime Minister said in 1957 when he was in St. John's that he favoured a standard gauge railway for Newfoundland, according to a report in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 16. I should like to quote the statement made at that time by the Prime Minister, reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of April 16, 1957, as follows:
Newfoundland's narrow gauge railway should be converted to the standard gauge because the present line retards development, adds to the cost of transportation and therefore makes it more difficult for Newfoundland industries to compete in domestic mainland markets on the same basis as other provinces.

Those were very true words on the part of the Prime Minister. They have not been denied, and I should suggest that if he meant what he said, surely the time has long since passed when definite action should have been taken. I am sure the residents of the province of Newfoundland would appreciate a statement from the Minister of Transport in this regard.
Last Friday the Minister of Transport made a statement regarding government policy in respect of the Canadian shipbuilding industry, and said that subsidies of 40 per cent of the cost of building Canadian ships in Canada, other than fishing vessels, would be paid. This subsidy would be continued for three years, to March 31, 1962, and then reduced to 35 per cent of the cost. He also stated that a capital subsidy of 50 per cent of the construction cost would be paid in respect of steel hull trawlers, with special assistance of $250 per ton to be paid toward the cost of wooden fishing vessels over 45 feet in length. We in Newfoundland should like to see a subsidy paid in respect of boats 35 feet in length and over, and I would appeal to the minister to give consideration to this suggestion.
In 1958, 37,841 passengers were taken between the mainland and Port aux Basques. In 1959, there were 58,434 passengers carried on this same trip and in 1960 there were 62,011 passengers carried. In other words there was an increase of 24,170 in the number of passengers carried between 1958 and 1960 on this route.
In 1960 there were 11,652 passenger automobiles carried, which was an increase of more than 3,600 over the number carried in 1959. Approximately 300 more autos were handled last year under the freight plan than during the previous year. I suggest it follows naturally that many of the passengers in these cars motored to St. John's, the capital of Newfoundland, and I further suggest this points out the urgent need for additional freight and passenger service between the mainland and the east coast of Newfoundland. This subject was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for St. John's East, and I offer my support of his suggestions in that regard.
At the present time, the Department of Public Works is improving the harbour facilities at St. John's, and I would suggest that a passenger, passenger car and freight ferry service could be established there without any additional cost for landing facilities. It is my opinion that this ferry service should operate from St. John's to Halifax because of the tremendous benefit to be derived therefrom, in that tourists would certainly take advantage of such a service. I understand the

Department of Transport has this matter under study. As a matter of fact, the minister at page 4282 of Hansard for May 3, 1961 is reported to have said:
-In reply to the second part of the hon. member's question I cannot say at the present time when it is expected that the study will be completed.
I should hope that before much more time elapses the minister will make an announcement indicating that such a service will be provided.
The minister will recall that I made an appeal to him on several occasions during the months of March and April of this year regarding the provision of icebreakers to assist the sealing fleet operating off the northeast coast of Newfoundland. That fleet consisted of five vessels; four from Newfoundland and one from Nova Scotia. The assistance was urgently needed because an attempt was being made at that time to revive the sealing industry in that area, and it was felt at the time if this effort failed the industry in that area would be finished completely. To prevent the failure of this operation it was necessary for icebreakers to assist this fleet in penetrating the ice to the seal patch. Unusually severe ice conditions prevailed and these ships were at a disadvantage to the Norwegian ships and a Russian icebreaker. Experience has shown that our ships, though small, are sufficiently able under normal ice conditions to carry out this sealing operation.
The department supplied icebreakers enabling the sealing ships to get to open water off St. John's harbour early in March, shortly after they began their voyage, but the minister indicated that his department was unable to supply icebreakers to enable the sealing ships to reach the patch of seals. Consequently the seal hunt this year was almost a complete failure.
I should like to read an article which appeared in the St. John's Daily News on May 4, 1961 under the heading: "Better Sealing with The Breaker":
Captain Peter Troke of the sealer Arctic Eagle-
The ship was renamed. She was the Kyle when owned by the Department of Transport. The article continues:
-has said that if the Newfoundland sealing vessels could have had the services of a federal icebreaker for a longer period at the beginning of the sealing season in early March, the results of this year's hunt would be much better. The sealing fishery was a failure.
The Kyle was successful in docking at Bay Bulls yesterday after a month at the ice during which time she managed to take only about 2,000 pelts.
1 suggest the minister should do one or both of two things regarding this situation.
Supp ly-Transport
First, he should change the government's policy to enable this kind of assistance to be given to the sealing industry and build additional ice breakers for this purpose; second, provide special assistance under the new shipping policy regulations for the construction of ships that can be employed both at the seal fishery and in the coastal trade as well, because the seal fishing is only for a few weeks' duration. If icebreakers are provided for this purpose, I should suggest to the minister that a sealing captain be provided to assist the regular captain while breaking ice for the sealing fleet.
I can appreciate the difficulties which face the minister with regard to providing assistance this year, but in view of the circumstances which existed on the east coast of Newfoundland, I feel the department should have made special arrangements to assist the five Canadian vessels at the beginning of this sealing hunt. The individuals who initiated this attempted revival were the very courageous owners of the ships, and faced the possibility of having this industry taken over and operated by ships of foreign countries. I should be grateful to the minister if he would indicate why icebreakers could not be provided to this Canadian sealing fleet at a time when they were only ten miles from the sealing patches. If such assistance had been provided this seal hunt would not have failed, as it did.
In closing, I wish to offer my congratulations to the minister in his appointment to this very important portfolio, and to thank the minister and his officials, including the officials of the Canadian National Telegraph Company, for their help which has been readily extended to me in regard to problems concerning this department.


Mr. Jung:: Mr. Chairman, before I begin my remarks may I also extend my congratulations to the minister on the assumption of the very heavy and responsible portfolio of Minister of Transport. Those of us who have come to know the minister have been impressed by his sympathetic interest and by the courtesy which he has shown to the private members, and we all wish him well in his new duties. I want to assure him of our co-operation.
Last year his predecessor invited a number of members of parliament from the east and west coasts to a meeting in Ottawa in connection with the establishment of a coastguard service. Representing as I do a very important seaport, I took advantage of the minister's invitation and I was very pleased to participate in those early discussions. I see that in this year's estimates provision has been made for the building of a number of cutters, two of which will be

Supply-Transport
used on the west coast. I am sure that the mariners in British Columbia will welcome the announcement and I hope that marine search and rescue facilities along the west coast will be greatly improved by the addition of those two vessels.
I hope that when the designs are submitted for those cutters consideration will be given to the peculiar problems in weather and ocean conditions affecting the west coast. I hope that there will be the latest rescue equipment on board such as inflatable balloons which can be used to keep sinking vessels afloat until heavy rescue equipment can be brought up, which will prevent a recurrence of a certain tragic incident that we had last year on the west coast, and which might have been prevented if such equipment had been available.
The port of Vancouver is the busiest port in Canada, Mr. Chairman. I have the privilege of representing that part of Vancouver known as Vancouver Centre, which includes the major installations along the waterfront which extends for 98.2 miles. The national harbours board, in its annual report, said that in terms of ship activity Vancouver last year saw the arrival of 28,792 ships of all categories of which 1,771 were deep-sea or ocean-going vessels. Montreal in the same period saw the arrival of more deep-sea vessels, but her total ship arrivals numbered only 6,211.
I am quite proud of this shipping record for Vancouver especially when Vancouver is now the busiest wheat port in the world. The recent sale of wheat to communist China will add to Vancouver's leadership. Hon. members might be interested to know what the Vancouver Province had to say about this sale on May 3. The article on the front page of the Vancouver Province of that day carried the headline:
Huge grain sale to China means busy times for B.C. ports.
The article takes note of the record sale of grain to communist China and it goes on to say:
Just about everyone in B.C. will benefit from the big boom the sale will precipitate in deep-sea shipping.
Payrolls alone in the four B.C. ports will go up about $45 million in the next three years. The sale will bring 750 ships to B.C. ports. Vancouver handles 91 per cent of B.C.'s grain trade. The 750 ships represent almost half the total of 1,565 ships that came to Vancouver in 1960, a record year.
Carpenters will be needed to fit the ships; provisions will be purchased locally, and the visiting seamen will spend thousands more on shore.
Port officials estimate the community receives about $7.50 in wages and handling costs for every

ton of grain shipped overseas. Under the agreement, five millions tons of wheat and one million tons of barley will be shipped from B.C.
All four ports will be operating at capacity for the next three years at least-a new test for all of them.
Vancouver has been the largest grain exporting port in the world for the last several years and will add to her leadership.
Shipments to Japan and other big buyers of Canadian grain in the port of Vancouver will not be affected.
Berthing facilities in Vancouver and New Westminster will be improved considerably this year to handle the new flow of shipping.
Funds have already been allocated for deepening the United Grain Growers' No. 3 jetty to 35 feet. This will also include new piling and virtual reconstruction of the pier.
The new suction dredge Fort Langley will be ready to go on the Fraser river in August.
This will assure the port of New Westminster a deeper channel and the cut to the grain elevators will be kept open for year round shipping.
B.C. ports are now handling an average of 17 million bushels of grain a month. When the new shipments begin this summer, an additional 7J million bushels will be exported every month.
From what I have quoted from the Vancouver Province, it is obvious that Vancouver stands to gain very much from the increased port activity. I therefore want to place on record my gratitude and the gratitude of the people of Vancouver to the Minister of Agriculture, and indeed to this government, for the energetic efforts which have been expended in promoting foreign trade and sales.
Before world war II Vancouver was known as Canada's gateway to the Orient. This glamorous title faded a bit after the war, but I think this recent grain sale will give the necessary impetus to all concerned in Vancouver to do something about recapturing that position.
The Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce have indicated that the government intends to continue its efforts to increase foreign trade. If that is so, then I foresee a period in the near future when Vancouver will become not only the largest grain exporting port in the world but also the busiest port in the world. I am positive that that period will come, but it will not come if we sit back and wait for it. We must be sure that we shall have adequate harbour facilities, storage and staging areas, railway depots, adequate fire and police protection, sufficient power resources, and so on. Because all this requires planning on a huge and long range basis, I wish to suggest that the minister consider the advisability of creating a greater Vancouver port council. This port council should include representatives from the technical planning board of

the city of Vancouver, the city of New Westminster, the city of North Vancouver, the board of trade, the national harbours board, and representatives from the Department of Trade and Commerce, the provincial government, transportation, which will include railways, shipping and air, and representatives from farm organizations and labour unions.
The need for such an organization was emphasized when the Minister of Agriculture was recently in Vancouver discussing with various officials the problem of getting out the wheat to China. On March 6 and 7 of this year, the Minister of Agriculture invited representatives from the railways, grain exchanges, shipping federations, union officials, the national harbours board, and the Canadian wheat board to a meeting, and he stated that he hoped, through the co-operation of these organizations, methods of increasing the movement of grain through Pacific coast ports would be worked out.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the port council should decide as its objective to make Vancouver the finest harbour in the world and then proceed to draw up the necessary plans to develop Vancouver along those lines. Obviously, no one organization will be able to do this and it would be quite futile to have magnificent harbour and industrial facilities if there were nothing to make use of these facilities. The port council should therefore also put forward a very vigorous effort to attract industry to the Vancouver area, and this is where the board of trade can come in. At the same time, I suggest that labour unions should be prepared to offer a period of stability in labour relations in order not to discourage industrial prospects. The provincial and federal governments should be prepared to grant tax concessions as an inducement to industry to locate in the Vancouver area. The municipal authorities should, through their technical planning board, make sure that there are sufficient areas set aside for industrial development.
As I have said before, this would be a tremendous undertaking and the results would not be immediately apparent. None the less, I suggest that the time has come when an organization such as I have envisaged should be created. The representatives of this port council must be prepared to use their imagination and to look ahead to the tremendous trade opportunities which lie across the horizon. At the same time we should not forget that, apart from the basic industries of British Columbia, the other major industries are situated in eastern
Supply-Transport
Canada and those industries should be encouraged to start planning for the time when we will be able to take full advantage of trade across the Pacific.
The national harbours board, which is under the direction of the Minister of Transport, is in a good position to initiate this project. With official recognition from the minister, I am sure that we will have an instant response from responsible leaders of the business community in Vancouver. I took the liberty of writing to the port manager of the national harbours board, Vancouver, and asking for further information which would help me prepare a speech in this connection. I today received a reply from Captain Johnson, the port manager, which is as follows: My dear Mr. Jung:
We thank you very much indeed for your letter on May 12, 1961 requesting certain information from this port in order that you may formulate your speech.
We are very much interested in your request and feel that it should be treated with the fullest concern and therefore it has been turned over to our port promotion and information department.
If you have an early deadline for this information, would you please wire this office collect and let us know what that date is and we will endeavour to rush the information to you, if necessary.
Again thanking you for your interest in this port, Yours very truly,
B. D. L. Johnson Port Manager
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, I have not had the time to get this information from the board because I did not know I would be speaking so soon. Nevertheless, I feel this is a project which should receive sympathetic consideration and I commend this proposal to the minister. I suggest that consideration be given to convening a preliminary meeting of this organization, and, initially, this meeting might be on a voluntary and co-operative basis. Should these initial meetings prove successful, then we might consider expanding the present national harbours board in Vancouver into a larger organization known as the greater Vancouver harbour port authority, to enable it to discharge the responsibilities which I have listed.
In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, we have nothing to lose and everything to gain by holding exploratory talks along the lines I have suggested.
(Translation):


Mr. Brassard (Lapointe):: Mr. Chairman, even if I come very late, I should like to join all the previous speakers in offering my congratulations to the new Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) who has stepped into the shoes of men such as the

Supply-Transport
hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), the former hon. member for St. Antoine-West-mount and his predecessor, now heading the Department of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hees).
Some of my colleagues in this house who do not belong to the same party as I do, often attack that man-I am embarrassed to see him here because I would have liked to say in his absence what I think of him. Some of my colleagues often attack the former minister of transport, now, the hon. member for Laurier, because he now represents a Quebec riding.
I find it really distressing that hon. members from my own province should make an exhibition of themselves in front of hon. members from the nine other provinces of this country, and wash their dirty linen in front of everybody, in this House of Commons.
The hon. member for Laurier associated his name with one of the largest Canadian undertakings, namely the St. Lawrence seaway. I am sure that that enterprise will have deep effects on the whole economy of our country, and, as a matter of fact those economic effects have already been felt in Canada.
Many years ago he started personal studies of the seaway project. He even sacrificed himself when the then prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, asked him to accept the presidency of the seaway authority. It was a sacrifice for him, but at the same time he built something for his country.
I am sorry to see some of my colleagues who are trying to ruin his reputation by mean accusations. Their efforts are vain because we are standing by him and we will see to it that the people have a true knowledge of this man.
The present Minister of Transport also succeeded to one of my former bosses, Mr. Marler, who, I think, because I worked almost three years under him, did something for his country. He was not a politician, he was a businessman. He devoted all his heart, all his soul and all his intelligence to his country. He had a great intelligence and understood the problems of the nation.
The present incumbent of the office succeeded to the now Minister of Trade and Commerce.
I must say, without any intended reflection on his predecessor, that even though the present minister does not smile as easily, I am sure that he has the same devotion to

his office and the same sincere desire to discharge his duty. I wish to congratulate him and wish him well, and above all, I hope he will understand the problems faced by all ten provinces in this country.
In the next few minutes, I would like to bring to his attention some problems of my area. In doing so I am inspired more by love for my district than by my allegiance to my political party.
Some who came before me and who did not have my political convictions have already talked on behalf of what I want to ask the minister.
The hon. member for Chicoutimi suggested it long before me, and so did the mayor of Chicoutimi, I am referring to the dredging of the Saguenay river.
For four years, we have been trying to attract foreign industries. We are told that because of a lack of transportation, our situation is slightly unfavourable. Through the Department of Transport, I would like to spur the interest of the national harbours board in the Saguenay river.
We need new industries in our district. We need them because the heavy industries established in our parts had to lay off a number of employees due partly to a deterioration of our foreign market and partly to industrial automation. Those men have become experts and specialized labour, trained for heavy industry, the large industry, the electro-chemical industry. There is in our district a potential labour force which would like nothing better than to contribute to the development of the area while honourably earning their families' living.
I ask the Minister of Transport to examine that problem and not to take two or three years before putting in his estimates a vote for the dredging of the Saguenay river which, even though it does not flow through my riding, belongs to my district. I feel that a member when he is talking must forget about being re-elected and bear in mind above all the welfare of the whole district surrounding his constituency.
I am sure the hon. members for Lake St. John (Mr. Parizeau) and for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) share that opinion and that one day they will speak out in this house, not because I advocated it nor because the hon. member for Chicoutimi advocated it, but because they love their region and want the common good of the community in which they live. The Lake St. John region is one of the most promising in Canada. Indeed, it has already done a great deal.

We have at Passe Dangereuse or Chute des Passes, a power station which generates one million horsepower. Shipshaw is one of the most productive power stations. We have the aluminum industry, the Price Brothers mills, the Consolidated Paper mills and the Lake St. John Paper mills in Dolbeau. The possibilities of that region are almost unlimited, if we would just help a little in the field of navigation.
The Minister of Transport is, I know, familiar with navigation, since he lives in Three Rivers. I do not have to tell him the importance of navigation on the development of a given district.
More than half of our population is under 21. That, I think, is exceptional. Our young people want to work. Every year, young people come out of technical schools and others, enter the abour market only to find that there are no opportunities for them. The government must show some interest in the matter and look after us; it could start by deepening the Saguenay river.
In another county there is another problem to which the hon. member for Chicoutimi has already referred: the St. Honore airport.
On several occasions, I have asked the minister's predecessor to try to do something in that connection.
The Department of Transport often states, and quite rightly, that it is interested in the development of civil aviation in Canada. According to the high officials and technicians of the department, the landing strips at that airport are in an exceptionally good condition considering the length of time the airport has not been used. At one time, I asked for a report on the matter. I know that the minister is extremely busy and that the administration of his department forces him to cover all sectors of the country's economy, but since I have received no report, I would like to know once and for all whether something definite could be done for the St. Honore airport and for the development of civil aviation in my area.
Investigations were carried out and the results were never made known to me. I do not usually speak like this in the house but I have been referring to this matter of the St. Honore airport for at least three years; my colleague from Chicoutimi is just as interested in the matter as I am, if not more so, and I would like the minister to see that his officials tell us definitely what they think of the whole matter and what the department can do about it.
There is another problem which is causing me concern just as it does to other members of my area, I am sure, namely the possible
Supply-Transport
combination of the C.N.R. express and freight services. In the past three or four months, I have met several employees who have heard of such a combination of services which, I am told, would be conductive to many lay-offs.
If the only people affected were those 24, 25, 28 or 30 years of age, I might understand the situation, but when the situation affects people who have worked 30 to 35 years for a public concern such as the C.N.R., who had a special training in a particular field, how can we expect those people to find employment elsewhere when for most of their life they have practised a trade which has no equivalent in other fields of private enterprise?
There is a human problem there that must be considered and I ask the Minister of Transport to take this up with the president of the C.N.R. I know, having worked in that department, that he might reply that the matter is entirely up to the C.N.R.; but I know of people who, when they used to sit on this side of the house, had rather bitter words for us about the whole problem of railway management. They are in power now. They are in-perhaps I should say they are "all in", Mr. Chairman, considering the way they act. They are in there, and if they remember what they said at the time they sat on this side of the house, if they are sincere, and I have no doubt they are, let them try their luck with the C.N.R.'s representatives and discuss, not only the economic problem, but also the human problem.
My colleague from Maisonneuve-Rose-mont (Mr. Deschatelets) referred to the Soulanges canal lands. First of all, I do not have all the facts relating to this Soulanges canal. I know one thing, however, and in this regard I leave out of consideration my political affiliation with those who are in Quebec city, but I know what they intend to do with the Soulanges canal, and the minister also knows, I am sure, because they have written to him. Besides, the minister of youth and the minister of game and fisheries have publicly stated the aims they would pursue if the province could acquire the Soulanges canal.
I am a little sorry that the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges (Mr. Bourbonnais)-I did not know about it, it was my colleague from Maisonneuve-Rosemont who told me this afternoon-should have been the only one, according to the letter he published in a newspaper, to oppose the general welfare policy of the Quebec government.
When it is a question of our province, it seems to me that we could at least follow in

Supply-Transport
the footsteps of our colleagues from other parts of Canada who, whatever their political affiliation, always agree as regards the general welfare of their own province.
Whether we are Liberals, Conservatives, members of the C.C.F. group, or independents, whenever the common welfare of a province is at stake, we should forget our particular political allegiance. And, if the hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges does not understand it, I hope that-even if he does not understand its platform-he will have enough regard for his own party to work for its re-election by favouring a policy which would benefit the citizens of our province. That is what I expect of those in authority, not only for my own province, but for every province in this country.
I want to say a few words about our merchant fleet. We heard so much about our merchant marine from the hon. gentleman who today heads the Department of External Affairs. When I was in the Department of Transport, I heard him make many a speech about our commercial fleet. He left almost nothing unsaid against the former ministers of transport with regard to our merchant navy.
One might have expected that, when the Conservatives would be in power, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs would be appointed minister of transport, so that he could practise what he had preached. But no, he was first appointed to public works, and then to external affairs. Moreover, instead of improving our shipping, they were satisfied to use the few remaining ships of the Canadian National Railways.
Recently, the Minister of Transport-and I must congratulate him for it-announced a new departmental policy on shipbuilding in Canada. However, two or three days afterwards, or even the very next day, the Minister of Veterans Affairs went on a trip to western Canada where, it seems, a byelection is going on, and said: "Our merchant marine is adequate to transport the wheat we sold to communist China."
But for over four years now the Conservatives have been managing the affairs of this country. And yet, that was one of the great promises made to Canadian voters. Today we are told: "We shall have a merchant marine when the need arises." Either they were sincere or naive when they were accusing us of having no merchant marine. I hope they were sincere. But, when I consider what happened in those four years I have my doubts about their naivete.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to suggest to the minister-and this will be doing him a service because there are so few

of us who think of helping him, poor man- that his department has become too important a body, affecting too many sectors of our economy, to be under the authority of only one man.
It is not that I do not find the present minister intelligent-and I am saying this seriously

but there is much talk about civil aviation and I think it is high time provision were made for a separate civil aviation division in the department. Or else let a new department be set up, if it is more agreeable to the minister, or perhaps Conservative members will have a more attractive suggestion. But let that department be divided. It is becoming too big; it affects too many sectors of our economy, for only one man to handle everything. I worked there for three months and I realized to what extent civil servants are devoted and competent in their field.
Besides, the minister must have realized this, since the time he has been there. At least I hope so. If he wants to prove to us he understands to what extent the Department of Transport is important to Canada, if he wants to give us concrete evidence that he understands that civil aviation is in constant development, and that the things of tomorrow are nearly those of today, I hope he will convince his colleagues of the cabinet that a department of civil aviation is imperative. It seems the minister just said a few words about that.


Léon Balcer: Do you want half of it?


Augustin Brassard: I lack that ability. But my colleague from Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) will accept it eagerly. Just the same, I rely on the minister, knowing that his officials are working so hard in the department. I have seen them at work and I have known them. If he fails to think of his men, we want to tell him about it. I hope he is working hard as a minister. Therefore, let him think of himself, and it will help him convince his colleagues in the cabinet.
I have been listening with close attention to my colleague from Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) who expressed certain grievances against the Bell Telephone Company of Canada. I am not aware of the facts he quoted to the house, but I can tell him one thing. I had occasion not too long ago to meet the directors of one of Canada's largest firms, and I well remember them asking me this question: "What do you think of this service?" I said: "I am no more in favour of socialism than you are, but what do you want? What are you doing to avoid it? You complain about having no say in the administration of your country or province, but what have you done to deserve it?"

I realize that a company director or president cannot be expected to resign from an industry to go into active politics. One thing I fail to understand, however, is that too many people are engaged in small private businesses and fail to realize that apart from active politics, they can have meetings with the people responsible for running the country or province. But they have no time for that; people often complain that they have no time for politics, but if they wait another five or ten years, many of those now in private enterprise will have no time for politics because they will all be civil servants.
Private enterprise must realize that it has a great part to play in the economy of our province and country. Gone are the days when politics could be left to anyone, to the demagogues or those who are motivated by one thing only: personal interest.
Mr. Chairman, I have been wandering a bit, but coming back to the point, I should like to remind the minister of the Saguenay waterway scheme. I hope he will look into it. I see he is smiling; I have confidence in his smile. I again urge him to consider my area.


Léon Balcer: Do you expect me to cry?


Augustin Brassard: I hope he will consider my area. In that way, he will be helping the economy generally. In considering other areas, he will be helping the economy of every province and of the country as a whole. That is my request to a man who is now vested with the authority of the Minister of Transport.
(Text):


Mr. Broome:: Before coming to the substance of my remarks I should like to pay a compliment to the Minister of Transport. I do not mean this as empty words. I believe sincerely that the minister has taken hold of this department and is giving it leadership which is second to none. He is a strong man, and he is worthy of all the compliments I can pay him. He may not get up and perform a lot of histrionics in the house but in the solid work of running a large department of government the hon. minister has few peers. While I am saying a few "thank you's" I should also say how grateful I am to the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate for the gracious things he said last Wednesday.
I should like to talk about air lines, particularly. Many aspects of the work of this department are of importance to my province and to my area but the air lines is one of
Supp ly-Transport
the most important of the fields which concerns us. I should like to refer to the current annual statement of Trans-Canada Air Lines and to quote from this statement, not at length but here and there, in order to make a few points. On the first page it states:
Revenue growth started slowly reflecting the changed competitive situation. There was, however, marked acceleration in the latter half of the year under the stimulus of new equipment and lower Atlantic fares.
When you look at the table accompanying this statement you find that revenue from Atlantic fares did rise by 25 per cent but domestic revenue went up by 10 per cent also, which would appear to be a reasonably large increase. Checking over the balance sheet you find that capital commitments and contingent liabilities reflecting a balance of payment for equipment and construction amount to some $35 million. Of course, the fact that this air line has had a deficit for the first time in a good many years has been mentioned many times in this house. A deficit of some $2,600,000 has been mentioned but I have not yet heard anybody say anything with regard to the surplus. The balance sheet as of January I, I960, showed a surplus of $6,800,000, all of which disappeared this year. An explanation is given in a note on page 7 which says:
The surplus balance of $6,842,000 has been appropriated to establish a reserve against anticipated net differences between book value and the amount realized on the disposal of the piston engine fleets, their major components and supporting inventory.
Further on, the report points out that T.C.A. is the seventh largest air line in the world. As such, it should certainly be of a size to enable it to take advantage of the efficiency which comes from a large operation to operate at a profit. Perhaps we are paying a high price for the prestige of having the first all turbine fleet in the world. Perhaps we are paying a high price for forcing the obsolescence of aircraft such as 12 suDer constellations. All that surplus of 1960 disappeared because of the fact that these aircraft have not been in service long enough for the normal depreciation to take place to take care of the difference between their normal sale value and what the book value shows. This is where the surplus went.
I am also interested in looking at the timetable of T.C.A. overseas services. Under the T.C.A.-B.O.A.C. agreement are listed some 22 flights each way weekly over the Atlantic, 22 by T.C.A. and 22 by B.O.A.C. If you refer to the Aeronautics Act, part II, chapter 2, you will find, Mr. Chairman, that in section 15, subsection 7 it says:
The board shall upon application grant to Trans-Canada Air Lines a licence to operate a commercial

Supply-Transport
air service under such terms and subject to such conditions as will enable Trans-Canada Air Lines to perform any agreement made under sections 15 or 24 between the Minister of Transport and Trans-Canada Air Lines or between the Minister of Transport and any corporation created under section 19 of the act.
We have an anomaly here. We have an air transport board which is supposed to exercise control over air transportation in Canada, yet this board cannot control the operations of T.C.A. at the present time. Today the board is obliged to issue to T.C.A. without any hearing, public or otherwise, such licences as T.C.A. may require. Thus, in the absence of licensing power over T.C.A., the board is deprived of the normal controls relating to licensing which it exercises over all other scheduled carriers. The fact that T.C.A. services are covered by one licence means that T.C.A. can adapt and amend its schedules or flights in any pattern it wishes in order to cover those points. It is only when the company wishes to reach a new city or to extend to a location which it had not covered before that there is any vestige of control over this air line.
How does this affect other air lines? Other air lines have individual licences covering each route and they cannot make any changes without consent. For example, Canadian Pacific Air Lines has a licence to fly Vancou-ver-Edmonton-Amsterdam. Canadian Pacific Air Lines also has a licence to fly Vancouver-Penticton-Castlegar-Cranbrook-Calgary. But Canadian Pacific Air Lines cannot fly Van-couver-Calgary-Amsterdam because a licence to land and take off at Calgary is not part of the overseas licence issued to them. I contend that Trans-Canada Air Lines should have to show cause when they wish to fly over new routes. They should have to show that there is public necessity for such flights. The president of that air line said at a hearing in Ottawa some two years ago that he would be willing to fly his planes empty beside a competing carrier in order to drive that carrier out of business. This should not be possible.
We have a condition now where advertisements are appearing in Vancouver newspapers advertising flights by United States air lines to Europe. West coast people who wish to travel to Europe now fly by American air line because they can fly directly from Seattle to London which is the destination of most west coast passengers going overseas. Canadian Pacific Air Lines, one of our flag carriers, cannot do this. It cannot fly Vancouver-Edmonton-London. It must fly to Amsterdam, and then those passengers whose destination is London complete their journey on the K.L.M. system. Much of the traffic has been forced to United States air lines as a result of this situation. This situation has not helped

Trans-Canada Air Lines. If it had, why would there now be 22 flights a week across the Atlantic by B.O.A.C. and 22 flights by T.C.A.?
It seems all right to have this competition between air line carriers operating out of Toronto and Montreal to London, but it is not all right according to T.C.A. and the air transport board, that our own second flag carrier should operate from the west coast to London over a route which was pioneered by that company-I refer to the polar route- although T.C.A. announced some weeks ago that it intended to fly that route. I understand that T.C.A. did not have to apply for permission to do so because it was able to land at cities for which it already has licences. It just simply announced it was going to fly the polar route.
The government, through the former minister, as well as the present minister, announced that competition was to be controlled to the best interests of both carriers, but I suggest that competition is only controlled in regard to one; the other not being subject to the same control. The other carrier could make 50 flights per week if it wished to do so in order to give a frequency of service to drive its competition out of business even though this might result in a severe financial drain on the federal treasury.
I have in my hand a Trans-Canada Air Lines advertisement regarding trans-Canada and overseas flights. The paragraph appearing at the bottom of this advertisement reads as follows:
Also through jet flights from Vancouver, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Toronto, Cleveland and Halifax to Shannon, Glasgow and London.
The only sensible control on competition should have regard to regulations requiring air lines to plan their flights in such a way as to meet reasonable traffic demands, having regard to public convenience and economic considerations. The contention of hon. members from the west-I mean British Columbia when I say "the west"-has been that competing carriers should share in the growth of air line traffic, and not that one carrier should consider all growth to belong to it.
Trans-Canada Air Lines occupies a dominant position in eastern Canada passenger traffic and would, I suggest, still have 80 per cent of all traffic growth in the country, but the remaining 20 per cent increase, which exists generally in the west, represents a portion of passenger traffic in which C.P.A. should share.
I suggest the establishment of an all turbine fleet has involved a very high cost. This is particularly so because of the fact that 12 super constellations now sit in mothballs.

although they still had considerable service life. The lost from the sale of these 12 super constellations has undoubtedly accounted, in large part, for the elimination of the $6 million surplus which existed on January 1, 1960, but which does not exist today.
Mr. Chairman, I intend now to refer to the Wheatcroft report. I suggest it has reference to this department's estimates because it was following this report that the competition situation was opened for review.
Mr. Wheatcroft stated that the advantages of air line competition were: (a) more adequate service; (b) more efficient service; (c) more rapid technological progress; (d) more rapid traffic development; (e) a yardstick of efficiency, as no other method had yet been devised to achieve this as effectively as direct comparisons between competitive companies serving the same markets; and (f) the satisfaction of choice.
Hon. members who have travelled across the country by air will realize the drastic improvement which has been made during the last two years. I suggest that the travelling public has demanded this improvement, and has benefited from this competition. Mr. Wheatcroft also stated that the advantages of competition would be justified only if they did not involve a significant increase in the unit cost level of providing the air service. I think that is an important statement.
Mr. Wheatcroft pointed out, at the time of this report some two years ago, that the size of Trans-Canada Air Lines, at 270 million available ton miles per year, was well over the economy of scale size of about 150 million available ton miles per year. On the other hand, he observed that Canadian Pacific Air Lines, at 66 million available ton miles per year, was well below the level at which it could enjoy all the economies of large scale operations. The comparable figures for 1959, in this regard are, T.C.A., 357 million available ton miles per year, and C.P.A., 97 million available ton miles per year.
The figures I have mentioned, taken from Mr. Wheatcroft's report, bear out a statement made in the Trans-Canada Air Lines annual report, that it is now the seventh largest air carrier in the world. I suggest this is of great credit to previous governments, to the present government, and to the personnel of the air line itself. However, at the same time as this statement is made, the officials of Trans-Canada Air Lines profess concern because of the competition of one transcontinental flight per day by the second Canadian flag air line. Those officials are also worried about the result of allowing one Canadian flag carrier, out of approximately six air lines
Supply-Transport
flying from Canada to London, to land in that city. I should like to present a few examples of how this competitive air line is treated.
Canadian Pacific Air Lines flies a route from Vancouver to Mexico city, to Toronto and Montreal, but is not allowed to carry traffic between Toronto and Montreal. This is the same as Canada's treatment of foreign carriers. Canadian Pacific Air Lines is apparently subject to the same regulations which apply to foreign carriers. At one time, during the regime of the previous government, this company could not fly into Edmonton, but had to land at Yellowknife, making it more difficult for people to use this service. The present government has changed that situation and allows C.P.A. to land at Edmonton. However, a passenger, under present regulations, cannot travel from Vancouver to Edmonton by Canadian Pacific Air Lines, although that air line flies from Vancouver to Edmonton to Amsterdam. That is how Canadian Pacific Air Lines is being treated, as if it were a foreign and not a Canadian carrier. That air line should be able to fly Vancouver-Edmonton-Amsterdam and on other days Vancouver-Calgary-Amsterdam, and carry passengers between Canadian points.
On the other hand, Trans-Canada Air Lines is allowed to change its routes at will. I would suggest that if T.C.A. would devote half the effort which it is now putting into fighting this other Canadian air line toward improving its service and developing and extending their lines into the United States and tapping the markets which they have not yet tapped, it would be much better for both air lines.
Other members from British Columbia will have something to say on this subject. I am sure they will be touching other areas in addition to the areas I have covered in order to indicate that some changes must be made in the operations of the air transport board and of Trans-Canada Air Lines, which will make the board a functioning board and which will bring the government's own lines under the same rules and regulations that apply to other lines. This is the first essential. The second essential is that the private operator should not have to have this ridiculous dog's leg arrangement to Amsterdam and then through K.L.M. to London, but should fly there direct and thus stop feeding Canadian passengers to United States air lines because a Canadian air line cannot give the same service.
Canadian Pacific Air Lines is equally worthy of support, and equally worthy of commendation because of the job it has done in building up a rag-tag of routes around

Supply-Transport
the world, which were not wanted by T.C.A. and which in many instances they had to negotiate themselves, into an outstanding world air carrier.
I have heard that negotiations have been going on between T.C.A. and Japan Air Lines, in regard to onward passengers from within Canada going to Tokyo, whereby the government air line would direct traffic from C.P.A. to a foreign carrier, something like the B.O.A.C.-T.C.A. agreement. The same thing, of course, could be done with respect to Hawaii or any of the points reached at the present time by Canadian Pacific Air Lines.
The thing is, Mr. Chairman, these two companies must work in co-operation; they must work in the best interests of both companies, and this can only be done by government regulations. What hurts one is equally bad as what hurts the other. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I wish to say I am glad we have as head of the Department of Transport a minister who is willing to really get in and work on the problems which beset his department. I do hope that before too long he will be able to give some relief to a company which is a tremendous dollar earner for Canada, a tremendous producer of revenue from foreign lands, and which is one of the finest and best operations on the west coast, a company which has a major place in the over-all economy of the west coast.


Mr. Lessard:: Will you call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman?


Jacques Flynn: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 7.30 p.m. (Translation):
H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss in failing to say a few words on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport.
A number of important and urgent projects of benefit to greater Montreal have been put forward by various members of the opposition, and particularly by the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Mai-sonneuve-Rosemont (Messrs. Chevrier and Deschatelets). I shall deal only with the more important ones.

The first one concerns the construction of a bridge in eastern Montreal. I think the minister recognizes the need, as this is an absolute must.
The second project is the use of C.N.R. land for the erection of east-west elevated highways.
The third concerns improvements to the port of Montreal, and particularly the development of a miniature park to allow local citizens and tourists to gain entrance to the port.
Those, Mr. Chairman, are urgent and necessary projects, of interest both to the federal government and to the Montreal authorities.
Mr. Chairman, apart from sitting in this house as member for St. Henry, I sit as member of the Montreal city council. I have often wondered what should be done to facilitate the implementation of those three schemes, which are so important for the economic development of Montreal.
In reply to a question I raised this morning concerning the erection of the elevated east-west highway, the Minister of Transport said he had received a brief from the city, about a month or five weeks ago. This was news to me.
I do not think such long distance discussions are a proper approach to our mutual problems. In that connection, I have a suggestion for the minister, and I hope he will give it serious consideration.
In dealing with such important schemes involving both the city of Montreal and the government at Ottawa, perhaps it might be helpful to set up a joint committee made up of a few city councillors and officials of the national harbours board, who could study the schemes and report to the minister.
I think this suggestion might facilitate and hasten the implementation of important works, if we want Montreal to remain the metropolis of Canada.
(Text):


Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Chairman, first of all, along with other members, I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his appointment, not only because it is customary to do so but because I believe that in the time he has been minister he has already proved himself to be extremely capable. I know that his tenure of office is going to be a very valuable one to the transportation industry.
I want to say a few things tonight about transportation policy as it relates to labour relations. There will be some aspects of my remarks that, perhaps, will be of concern to the Minister of Labour as well, but I feel

they are more directly related to the field of transportation than they are to labour. I do not wish to rehash all the things that happened during the recent threatened railway strike. However, I believe that the positions that were taken by the various political parties at that time are of concern at the present time and will be more so in the future. This is one of those occasions when we have been able to get the opposition parties to state their policy and take a position with regard to it.
The committee will recall that when we were threatened with a strike the government took the position that collective bargaining should be the means of settling it and that they did not propose to offer any subsidy to cover wages. These were the two main statements that were made by the government. On the other hand, the position of the Liberal party has been quite clear for some time. When there was a railway strike in 1950, they imposed compulsory arbitration and advocated the same thing during the present situation. Then, we had the position taken by the C.C.F. party which advocated a subsidy to cover the wages of the railway employees. I thought that was a rather surprising position for that party to take because, over the years, they have always claimed that they were the spokesmen for labour in this country. I have never agreed with that view. I believe the actions they have taken in this regard prove substantially that they speak for special interests only. I would suggest they probably speak for those sections of organized labour which happen to contribute to funds for their party.
On other occasions when we have had protests made by unions, the C.C.F. group was very quick in bringing them to our attention. However, there was one protest that came from the employees of the trucking industry about which I have heard absolutely nothing from that party. While they were advocating a subsidy for wages of 111,000 railway employees, there were 90,000 employees in the trucking industry who were entirely opposed to such a policy. I think the action they took in recommending a subsidy for one segment of labour was a very wrong one.
I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a resolution that was passed by the Canadian conference of teamsters and sent to the Prime Minister. It reads as follows:
We, the undersigned truck drivers and employees of the trucking industry of the Dominion of Canada, are most violently opposed to past subsidies, and the proposed future subsidies granted to the Canadian railroads, which are to come out of public funds to the extent of better than six dollars per head. We therefore endorse the following resolution to be submitted to your government for immediate action:
Supply-Transport
Whereas: the Canadian government, over the past years has donated to the two Canadian railways, through subsidies, many millions of dollars out of the public treasury, and
Whereas: over the period of time during which the railroads have been receiving these millions of dollars, the same two railroads have been instituting non-profitable practices, such as: agreed charges on bulk commodities, at rates far below their operating costs, and piggy-backing at rates much lower than the recognized tariff rates, and
Whereas: both these practices place the trucking industry of the Dominion of Canada in an extremely difficult position, which will eventually eliminate many trucking companies, and
Whereas: through agreed charges, hundreds of truck drivers and trucking employees have been displaced, to further aggravate the unemployment situation, and
Whereas: during the past ten years, while the railroads have been receiving millions of dollars of public funds, the same railroads have been buying up truck lines to a point where they now control truck lines from coast to coast, at the expense of the public, and which, in a very short period of time, will result in a monopoly of the transportation industry such as existed before the trucking industry came into existence, and
Whereas: no other industry in the Dominion of Canada, under our private enterprise system of business, has been given the privilege of operating and paying dividends consistently from the public treasury.
Therefore be it resolved that the government of the Dominion of Canada cease the practice of making donations or subsidies to the Canadian railways, and be it
Further resolved that the government of the Dominion of Canada implement controlled minimum transportation rates and regulations which will allow all types of transportation a fair existence, to the common interest of the general public of the Dominion of Canada.


Harold Edward Winch: That is what I pointed out this afternoon.


John Ferguson Browne: That
was not the position taken by the hon. member's party during the debates. I wanted to bring to the attention of the committee that when we consider a subsidy for wages, we must recognize that it is unfair to subsidize one group of employees when another group might well be affected.
Further, in relation to the labour question that has arisen and the positions that have been taken by the parties may I say this. The government has taken the position that collective bargaining should be allowed to take its course and that it should be the means of settling disputes. However, I should like to point out that the railroads have now gone very substantially into the trucking business. In fact, the Canadian Pacific Railway is the largest trucking organization in Canada and the Canadian National Railways operate the second largest trucking operation in Canada. The Canadian Pacific Railway has now started upon a course of integrating all of their trucking operations with their rail operations. They started this policy first of all in the province of British Columbia where

Supply-Transport
they were operating several truck lines. They were operating Canadian Pacific Transport, O.K. Valley Freight Lines, Island Freight Service and a number of others. They have decided to join those lines all into one organization known as Canadian Pacific Merchandise Services Limited and they have indicated their intention to pursue that policy all across Canada. All of their trucking operations will eventually be integrated into Canadian Pacific Merchandise Services and will comprise some 9,000 employees.
When this happened and this new organization was set up there, of course, had to be some bargaining agent for the employees of that organization. The teamsters' union went around and signed up a majority of the employees of Canadian Pacific Merchandise Services and applied for certification to the Canada labour relations board. The board told them that this was not an appropriate bargaining unit and that the people could not belong to the teamsters' union but must join one of the railroad brotherhoods even though some of the employees involved had previously belonged to the teamsters' union.
The point I wish to make in this regard is that if this policy is going to be pursued all across Canada, with the tremendous hold that the railways are getting upon the trucking industry it is going to mean that we are going to have all of our transportation services tied up under one union. If the government feels that we are to have collective bargaining I would suggest that the policy which should be followed is that those in the trucking industry should not be in the same union as those in the railroads, so that they would not all be tied up at the same time. I think that the Canada labour relations board were wrong in the decision they made at that time.
I have here a copy of the evidence that was taken at that time setting out clearly the intentions of the railroad. Not only do they intend to integrate all their services but they make it clear that they are out to compete with the trucking industry. I am quoting now from the evidence of Mr. Jacobson who was a witness for the Canadian Pacific Railway in the matter and I am referring to page 58 of the evidence before the Canada labour relations board on Wednesday, July 13, 1960. The chairman of the labour relations board had asked a question of Mr. Jacobson who was testifying. He asked this question:
Q. The purpose ot Canadian Pacific acquiring these subsidiary trucking lines was so that they would use the rail services or the road services according to how it might fit into the total picture: was that the purpose?
The answer given by Mr. Jacobson was:

A. Primarily the purpose was to engage in competition in the truck transporting industry over the highway-
That makes it clear that the railroads have set out on a policy to control the trucking industry and I believe that they have made substantial headway in that regard. As I have already pointed out, the C.P.R. is the largest trucking operator in Canada and the C.N.R. is the second largest one. I do not think that anybody in this country would wish to see the railroads get back into the monopoly position which they had for 100 years in this country. Every royal commission over the last number of years has come to the conclusion that the one factor that has helped in bringing down freight rates has been competition. If the alternative means of transportation are to be controlled by the railways, I suggest there cannot then be that degree of competition which otherwise would exist. I believe this is something that must command the immediate attention of the government because there really has not been any inquiry made into it. Trucking generally has been left in the hands of the provinces and there has really been no authority on the part of royal commissions to go to the lengths that are necessary in order to determine just exactly what the position is.
I have raised this matter on two or three occasions previously, but I believe it is far more serious now than it has been in the past, particularly when we relate it to the decisions that have been given by the Canada labour relations board so that we could have the whole of our transportation industry tied up. The MacPherson royal commission has pointed out that we would have had a very serious situation during the rail strike in 1950 if it had not been for the trucking industry. It becomes quite evident that if the trucking industry is now to be tied up at the same time as is the rail industry if a strike should occur, we would not be able to withstand it at all. The government would then not be able to follow this policy of allowing collective bargaining to take place because I am sure that the country would not be in a position to withstand a strike and the consequences of having all our means of transportation tied up. I would therefore ask the government to give very serious consideration both to policy and the Canada labour relations board. It may well be that the legislation under which that board operates will need to be changed in order to cover the situation. I ask the government to give very serious consideration to the acquisition of truck lines by the railways.
I wish to say a few words about transportation policy in general. I noticed that the hon. member for Laurier made a few comments the other day in which he set out a

rather detailed description of those things which had been done by the former administration. I do not want to go back as far over the whole history as the hon. member, but I do believe there are one or two things he perhaps overlooked which are of current importance and will be of importance in the future.
The hon. member for Laurier pointed out that the previous government had appointed the Turgeon royal commission in 1950 to investigate the problems connected with transportation and that a considerable amount of legislation was passed after the hearings of that royal commission in relation to the equalizing of freight rates in this country.
I suggest to the committee that the legislation the hon. member described to us as having been passed at that time did not solve the problem and could not have solved it because of the fact that the equalization had no effect on those rates which are known as competitive rates under the Railway Act.
These rates were set so that the railways could meet truck competition, be more flexible in their rates and set them very rapidly in order to meet this competition. That is, of course, as it should be and I am sure nobody in the country would want to see it any other way. However, it did mean that the board had no way of equalizing rates, because the railways were forced to reduce some rates where there was competition and they did not have to reduce rates where there was no competition.
One thing that arose from that legislation, as the hon. member for Laurier pointed out, was this. I refer to page 4879 of Hansard for May 16, where the hon. member is reported as having said:
Another feature of this legislation was the one and one third rule which is contained in section 337 of the Railway Act.
Of course, that one and one third rule means that on transcontinental freight where a rate is set, the rate cannot be more than one and one third times as much to an intermediate point. That fact alone indicates that there could not be equalization of rates if an intermediate point could carry a rate as much as one and one third times that of the ultimate destination.
However, even that was taken away in subsequent legislation because apparently the former administration was not as completely satisfied with the Turgeon report as the hon. member for Laurier indicated. The former administration appointed the Turgeon commission a second time, in 1954. At that time they were dealing with the question of agreed charges on railroads. It was a rather interesting situation, because the 1950 Turgeon commission was entirely opposed to agreed
S upp ly

Transport
charges on the railroads. I shall read one statement which is contained on page 92 of the report of 1951:
The point involves a question of whether the procedure should be simplified when the power granted to the railways is such an extraordinary one. The agreed charge method of rate making, even under the present practice, is contrary to well established principles of rate making under the Railway Act. It binds the shipper by agreement to ship all or an agreed portion of his goods by the carriers with whom he makes the agreement for a long period, usually for at least a year, and it gives the shipper a rate lower than the rate in the tariffs published under the Railway Act. This extraordinary procedure should be accompanied by the publicity and safeguards now required by the Transport Act. It must be remembered that the Railway Act now gives to the railways power to meet competition by the publication of competitive tariffs with a minimum of delay. The Transport Act adds to this power and empowers the railways to enter into agreed charges where the publication of competitive tariffs or special tariffs will not secure the object of the agreed charge. Such a power should not be exercised without close supervision. The procedure should not be simplified. It is important also that shippers and carriers should have an opportunity of being heard, so that the board may be made aware of all aspects of the question.
The report goes on to make a good many more remarks in that respect. However, I now want to come to the second Turgeon royal commission. The second royal commission inquiring into transportation dealt only with the application and effects of agreed charges. It held hearings in 1954 and reported in 1955.
This royal commission was brought about by a letter which the premier of Alberta wrote to the prime minister of Canada early in 1954. The letter stated, in effect, that through the application of agreed charges, Alberta was being deprived of the benefits of the one and one third rule which had been recommended in the 1951 royal commission report and which was incorporated in the Railway Act later that year. The government of Alberta had complained at the hearings of the first Turgeon royal commission, in 194950, about anomalies in the transcontinental competitive rates from central Canada to the Pacific coast as compared with the normal rates on the same traffic from central Canada to Calgary and Edmonton. The transcontinental competitive rates to Vancouver were made to meet the competition of steamships which operated through the Panama canal or direct to the Pacific coast ports.
The second royal commission came out very strongly in favour of agreed charges on the railways. That did away with the effect of the one and one third rule, because it was ruled subsequently that agreed charges were not covered by the one and one third rule,

Supply-Transport
so that rates in Alberta can be double or three times what they are to Vancouver in some instances.
That was one piece of legislation which certainly did nothing to equalize freight rates but actually considerably enlarged the discrimination. There is another bad feature of that legislation, in my opinion. This is that it did not require the railroads to be compensated for the cost of carrying goods under agreed charges.
The Railway Act states that the rate must be compensatory to the railroad; it must compensate them for at least their out-ofpocket costs. However, under the agreed charge legislation in the Transport Act there is no such stipulation; the railroads can set any rate they wish. An agreed charge is simply an agreement between the carrier and the shipper. I suggest this is unsound legislation because, as can already be seen, under the Railway Act the railways had sufficient power to meet competition from the trucking industry because they could set a competitive rate. If they were meeting competition from the trucking industry, they were able to set any rate they wished in order to meet that competition, provided it was compensatory to the railroad.
That is the main difference between the agreed charges under the Transport Act and the competitive rates under the Railway Act. I believe the government should take a very close look at the Transport Act for that reason. I am not going to go into that matter any more fully at this time, because I have already indicated my intention to proceed with a bill to amend that act, which I have placed on the order paper of the House of Commons.
However, the amendment in the bill I have placed on the order paper does not begin to cover the whole situation; it would only alleviate one aspect of it by making an appeal possible for the trucking industry. I think this is very little to ask, when the railroad has such extraordinary powers.
I also believe that having the power to set rates which are not compensatory may have influenced the railroads to set rates which are placing them in an even more difficult financial position than they otherwise would be. Certainly the rates on the railroads should be subject to examination by a competent authority.
At the present time, as I have indicated, the board of transport commissioners has no power over agreed charges. They simply receive them, file them and they automatically come into effect. There is a very limited appeal under the present legislation from the effects of that act, and in fact the people 
who would have a right of appeal under the legislation would be very unlikely to appeal because they are the people who would benefit from the low rates.
Unless an appeal is made and it is referred to the board of transport commissioners, they have no power to examine the rates to discover whether or not the railroad is being properly compensated for the goods they are hauling. A good deal has been said during the discussion in this committee, a great deal of it of a political nature, about freight rate increases over the years. I do not think we should get into a political hassle over which government was in power when freight rates were increased in the past. I think it is to be expected that there would be freight rate increases. Costs of every other description have gone up and I do not know why we should expect that rail rates should not have increased as well. However, the discriminatory effects of the increases are another matter. In order that the record may be clear in connection with what has happened by way of freight increases I wish to quote what the royal commission has had to say about that subject. They have been discussing the question of horizontal freight increases and on page 15 of their report they state:
There have been 12 such increases, including interims, approved since 1948 which has resulted in a permitted level of increase amounting to 157 per cent. However, even abstracting the effect of statutory rates, the consequences of the competitive situation are revealed by the fact that with this permitted amount of increase in rates the railways had only been able, by the end of 1958, to obtain an increase in average revenues per ton mile of less than 55 per cent.
I think some of the statements about freight rate increases which have been put on record have been very misleading. I say they have been misleading regardless of which party was in power, because I do not believe the government has all that much control over freight rate increases. Wages and costs of every description have been rising and I believe it is only to be expected that freight costs should increase. I am sure they have gone up in other countries just as they have gone up here.
Then, again, there was another statement which the royal commission had to make on page 12 which, I think, puts the position of our freight rates into better perspective. Here again they have been talking about freight rate increases and on page 12 the commission is reported as stating:
In this connection it is of interest to note that notwithstanding its recent rapid growth the cost of the transportation function relative to the gross national product appears to have declined from about 8J per cent in 1946 to something in the order of 61 per cent in 1959.

This is not to say we have no problem in connection with freight rates in this country but I believe this quotation puts the position in better perspective.
The question has been asked by some members of the opposition why the government has not rushed to implement some of the recommendations of the MacPherson royal commission. First of all, the suggestion was made that the government had had the report for months but was doing nothing about it. Then it turned out that at the time the statement was made the report had been in the hands of the minister for less than a month. However, there is a statement contained in the report itself which I think advances convincing ground for not rushing in to implement some of the recommendations which are contained in the first volume of the report.
I drew to the attention of this house the other day that this was only the first volume of the complete report and that I thought it would be precipitate to rush in and implement the first proposals we came across. This is a statement which the commission itself makes in the preface to the report:
Volume II *will, among other things, examine these particular problems. To say that they are less vital than those dealt with in volume I would be to understate their importance. The growing intensity of these special problems-local, regional or industrial in nature-is, as we are well aware, immediately responsible for the appointment of this commission. However, we feel strongly that we are in a better position to treat them now that our analysis in volume I has given us insight into the structural nature of the transportation foundation upon which they rest.
So the royal commission itself feels that the first volume is a broad study of the whole transportation picture and that the question which led immediately to the setting up of the commission has not even been dealt with in the first report. I think any criticism of the government for not proceeding immediately to implement the recommendations of this report is completely unwarranted. The commission goes on to state that further recommendations will not be long delayed. I hope this will be the case because there are many important problems which still have to be dealt with. I am sure the present minister is well aware of the situation, as he has clearly indicated by the actions he has already taken, and that he intends to take those steps which are necessary to correct the difficulties we are experiencing in transportation at the present time.
One of the matters which the hon. member for Laurier brought to our attention concerned some of the subsidies which had been paid under the previous administration. The hon. gentleman felt that these were the results of good pieces of legislation, and no
Supply-Transport
doubt they helped to some extent to relieve inequities at the time they were passed. However, as a long term transportation policy I do not believe they were good. I have stated in the committee now that I do not believe embarking on a long term policy of subsidization is the proper course to follow. I think this is recognized by the MacPherson royal commission report, even though the commission recommends further subsidies for a limited period of time. I think one of the things which the commission itself has not fully recognized is that once subsidies are paid it is difficult to stop them, irrespective of any recommendation that they should be paid for one or two years only. This is true of the subsidy we are now paying under the Freight Rates Reduction Act. We were told at the time it was going to be for a year only, but we have had to extend that period on two occasions. I use that example by way of illustration.
I should like to quote what the royal commission had to say on page 21 of this report with regard to previous subsidies. The commission is speaking about subsidies which have been paid in the past, and it says:
Measures such as these, while they help to alleviate freight rate inequities cannot by themselves solve the underlying problems. Moreover, in the form in which they have been applied they may tend to distort the competitive market in transportation with resultant adverse effects upon the transportation system as a whole.
I think that is a clear-cut indication by the commission that even though subsidies are recommended in this instance they feel strongly that a policy of subsidization should not be entered upon as a long term policy but should be strictly curtailed and should only be sufficient to compensate the railroads for services they are obliged to carry on even though those services might not be economic.
As far as the latter subsidies are concerned, I am surprised that the commission should have recommended them. It is, of course, to be realized that the Canadian Pacific Railway is a private company. It has not lost any money, and it does not seem to me that the government should be paying a subsidy to a private company which is not even losing any money, particularly when the commission has recommended that the company be allowed to curtail some of the uneconomic services which it has been operating. The commission has recommended, with a sense of urgency, that the company should abandon these unprofitable operations but it seems to me that the payment of a subsidy in these circumstances could do nothing but destroy this sense of urgency. Obviously, if a subsidy is paid for carrying them on there will be so

Supply-Transport
much less desire on. the part of the railroads to discontinue these branch lines particularly when there are pressures throughout the country in favour of their retention.


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


Some hon. Members:: Go on.


Jacques Flynn: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the hon. member be allowed to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Ferguson Browne: I am
grateful to the committee for this opportunity to conclude my remarks. I assure hon. members I shall not be too long.
May I add that I realize there are a lot of social implications attached to the measures which have been suggested, in particular to the proposal that the railways should curtail their uneconomic passenger operations and curtail the operation of branch lines which are uneconomic. I believe this presents a serious problem and one which must be given careful study. I know that across the prairie provinces, particularly, farmers have depended for a good many years on these branch lines. Of course, they have the benefit of the Crowsnest pass rates for their grain. The result of tearing up these branch lines would be an additional cost to the shipper in transporting his grain to a rail centre. I feel we should consider whether it is costing more to keep these rail lines in operation, than perhaps it would cost to provide some other form of compensation, or would cost to provide alternative transportation facilities for the moving of grain to rail centres.
The hon. member for Assiniboia asked, a day or two ago, for assurance that the government would not advocate a policy of tearing up these branch lines on a wholesale basis. I think that assurance is unnecessary because the royal commission has not even hinted at such a procedure. The commission report has recommended that alternative transportation systems are to be made available in the case of the abandonment of a branch line, and I am sure the government will not rush into any such wholesale project.
Regarding the loss suffered by the railways in the provision of passenger service, I suggest this is a field from which the government of Canada should encourage the railways to depart as quickly as possible, particularly when alternative transportation systems are available which are comparable and sometimes even lower in cost.
When I was attending the United Nations session at New York a short time ago my wife made arrangements to return home, and found that it was cheaper for her to do so
[Mr. Browne (Vancouver-Kinsgway) .1
by air than by rail. If that situation persists generally, particularly in view of the fact that bus transportation has progressed to its present fast, efficient and inexpensive service, there certainly is no necessity for carrying ol this uneconomic railway passenger service.
Last year the railways lost approximately $65 million in providing this service, as a result of which the government is being asked to provide a subsidy to offset the loss. The money to be provided as subsidy to the railways must come out of the taxpayer's pocket and I am sure the taxpayer will not be happy to continue on this basis unless it is absolutely essential. I suggest that it is not essential to do so, in view of the other efficient and economical forms of transportation that are available.
I feel the government should consider this aspect, and the recommendations contained in the royal commission report in respect of it, at once. I do not believe our railways should be allowed to continue these uneconomic operations. I do not refer, of course, to the essential commuter services which are provided for individuals who must necessarily travel back and forth to work, but I do not believe that is an uneconomic service.
The railways have made many applications to the board of transport commissioners to discontinue some of these operations but have been refused throughout the years. However, I feel that these services will eventually have to be done away with. I suggest that if we must continue to subsidize them, it would be far better for the railways to withdraw this type of service on an orderly basis, particularly where there is another satisfactory means of transportation available. I think it would be wise to initiate an orderly program of withdrawing these uneconomic services provided by the railways in an attempt to place the railways in a position where they can support themselves without subsidies. If we do not do this, we will surely arrive at the point where we cannot subsidize them any longer, and the financial structure of the railways will collapse. I have no doubt that this will eventually happen, if we continue with our present program, ending each year with a deficit, as did the C.N.R. last year, amounting to approximately $65 million. I do not believe these services should be continued on that basis, and suggest that the government should consider all of the social implications and recommendations of this royal commission report. The government will, of course, wish to consider the contents of the two volumes of the report yet to come, before entering into any long term program such as I have suggested.

Mr. Chairman, I have drawn these facts to the attention of the minister, and the government, and I hope that consideration will be given to them at this time.
(Translation) :


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I could not let pass the estimates of the Department of Transport without rising to voice in the house the disappointment of my riding of St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville and of my neighbour riding of Chambly-Rouville-represented here by an hon. member who has already started making a fuss although he is not sitting in his own seat-and of the Richelieu-Vercheres area.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Ignoramus.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to hold his tongue while I am speaking. The term "ignoramus" applies much more to the M.L.A. for Bagot and to the hon. member himself.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Stupid.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I ask you to request the hon. member to withdraw that word since the whole committee heard it.


Jacques Flynn: I think that the word may be unparliamentary, and I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


An hon. Member:: Even though it is true?


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, I said imbecile. If the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-vnlle-Napierville feels that the word applies to him; if he wants to take it for himself, he could do so. If he thought this word was meant for him, I am sorry that I used it and I will take it back since he feels insulted.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member does not want to withdraw his word without reservations, I would ask him at least to keep quiet when I have the floor. I would also ask the hon. member for Ro-berval (Mr. Tremblay) to be kind enough to contain himself. I know that he is a bit of a show-off, but it would do him good to contain himself.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I genuinely intend to inform the Canadian government of the disappointment of the people of the whole Richelieu district who are again this year faced with the fact that the federal government for another year will not give any consideration to the well-founded petition of the chambers of commerce, the boards of 90205-6-317
Supply-Transport
trade, the municipalities, the members of parliament for the area, to the effect that a study of the Richelieu waterway be undertaken immediately.
In 1958, a delegation from our area, headed by mayor Fiset, of Sorel, met with the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the railway committee room. On that occasion, the Prime Minister promised in the presence of the then minister of transport and of many members of parliament that he would immediately look into the matter of the Richelieu waterway project. Well, Mr. Chairman, that was four years ago and yet, again this year, we notice that there is no item in the Department of Transport estimates for a study of the Richelieu seaway project.
Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I say that by refusing to give immediate consideration to that project, the minister is delaying works which, in the opinion of well-meaning people, would remedy the economic recession with which we are faced today not only in our area but throughout the province and the whole of Canada. I see that the Minister of Transport is shaking his head.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. The hon. member says that I refuse to consider the problem of the Richelieu waterway. I have never said that. I even repeated at least ten times in the house that the officials of my department were continuing to make a technical and economic study of the project.


Yvon Dupuis: So, Mr. Chairman, the minister says he did not refuse. He says his department is considering the matter; but he is giving us no assurance, as far as results are concerned, absolutely nothing. The minister not only disappointed the one who now has the floor, but the chambers of commerce which had come to Montreal in December to hear him. At that time, the minister said the waterway project was not self-sustaining. That is what the minister said in December 1960.
For many years, all the experts in this field have been claiming that the Richelieu waterway project is feasible for Canada and the United States. In recent years, the American government voted moneys so that U.S. army engineers could study the project.
The Conservative government of Canada is doing absolutely nothing, and the minister claims in this house that he is not against such a study. It may be true that he does not refuse to study the project, but it is also true that there have been no results since his

Supply-Transport
appointment, and his predecessor has done nothing at all to promote the study of the Richelieu waterway.
Mr. Chairman, as I said before, in the last four years, that is, since the delegation from Sorel came to Ottawa in 1958, members of the opposition have done their duty. Every year, the hon. member for Laurier has taken up again the matter of deepening the Richelieu. He asked the government to study this important project. Every year since 1958, the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) has repeatedly asked the minister to look immediately into the possibility of deepening the Richelieu. Never, under any circumstances, in four years have we seen our friends opposite take the slightest step in order to promote the Richelieu waterway project.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: That's not true.


Yvon Dupuis: The hon. member for Chambly-Rouville says that it is not true. But I do state that in four years he has not uttered a single word about it.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. This is precisely an example of the unfairness of the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville. Indeed I made a speech on this matter in 1959.


Lionel Chevrier: Order.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I made one this year and last year; therefore, the hon. member has no right to say that.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no question of privilege there.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: You are full of wind.


Lionel Chevrier: What did you just say? (Text):


Mr. Jones:: The Chairman is on his feet. (Translation):


Lionel Chevrier: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege. I ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to repeat what he just said.


Jacques Flynn: I must start by dealing with the first issue. I would ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to wait until the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville has finished if he wants to make certain comments.
Should the hon. member for St. Jean-Iber-ville-Napierville wish to yield the floor to let him make his remarks now, he is entitled to do so, but the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville must seek his permission.


Lionel Chevrier: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I ask the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville to repeat what he said a moment ago.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: He has no orders to take from you.


Jacques Flynn: I fail to understand how an hon. member can rise on a point of order and ask a member to repeat what he has said.
If the hon. member for Laurier is complaining of what was said by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville, that is a different story. But it would not be in order to ask him to repeat.


Lionel Chevrier: The hon. member used an expression which cannot be repeated. He should be ashamed of using such expressions in this house.


Yvon Dupuis: As you can see, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Chambly-Rouville would only keep quiet when someone is speaking he would spare us all those discussions which lead nowhere.
Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to call the member to order. I cannot continue if he keeps this up.


Mr. Tremblay:: Let us have another speaker then.


Jacques Flynn: I beg all members to keep in mind that they should not interrupt the speaker, and I would ask them to let the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville proceed with his remarks.


Yvon Dupuis: The member for Roberval said-
I would ask you, Mr. Chairman, to call the member for Roberval to order.


Jacques Flynn: I would ask the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville to be less touchy.
I do not believe he was disturbed to that extent.
If he feels that the slightest noise in this house brings him short, I think he is going a bit too far. On the other hand, knowing the hon. member, I would say that he is not too nervous and that normal interjections do not disturb him.
I pray the hon. members to let him continue.


Yvon Dupuis: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing that I am not too nervous.
For my part, I am pleased to let you know that I want to proceed with my speech and that I would like some order in this house.


Jacques Flynn: : Order, order.
(Text):


Mr. Woolliams:: Go ahead, let us hear it.
(Translation):


Yvon Dupuis: Before my hon. friend the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville interrupted me, I was saying that he had not risen in the house since 1958 with regard to the Richelieu project.
It is true that he did not raise his voice in the house. What else can I say? I just checked, before coming in, in order to be quite sure-


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. This needs quite a lot of cheek to say. If the hon. member does not read the record, it is no fault of mine. If he is too busy selling records in Quebec-


Jacques Flynn: Order. As I said, the hon. member will have the opportunity to make corrections. I shall therefore ask him to let the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville continue his remarks.


Yvon Dupuis: I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville-


Mr. Asselin:: We are anxious to hear your speech.


Yvon Dupuis: I am anxious to begin. As I said-and I repeat-the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville never rose since 1958 to deal with the Richelieu project, until last week, on a Saturday, when he probably felt the election coming and that his status of silent member might have an unfavourable effect at the polls.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, on a question of privilege. The hon. member says I am a silent member, but for the past ten minutes he has been upbraiding me because I talked.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I shall go on with my remarks.


Jacques Flynn: Order.


Yvon Dupuis: Mr. Chairman, I shall go on
with my remarks.
I would point out to Your Honour that the atmosphere in the House of Commons is losing much of its dignity since the arrival of some Union Nationale members.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Since your arrival, mainly.


Yvon Dupuis: I say it is deplorable that in the estimates of the Department of Transport there is no vote providing for a study of the Richelieu waterway project 90205-6-317J
Supply-Transport
When, following his speech in Montreal, I asked the Minister of Transport in this house to tell us on what basis he stated that the Richelieu project would not pay its way the minister just answered that such was the view of departmental experts.
We wanted to know which experts? What report did they submit?
We asked him to table the said report for the enlightenment of our people. The minister did not want to do so. He even asked me to withdraw my motion for those papers.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I wonder what makes the Minister of Transport act so mysteriously?
If the Richelieu waterway project is not economically sound, let him prove so, let him give us some figures, some facts, let him quote some engineers' reports, since he says he has such reports.
Thus we might put the discussion on a solid basis.
But the minister just says: I have some reports to the effect that.... But he takes good care not to table those reports.
Mr. Chairman, as long as the present Minister of Transport refuses to table those reports which he says he has to the effect that the Richelieu waterway project would not pay its way, we shall keep coming back to that subject.
On the other hand, the chambers of commerce will all go on asking that consideration be given to the Richelieu waterway project in order to establish clearly and positively whether the project is economically sound or not.
The Minister of Transport, on the one hand, asserts that the waterway would not be economic, while on the other hand, every engineer and town planner and expert in the field, both in Canada and the U.S., says the scheme would be economic.
Mr. Chairman, I would rather believe people like Lieutenant-Colonel Dansereau, who at the same meeting sponsored by the chamber of commerce, had this to say, and I quote:
It is about time Canada and the United States made a joint study of the Richelieu waterway scheme.
I would rather believe such people than the minister, who tells us he has unfavourable reports but refuses to table them in the house.


Léon Balcer: I have no right to table them.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Why table them?


Léon Balcer: I have no right to table them.

Supply-Transport


Yvon Dupuis: You keep repeating you have no right-I say you do have a right to quote figures and facts.
We do not even know what would be the course of the waterway, we do not know where it would be located, yet the minister says the scheme would not be economic. Well, I say to the minister that we, the members representing that area, believe, just as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville indicated last Saturday, that the scheme would be economic. We in the area believe, as the chambers of commerce and the board of trade have indicated on many occasions, that the Richelieu waterway would be economic. We also believe, as was stated many times by the New York-Vermont interstate commission, that a Richelieu-lake Champlain waterway would be quite economic both for the United States and Canada. We also believe the report of the joint Canada-U.S. joint commission, to the effect that the development of the Richelieu would be good business, but that it should not be rushed, and that we should wait and see the results of the St. Lawrence seaway.
Now, the St. Lawrence seaway scheme was started under the Liberal administration, and was officially opened by the Conservative party, in 1958.
Since 1958, according to the report of the Canada-U.S. joint commission-which incidentally is made up of reliable people- Canada should have been studying the problem of the Richelieu waterway. Since 1958, the American government has been sending the Canadian government notices, requests and demands urging the joint study of the waterway scheme. And what has been done on this side of the border? We have adopted a completely negative attitude. Yet it was those same people who, in the last elections, said they would undertake great public works so that people would not suffer from unemployment. Not only do they refuse to undertake the work, but they refuse to spend one single penny to initiate a study of the scheme.
I think the present Minister of Transport, who comes from the province of Quebec, should be ashamed for rejecting the demands of a whole area and refusing to initiate even a survey to establish whether or not the scheme would be economic. He can offer absolutely no excuse-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Demagogue.


Yvon Dupuis: Such an attitude on the part of the minister cannot be condoned.

No one expects work on the Richelieu waterway to start tomorrow morning. We are just asking that the economics of it be looked into. The minister cannot have us believe that the officers of his department, who are very busy people, can effectively look into the problem of the Richelieu waterway. The officers of his department have neither the time nor the intention to prepare a report, particularly if the present situation is maintained.
Since 1958, the American authorities have realized that the civil servants had no time to look into the problem, so they appointed a commission of experts from the U.S. army, and voted funds to conduct this survey. The Americans are now in a position to say that the waterway would be economic. In fact, the American government has figures, suggested locations and results.
On the Canadian side, however, we have lost four precious years and do not yet know where we stand. If the Diefenbaker government had been consistent when representations were made by a delegation from the Richelieu area that came to Ottawa in 1958, it would immediately have gone into action and would have appointed engineers. It would immediately have initiated a study of the Richelieu waterway scheme, and now, after four years, we would not be left with nothing. On the contrary, we would have the result of a serious and careful study, we would be four years ahead.
What have we had under a Conservative government? Four years of indifference, procrastination, and neglect, four years of nothing.
Well, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister of Transport cannot find a way to begin this study, to try to remedy the economic situation that is bad not only in the province of Quebec but elsewhere, if the government-


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Especially in the province of Quebec.


Yvon Dupuis: I remind the hon. gentleman from Roberval that, of course, it was inherited from Mr. Duplessis.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Especially in the province of Quebec, with Mr. Lesage.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: If Mr. Lesage is the heritage left by Mr. Duplessis, we will waive it.


Yvon Dupuis: Why don't you call in the children from St. Hyacinthe and complain to them.


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: I am not the one who does that; Mr. Lesage writes himself letters.


Jacques Flynn: If the hon. members have problems to settle, I suggest that they do it elsewhere.


Léonard-David Sweezey Tremblay: Go on with the comedy, its funny.


Mr. Habel:: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. It seems to me that we must maintain a certain decorum in the house and that all members are bound to do this, even those who, I would say.-I do not want to use an expression often heard in this house-are just ignorant or stupid, and that even hon. members in the class of the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Tremblay) should be forced to abide by the rules.


Jacques Flynn: The hon. member for
Cochrane (Mr. Habel) has just repeated what I said earlier-that the hon. members should not interrupt the member who has the floor. However, one cannot expect the house always to be silent, but at times the noise is more aggravating than at other times. I think the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville should now be able to go on with his speech.


An hon. Member:: He has plenty of time.


Yvon Dupuis: Then, Mr. Chairman, I continue.
All has been said on the Richelieu waterway. I do not intend to go over that subject and quote all of its history as the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville did last Saturday, following the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin).
Of course, the Richelieu waterway would shorten the distance between Montreal and New York by 1,200 miles. Naturally, this 1,200-mile short-cut would provide innumerable advantages to companies and industries. And the waterway is also desirable for the tourist industry, since it would attract numerous tourists to this country every year.
Everybody is asking for that project but the present Conservative government through its Minister of Transport, is evading the question and like an ostrich, burying its head in the sand.
Thousands of unemployed are asking for something, the economy is suffering, not only in my district but elsewhere, but the government persists not only in refusing to act, but even in refusing to undertake a study of the problem.
Mr. Chairman, we will very shortly be judging the last four years of Conservative administration; next year we will see the Conservative administration has achieved absolutely nothing in any field; and we will then be able to say that, if the Conservative government refuses to the constituencies of St.
Supply-Transport
Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Brome-Missisquoi, Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, Chambly-Rouville and Richelieu-Vercheres to undertake a study which would save them, we, of the Liberal party, who will be in office very shortly, will undertake those studies for the benefit of that region.
(Text):


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I should like to speak for a minute or two on this particular item. My main concern is, perhaps, with the Canadian National and its operations. The Canadian National operates numerous branch lines in my constituency. I am well aware of the causes for laying off men from railways such as dieselization, the centralization of car shops and repair shops, the advent of the steel wheel, roller bearings, steel box cars and so on.
The thing which concerns me particularly, and concerns my constituents, is this new regional set-up with regard to management. There are five vice presidents and each vice president is to manage his regional area. This may well result in an improvement in the management of the Canadian National. It may speed up railway operations and make the railways more competitive. However, there is a great fear among railway workers that railway operations are becoming top heavy, that we are getting fewer and fewer workingmen and more and more administrators. Then, too, costs go up to a greater extent with additional superintendents and vice presidents. In this connection, I am thinking particularly of expense accounts. Certainly, some of the vice presidents can run up large expense accounts. We have never had any figures given to us to indicate what the total of these expense accounts would be which are run up by the various managers and vice presidents of the Canadian National.
Another thing that concerns me is the lengthening of the sections and reduction in the number of section men across Canada. I can well understand that dieselization would bring about a reduction in car repair shops but why should it bring about a reduction in the number of section men and the lengthening of sections, particularly when there is no improvement to the track in those various areas? Does this procedure cause more accidents on the railway line? We are certainly all well aware of a number of accidents over the past years that have been brought about for one reason or another. Could those accidents have been prevented if the section crews had not been reduced in some areas?
Another matter about which I have been wondering is whether the increased amount of advertising has paid off. We are now spending in the C.N.R. approximately $2 million

on advertising alone. Has the deferred payment plan for passengers increased revenue derived from passengers? Hon. members may think that these questions could be well asked in the sessional committee which deals with the C.N.R. However, may I say that I have not been fortunate enough to become a member of that committee, as far as I know, and I am therefore putting these questions forward.
This afternoon I noticed that the hon. member for Vancouver East made a speech with regard to C.N.R. operations and how irritating conditions were for a passenger travelling on the C.N.R. trains. I must say that I have noticed things similar to what he mentioned. I note that these things were brought to Mr. Gordon's attention in the report of 1959 by the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose. He dealt with them at length at page 81 of the minutes and proceedings and evidence of the committee. He told Mr. Gordon that he should have somebody make some inquiry into these conditions with regard to passenger service on the trains, and mentioned instances of persons having boarded and found the coaches practically empty in some cases but yet it was difficult to get a reservation on a particular line. Mr. Gordon as much as told him at that time that these conditions did not exist and that, if they did exist, he did not know about it; and he as much as said that he was not going to do very much about it if they did exist.
The hon. member for Vancouver East went on to speak about the sham battles that take place, and are becoming more and more evident day by day, between the railways buying up trucking firms and so on. The hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, as will be found in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the 1960 committee, made a motion to the effect that these figures be given and that no money be appropriated for the C.N.R. in order to further these expenditures for trucking interests. This can be found at page 221 of the proceedings of the sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping. But what did the hon. member for Port Arthur say at that particular time? I am reading from the third paragraph on page 221. He said:
I would like, if I may, to speak against Mr. Browne's motion.
Then he goes on to state some of his reasons. However, the point I wish to raise here is this. Two days ago the hon. member for Port Arthur got down on his knees, figuratively speaking, and pleaded with the members of the House of Commons that they help him in the sessional committee this year to get facts

Supply-Transport
and figures on the operations of the Canadian National Railways. Here was a specific motion made by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway with regard to facts and figures on the operations of the C.N.R. What did the hon. member for Port Arthur do? He rose and spoke against the motion. Yet he has the gall to rise in his place here in the house and plead with us to help him to get facts and figures. It was purely a publicity speech for his own purposes designed to enhance his personal prestige in his own constituency. He made no real attempt in the committee at various times to promote the ideas in which he professes interest.
Hon. members know that this is not the only time this situation has arisen. Going back to the committee of 1959, I find that a similar situation arose when the hon. member for Victoria, B.C., wanted information with regard to the Victoria harbour and the docks there. He suggested that this information be given to the committee as found at page 197 of the 1959 report. Various members spoke for and against the motion. I looked for the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur in order to find whether he had said anything about the motion. Here is more evidence as to whether or not he wanted facts and figures at that particular time. I went from page 197 to page 208 and as found at page 208 the hon. member for Port Arthur said, "I do not like that motion". Then as found at page 209 he went on to speak with regard to another subject. Here again is evidence of the sincerity of his approach in pleading with the members of the House of Commons to support him allegedly the lone person asking for facts and figures in regard to the operations of the C.N.R.
Another instance arose. The hon. member for Vancouver South will likely remember it better than I do. It was with regard to R.C.A. Victor and their transmitting facilities on the C.N.R. I have not had the time to look up the exact quotation with regard to the hon. member for Port Arthur. At that time he did not support the hon. member for Vancouver South in the motion with regard to facts and figures on that particular aspect of the operations of the C.N.R. Yet he pleads with members of this House of Commons to support him in getting the facts and figures on the operations of the railway.
I have read through the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Arthur in the last two years with regard to the operations of the C.N.R. He has been greatly concerned with the personnel and I agree with a great many things he has said with regard to the operation of the C.N.R. in the matter of hiring of personnel and lay-offs. I know how this matter concerns men working on the

railway. However, I fail to find in the last two years any instance where the hon. member for Port Arthur had asked for facts and figures. Here was the closest instance I could find. It is found at page 94 of the 1959 committee report. He said this:
I am not asking for them, but I wonder if you have figures which would indicate the number of revenue passengers you need, say between Montreal and Vancouver to make the Super a paying proposition?
Then Mr. Gordon said this:
I do not have them with me. They could be secured.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not want them.
This sort of thing occurred time and again. He made no real inquiry into the facts and figures with regard to the operation of the C.N.R. He was concerned about the personnel. In this matter I agree with him and I share his concern as to the reduction of employees of the C.N.R. I have a number of C.N.R. employees in my constituency. I find that they are more concerned about their jobs on the railway than they are about anything else. They are more concerned about their jobs than they are perhaps even about pay increases. I think that the committee inquiring into the C.N.R. this year, when it begins to function, should concern itself more with the actual prospects of the C.N.R. and their operations, whether or not these operations are a paying proposition, and that it should obtain facts and figures as to whether or not it was profitable for C.N.R. to sell certain various hotels or to lease other hotels, and that it should get down to the actual operations of the railway and tie that information in with the men that are employed on the C.N.R.
But when we consider the new party's approach to the C.N.R. and its whole operation, they suggest, "Take over the C.P.R. too". I do not know how this would improve or enhance the railway workers' jobs. I do not know how it would bring greater stability among railway workers, and I think this is their primary concern today.
To my mind it would bring about a greater amalgamation of the two railways and the firing of a greater number of employees, because in certain passenger lines, particularly transcontinental lines, one might be dropped and the other continued. This would have the effect of reducing the number of men employed by the C.N.R.
Not very long ago the hon. member for Port Arthur suggested to this house that Donald Gordon should be fired. He put it as plainly as that and said it three or four times. I am not going to lead the committee into thinking that I disagree with him on this particular point, because I do not. I
Supply-Transport
have studied the hon. member's remarks, and without doubt he has a great deal of information and knowledge in regard to the operations of the C.N.R., but I think he has been a secret admirer of Donald Gordon for a number of years.
I should like to refer to the famous Donald Gordon statement which is to be found in the 1959 committee report. I am sure most hon. members have heard it by now and are well aware of it. I refer to Donald Gordon's remarks when it was suggested he should be fired:
-the management of the C.N.R. an efficient management, or otherwise: and if you come to the conclusion it is not, for God's sake tell us and fire the lot of us.
When he suggested this, the hon. member for Port Arthur did not immediately say, "Yes, we should fire you" or anything of the kind. He was rather silent. He made one short remark after that, "That is up to the House of Commons to decide", or something like that. But at no time, to my knowledge, in the three cases I have cited, has the hon. member ever gone against the wishes of Mr. Gordon in supporting the motions that were moved with regard to the trucking industry, the harbour at Victoria or the transmitting services of R.C.A. Victor.
Therefore I question this idea of his to fire Donald Gordon. I think it is one he gathered just recently when he was back home among the railway men and they told him that Donald Gordon was pretty unpopular. I think he grasped the idea and perhaps said, "I will see that he is fired", or, "I will try to have him fired; I will suggest it to the House of Commons". It would be a mighty popular suggestion to his people back home, and this is no doubt why he said it.


An hon. Member:: It was just politics.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to deal with the recommendations made in the royal commission's report at this time. They have been talked about enough. I will not refer to them now, particularly as the first volume is the only one that is out as yet. But as for this idea of the C.P.R. being taken over by the government, I cannot see how this would improve the government's or the workers' position. It may cut down transportation costs by a small amount, or a great amount; I do not know. Apparently none of the royal commissions which have studied transportation costs have been able to figure out what they are. Nobody has been able to arrive at a concrete answer as to a great many of the cost problems in railroading. Therefore I think it would be hard to prove that by taking over the C.P.R. we would actually be cutting down

Supply-Transport
transportation or freight costs by a great amount. But we would certainly be weakening the position of the men now working on the railroads. We would bring about chaos within their ranks with regard to holding a job and seeking employment in general.
My own view is that the C.N.R. is much like the operation of a hockey team or a ball team. The morale is mighty low. I am sure all hon. members have travelled on the C.N.R. and have found that the morale of the people working on the C.N.R. is low. I know that whenever a team's morale is low they are not going to win very many games. There is one thing that always enhances the morale of a team, and we see this done often in football and baseball. They are always firing coaches to improve the morale and get the winning spirit back in the team.
I think this applies to the C.N.R. We must fire the coach to improve the morale of the team. This would bring about a greater improvement in the deficit figure and in the revenue of the C.N.R. than anything I can think of right now. Firing the coach would bring about a greater improvement because the morale would immediately be boosted and the workmen's efficiency might improve. To some extent I agree with the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose and the hon. member for Vancouver East, that there is room for improvement in the efficiency of operations in the C.N.R. and the total efficiency of the workers. As I have mentioned, the morale is low, and I think by firing the coach the morale would immediately pick up.
I also have one more thought that I might just as well leave with the committee. It is with regard to the coach's salary. We are now splitting up the administration of the C.N.R. into five regions, as I understand it. Five vice presidents are going to have managerial control over their particular regions. They are going to have control as to setting the rates in each region and as to getting out and seeking freight to haul in those regions.
Therefore those vice presidents are going to carry a greater load of the responsibility in the operations of the C.N.R. To my reasoning this will automatically reduce the work and the responsibility of the president of the C.N.R. Therefore I think-and I recommend this to the committee-that the salary should be cut in half and that a new coach should be hired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to ask the hon. member a question. I did not catch the start of some of the things he was crediting me with, but did he say that I did not support the motion of the hon. member for Victoria, B.C. two years ago in committee when the hon. member requested information?

I am almost positive that motion went to a vote and the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond, and perhaps one other hon. member and myself, were the only ones who supported the motion of the hon. member for Victoria.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I do not want to state something that is not correct. I am very sorry if the hon. member did support it. I was basing my remarks strictly on the record.
The hon. member for Victoria raised the subject, as reported at page 197 of the committee report. I looked for the name of the hon. member for Port Arthur and I failed to see it. I am just taking a rough check to see if I overlooked the. hon. member's name. It does not appear until page 208, at the bottom of the page. I will send the report over to the hon. member for Port Arthur if he wishes. He is reported there as saying, "I do not like that motion". I do not know how he voted; it is not in the report.


The Acting Chairman (Mr. McGee):: The
hon. member for Kettle Valley West.


Mr. Herridge:: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman; it is Kootenay West. Apparently you, sir, have the idea that I am going to speak on a favourite topic.
After the torrent of words uttered by the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napier-ville my effort this evening will appear like a slow-flowing, babbling brook. After listening to the hon. member for Acadia, with his lion-like form of eloquence, I shall appear like a lisping infant.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to briefly mention one matter that is of some concern to myself and a number of other persons who are interested in the prevention of pollution of our lakes, springs, rivers and waters generally. I rise because I have a particular and personal knowledge of the pollution of some of our smaller streams and lakes in British Columbia, as the result of mining companies being permitted to dump tailings into them. This has in a very short time destroyed fish life, spoiled the water for drinking purposes and so lessened the value of the area that persons no longer wish to boat on these streams and lakes. Crystal-like sheets of water have been changed into turgid, and in many cases, slimy sheets of water. So far the pollution has been on a limited scale, and in recent years the government of British Columbia has taken action to prevent the continuation of this vandalism by making it obligatory for mining companies to install settling ponds; they are no longer allowed to dump their tailings except in special circumstances in very deep water.

I was interested in a proclamation announced in the January 25 edition of the Canada Gazette Part II, volume 95 under the heading "Navigable Waters Protection Act-Proclaiming Water Lot in Labrador Exempt from Section 20 of the Act." I shall read just a section of this proclamation which gives me great concern.
Whereas in and by section 22 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, chapter 193 of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, it is provided that our governor in council may, from time to time, by proclamation, declare any navigable rivers, streams or waters or part or parts thereof, exempted, in whole or in part, from the operation of those sections of the said act which prohibit the deposit of rubbish or other material in navigable waters,
And whereas an application has been made by the Labrador Mining and Exploration Company Limited for exemption from the operation of section 20 of the said act of a water lot being all and singular that piece of land covered by the waters of Wabush lake in the electoral district of Labrador North described as follows-
I am not going to read out the description of this land. The proclamation continues:
And whereas it is expedient and our governor in council has advised that a proclamation do issue declaring that the area described above be exempt from the operation of section 20 of the said act.
Now know ye that we, by and with the advice of our privy council for Canada, do by this our proclamation declare the area described above exempt from the operation of section 20 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act as aforesaid.
I raise the matter on these estimates because I understand there is a dual responsibility with respect to the administration of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, shared by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transport. It may be that special circumstances do justify this exemption under section 22 of the act, but I am raising this matter because I think all Canadians and especially members of this committee should be completely aware of what may lie ahead if our waters are allowed to be further polluted.
I wish to ask the minister a series of questions. Where is Wabush lake which is mentioned in this announcement? What is its size? Was the Department of Fisheries consulted before exemption was given under section 22 of the act and this company was given permission to pollute this water by dumping its mining tailings into the lake? Would the minister mind telling the committee the character of the residue in the mining tailings, whether they are of an acid type or not? Will this pollution of the water in accordance with the permission given destroy the fish in this lake, and will it destroy the possibility of the development of this lake for recreational purposes? Is it sufficiently close to ordinary transportation 90205-6-318
Supply-Transport
facilities to be developed in the near years ahead for recreational purposes? I should like the minister to explain the reason why this exemption was given, because I think this is a matter of importance, particularly in view of the increasing interest of Canadians in the pollution problem with respect to our waters and the growing demand for the protection of the fresh water we have left in this country.


Mr. Mailhews:: Along with other members I should like first of all to congratulate the Minister of Transport on the fine work he has been doing. I do not know whether or not he is tired of hearing this, but his department and the hon. gentleman himself have been very co-operative and have helped me in a great many ways, so I am pleased to have this opportunity of thanking them.
The Department of Transport is one of the most important departments of our government, and presents perhaps the greatest challenge of our times to the people of Canada. Air transport in the world today is ever changing and Canada is just on the doorstep of the great things to come in this new age, the age of jet transportation.
Heavy jet aircraft introduced during 195960 have stepped up the pace of aviation and the jet aircraft to come will be larger and heavier than ever in the near future. The large aircraft manufacturers are spending millions of dollars on research; their designers are working on their drawing boards; their engineers are building models and testing them in their wind tunnels, and it is very necessary that countries that want to be part of the great future in air travel keep abreast of these advancements.
Until a few years ago, an air crash did not take nearly the toll of human life that it does with the new jets of today carrying over 100 passengers, and the jets to come will carry many more than today's air liners. The Department of Transport have their part to play in the matter of safe air travel and it does not stop with the inspection of aircraft. It should be the duty of the Department of Transport to build and maintain our airports and runways. These runways must be properly built for the new age, they must be wider, longer and more strongly constructed.
The terminal airports of our trans-continental and trans-ocean air lines which will use these future giant jets should be reserved exclusively for the use of these large aircraft. Feeder line aircraft should use another runway. The large jets should be able to make a direct approach, not a circuitous approach, as some of the air disasters have been caused by fast aircraft making a circuit while they have waited for a clearance from the control tower.

Supply-Transport
In the future, all aircraft other than transcontinental should have their own runway adjacent to the trans-world, or jet runway, and it is my thought that the Department of Transport should plan along these lines and start at once with their planning.
This age is indeed a challenge to Canada, but Canadians have met many challenges since the days of confederation and will meet many more. In the history of aviation, Canada and Canadians have been second to none. When we think back to the days of world war I, and the record that Canada achieved both in the building of aircraft and the training of airmen; when we remember the great Canadian bush pilots and the building of civilian air lines, we know that Canadians will always be in the van in the future development of our air transportation.
Mr. Chairman, in the early days I flew aircraft in Canada when there were no airports. We used fairgrounds. In those days there were no landing lights, and there were no rules or laws to be broken. We flew at night without running lights, and without landing lights. It is interesting for me to think back on those early days of flying. I remember that at one time in the city of Victoria we were trying to get permission to use a fairground for flying. One of the aider-men got up and said he was very much opposed to granting permission to any of what he called these infernal contraptions flying around. The aeroplane, in his opinion, was certainly not here to stay, and he was very much opposed to granting permission. However, there happened to be two or three younger men on the city council and finally they gave us permission to go ahead and put in an air field. It must be remembered we had no landing lights and no running lights; we had no radio to guide us, and once we were in the air we were on our own. We could fly at any time in those days. There were no regulations laid down by the Department of Transport covering this type of flying as there are now. We were all freelance flyers then and could fly at night if we were foolish enough to do so.
I remember in 1923 I was commissioned to fly a flying boat to Seattle to meet the President Jefferson liner from the Orient, to pick up pictures of the Japanese earthquake, and fly them to the Illustrated News of Los Angeles. I did not get very far. I had two passengers with me when I left the harbour some time after midnight, but unfortunately when we got airborne we developed motor trouble and had to land again. I always felt it was a log that we hit when landing, but it could have been anything. We turned over

two or three times and ended up neck deep in water, and stayed that way until assistance arrived.
I have recounted this story to give hon. members an idea of the very fine and necessary work the Department of Transport has done in this field since the early days. With today's existing regulations we cannot get into that kind of trouble. I should perhaps also mention that we did not have to get clearance from Seattle, Washington, nor clearance when we arrived in Victoria, British Columbia. When we did finally pull the plane up, officials from the department of immigration arrived as well as officials from the customs branch, and it is very interesting to remember that those officials did not know how we should be entered in their reports, or what classification applied. Today all these details have been taken care of through the application of the many regulations and rules. I would suggest the implementation of these regulations by the Department of Transport had a good deal to do with the development of air transportation.
In those early days of barnstorming, pilots had to sell the idea of flying to their potential passengers. I am sure this spirit of competition had a lot to do with the building up and developing of present day air line services. I suggest that feeling of competition is still valuable and will be of value in the future to the improvement of air transportation facilities. I can well remember the airports of the early days. They were nothing compared to airport facilities of today. In those days, if a flying service had five or six planes lined up in a row, that service secured the major portion of the air traffic. Individuals would perhaps make ten week-end visits to the airfield and talk to three or four different pilots before finally being convinced that they should go for a ride. The pilot who had the best sales pitch was the one who acquired the business. A ten minute trip in those days cost $15. There was no jealousy between the pilots and the operators of the flying services because they felt the pilot who secured business in this field was doing his duty to convince people that this was a safe and good way to travel, and this type of salesmanship was responsible for the development of a great deal of interest in flying.
I believe our air lines are today on the doorstep of a tremendous advance in the transportation system, and I feel we should have two major air lines in Canada because with the proper development of this business one air line eventually will not be able to handle the traffic. I understand that Trans-Canada Air Lines are now accepting first

class transportation only. I feel that the Canadian Pacific Air Lines under the able leadership of Grant McConachie, who is one of our pioneer flyers who did a tremendous job for Canada in creating interest in this field of transportation, should be licensed to operate flights to London. If this air line used propeller type aircraft, such as the Britannia, many people would be able to afford to fly to London and return who are not at present day prices able to do so. I feel this would be a step forward in the development of the Canadian air transportation industry.
There are many people today who do not even consider making such an air trip because they feel the cost, in addition to the expenses of living ten days in a city such as London-visiting all the places and seeing all the things they should see there-is more than they are able to afford. However, with the provision of a cheaper service, such as I have suggested, I feel there would be an increase in air traffic. I would suggest that without this service provided by Canadian air lines, this potential increase in air passengers will be taken by foreign air lines. I am sure that Canadian Pacific Air Lines, which has always been a pioneer in this field, would do a marvellous job in this respect. When one considers the potential development which could take place in this direction and the benefits our air line services could derive in this regard one must come to the conclusion that this is a worth-while step to be taken.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to make it very clear that I believe Canadian Pacific Air Lines should be given the privilege of operating flights to and from London. I firmly believe there should be two large Canadian air lines operating with equal rights and licences both in Canada and international areas. I believe that competition in this field is necessary to the development of Canada's air transportation system so that it will continue to be considered among the best in the world.
I should offer as a further reason for the expansion of our air transportation system particularly in Canada, the necessity of having completely Canadian controlled air transportation facilities in the event of another war. I am not suggesting that war is an in-evitibility, but I do suggest that during these days of continuous threat from foreign powers, we must build up our transportation system by increasing our facilities, and training more and more pilots. With two major Canadian air lines, many of these developments would take place normally.
Turning now to the situation regarding the Nanaimo airport-and I have drawn this to 90205-6-318J
Supply-Transport
the minister's attention on other occasions- it is essential that the landing strips be lengthened. There is plenty of land available to the Department of Transport to do this. With the advent of jet cargo planes, both for defence and commercial use, it is very necessary that this work be commenced as soon as possible. The coast route to Alaska could be serviced from the Nanaimo airport. The Pacific route to the Orient could also be served from the Nanaimo airport, and transcontinental runs could originate from that same airport. In view of the fact that Nanaimo has become a regional defence centre I suggest that it is very important that our air terminal facilities be improved. Nanaimo is centrally located on Vancouver island and must have the central emergency air service to take care of any necessary evacuation and emergency flying, as well as mercy and rescue flights.
To ensure the provision of these services I suggest that the Nanaimo airport runway must be lengthened by 1,850 feet and rebuilt to sufficient strength to receive aircraft of a gross weight of 200,000 pounds. Taxiways must be lengthened and strengthened, and a ramp area would have to be constructed in such a manner as to accommodate aircraft of the size of the DC-8, the Boeing 707 or the Vanguard and Britannia. Airport lighting will also require major improvement, and a passenger terminal would have to be built with facilities to accommodate more than 100 persons, but not more than 200 persons. The purchase of fire fighting equipment and airport maintenance equipment would be very expensive. However, such equipment is mandatory for the type of airport envisaged.
I also suggest that negotiations with field suppliers prior to the construction of the ramp area is essential in order to ensure that adequate fuelling facilities are available. Basic radio facilities and navigation facilities would have to be installed-such as I.L.S. and V.O.R. This would also be very expensive. Additional communications and staff facilities would be required in order to provide proper meteorological services and air to ground communications.
An alternate airport for international air services must contain such facilities as accommodation for customs, immigration and health. Nanaimo has less fog than other west coast cities. Airplanes cannot fly into Vancouver at certain times of the year and have to go up to Ashcroft but at Nanaimo we have less fog than Victoria and less than they have at the R.C.A.F. airport at Comox. All of these things should be taken into consideration because today an accident is a terrible thing. You have a loaded jet with over 100

Supply-Transport
people. Someone has to answer for the accidents when they happen. An examination is made to find out who is to blame. In this day and age there is no reason why there should be poor airports on the trans-continental runs.
I urge the Minister of Transport to give this matter serious thought as there is no doubt in my mind that some day the western terminal of trans-continental airlines will be in Vancouver. I made a statement which appeared in the Daily Colonist, back in 1923 that in the near future there would be an air service between Victoria, Seattle and Vancouver. Many who read that statement in the Colonist did not believe it, but, as we know, it has been a fact for some years now. I repeat, I believe that Vancouver island will be the western terminal of Trans-World Air Lines in the future.
I am sure the minister will give these suggestions proper consideration because he is very anxious to do and is doing a very fine job for aviation in Canada and in respect of the many other fields which come under his department. I know he will do what is right. I would certainly like to have the minister out in Nanaimo with me. I could show him just what I have in mind there. I am sure he would agree with me it has more possibilities than any other place on the coast.


Mr. Soulham:: Mr. Chairman, on rising to speak on the first item of the estimates of the Minister of Transport I should like to avail myself of this opportunity, on behalf of myself and my constituents and in collaboration with my colleagues, to express my congratulations to the minister in his new portfolio. I have found that I receive very good co-operation from the minister on problems that affect my riding. I feel, judging by the compliments I heard coming from my colleagues, that he will have a long and successful tenure of office in this portfolio.
The subject that brings me to my feet tonight is something that is very serious and affects a great number of my constituents in the northeast area of the constituency of Moose Mountain. I refer to the people who live along and adjacent to the Reston and Wolseley line of the C.P.R. To give the committee a few statistics on it, the construction of the line was commenced in the year 1905. and completed in 1908. The construction was started at Reston and reached Wolseley three years later. The distance was 122.18 miles of rail and 5.68 miles of side track on the division. It paralleled the C.N.R. line for approximately 100 miles, and crossed the line at Maryfield. In 1958, 1,156 carloads of freight originated along the line and 310 carloads were brought into the stations on the line.

Revenue earned in 1958 amounted to $326,757. The southern portion of the line is 85 pound steel and the remainder 56 pound steel. The 85 pound steel was laid only a short time ago.
The problem is this, Mr. Chairman. On December 2, 1959, the C.P.R. made application to the board of transport commissioners to abandon this whole section of line. As I said a moment ago, you can imagine the concern and worry of the people living adjacent to that line when word came through. Immediately upon application by the Canadian Pacific to the board of transport commissioners to abandon that line a meeting was called of the people affected, and the then minister of northern affairs and national resources, now the Minister of Agriculture, and I attended the meeting. A retention committee was set up, chaired by Mr. A. G. Knee-shaw-Mr. Sundstrom was secretary and Mr. Bildfell was treasurer-with members from every municipal administration along the area. They developed a very good brief or representation to make to the board of transport commissioners in their application to oppose the abandonment application. I should like to give the committee a few figures because I think those gentlemen are to be congratulated on the very good job they did in developing this brief. I give this information because I think this problem is pertinent to a lot of other places in western Canada and is of particular interest at this time when we hear recommendations from the Mac-Pherson royal commission on the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National suggesting the necessity of cutting down services on these lines.
The population living along this line is considerable. I should like to give the committee a list of the names of the towns affected. They are as follows: Ewart, Ebor, Maryfield, Fair-light, Walpole, Wawota, Dumas, Kennedy, Bender, Neelby, Windthorst, Baring, Deveron and Adair. Chief among these 14 towns or villages are the towns of Maryfield, Fair-light, Wawota, Kennedy and Windthorst.
In these particular villages and towns are 23 elevators. I mention elevators because years ago in the west when this line was put through it was with the chief idea of transporting livestock and grain which were produced in those rural areas. As a result, the construction of these numerous elevators has been a very important part of the economy of those particular towns. I should like to say to the committee that it is still very important. I was interested in some of the figures compiled by the retention committee. It seems that in the nine year period from 1931 to 1940, the average production of grain at that time was 814,100 bushels. In the 11 year period from 1949 to 1959 the average was

2,280,000 bushels, almost three times as much. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that it is very important to the people living along that line that this fact be considered because we still think there is no other medium besides railways to move efficiently and effectively bulk products such as grain. We do have a road system out there. It is not as modern as some of the roads in the more populated areas. They are gravel roads which are used for the trucking of a certain amount of livestock, but the basic commodity is still grain and it is the basic concern of the people in the area.
Let me give a brief run-down of the population and some of the cost figures. I should like to include some of the figures of the population of the villages and hamlets affected. They are: adults, 617; children, 412; total, 1,029. The population on farms is as follows: adults, 1,326; children, 1,153; total, 2,479, or a grand total of 3,508, who are directly affected, both socially and economically, by the application to remove this line.
I do not think, Mr. Chairman, there would be too much objection to the over-all principle of a cut-back in service on the railroad, but when the application was for the total abandonment of it you can imagine how serious it would be to this portion of the population.
Let me give a resume of the household property. These figures were arrived at by the retention committee through sending out a questionnaire to every householder affected by the railway abandonment. The questionnaire was quite lengthy and interesting. They got a very comprehensive and informative set of figures. The total value of householder property affected is $1,569,470. The amount spent in construction and remodelling since 1940 totals $813,380. The estimated loss if this line were abandoned is $784,645.
In so far as business properties are concerned, I might say that the value of land for privately owned and public buildings including halls, rinks, churches, schools, etc., is $73,066; value of buildings, $1,145,950; value of equipment and stock, $790,868. The total value amounts to $2,009,884. The estimated cost of rehabilitation should this line be abandoned is $411,400.
I have been dealing with the urban area, and I should like now to deal with the rural area. The number of farm units affected is 662. The number of acres of farm land in the affected area amounts to 420,630; the number of acres cultivated, 242,027. There are 480 owners, 120 owners and tenants and 62 tenants in this area. The estimated value of farm land is $8,956,985. The improvements since 1940 amount to $2,252,650. The value
Supply-Transport
of machinery purchased since 1940 is $6,388,994. The total value of all buildings and machinery on farms amounts to $8,641,644.
The area affected is a prosperous mixed farming community. This committee secured figures to indicate the total amount of livestock on this particular land. The livestock total is made up as follows: cattle, 21,124; sheep and swine, 3,341; chickens, 27,390, with a total value of $2,942,340. The total elevator capacity of towns on the line is 1,052,000 bushels. The amount of grain storage required is estimated at 953,500 bushels. The estimated cost of providing this storage is $358,150.
The committee also gathered some statistics concerning what it would cost the municipalities to provide roads in order to assist the farmers in moving their grain by truck should the line be abandoned. The estimated mileage of the new roads necessary is 144 miles. The estimated cost per mile is $3,860. The estimated cost of bridges is $27,900. The estimated loss to buildings and property would be $84,500, for a total of $116,260. The estimated yearly cost of extra road maintenance is $19,442.50 and the estimated yearly loss of taxes, $10,991.04. The total of these two items is $30,433.54.
In so far as the villages affected are concerned, the number of persons who would be put out of work is 33. Since these 33 people are the heads of families, the total number of people involved would be 126. The yearly loss of taxes on railway property would amount to $2,832.99; the yearly loss of taxes on elevator property, $6,749.02; the yearly loss of taxes on other businesses, $2,996.37. The total of these items is $12,578.38 The total estimated loss to municipalities and villages, therefore, would be $159,271.92.
These figures roughly represent urban and rural property, businesses, livestock, machinery and so on with a total value of about $25 million. Then, of course, there would be the social and economic effects on the lives of about 3,500 people. Following these representations to the board of transport commissioners a hearing was held by the board at Moosomin on June 20 of last year and an order was issued by the board on December 12, 1960. This order reads as follows:
In the matter of the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, under section 168 of the Railway Act, for an order authorizing the abandonment of its operation between Reston, in the province of Manitoba, and Wolseley, in the province of Saskatchewan, being all of the Reston-Wolseley subdivision, a distance of 122.18 miles:
H. H. Griffin, assistant chief commissioner; J. M. Woodard, commissioner; W. R. Irwin, commissioner; .. .

Supply-Transport
It is hereby ordered as follows:
1.	The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is authorized to abandon operation of its Reston-Wolseley subdivision between Reston, in the province of Manitoba, and Wolseley, in the province of Saskatchewan, a distance of 122.18 miles.
2.	The said abandonment shall not take place earlier than the first day of August, 1961, on not less than ninety days' prior notice forwarded to the municipalities, towns, villages, elevator companies and elevator associations located along the line to be abandoned; a copy of the said notice shall also be filed with the board.
This decision, Mr. Chairman, caused a great deal of surprise and alarm among the people of the area because they felt that the strong representations they made and the statistics they presented concerning the effect of the abandonment on their economy, would have caused the board of transport commissioners to find in favour of their petition. As a result of this finding, the committee had recourse to two alternatives. The first was to apply to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of legal technicality, if there were any, existing in the order. Of course, the members of this transport board are qualified gentlemen and there were not any such loopholes in the authorization. The other alternative the committee had was to apply to the governor in council under section 53 of the Railway Act which reads as follows:
The governor in council may at any time, in his discretion, either upon petition of any party, person or company interested, or of his own motion, and without any petition or application, vary or rescind any order, decision, rule or regulation of the board, whether such order or decision is made inter partes or otherwise, and whether such regulation is general or limited in its scope and application; and any order that the governor in council may make with respect thereto is binding upon the board and upon all parties.
I might say that the railway retention committee has taken advantage of the provisions of section 53 of the Railway Act and has made representations to the governor in council to have this order rescinded. I should like to suggest through you, Mr. Chairman, to our good minister that he give every consideration to this application to have the order rescinded. I feel that this should be done on the basis of the following grounds, and I shall mention at least three important factors.
First, I feel that the decision was premature and the board should have awaited the report of the MacPherson royal commission. In the second place, when one compares the evidence and facts presented in connection with this application for the abandonment of the Reston-Wolseley line with several other applications for abandonment made at approximately the same time, one finds glaring inconsistencies in the order authorizing the abandonment of the line. I

feel that this is something that should be looked into. The third point concerns some compromise arrangement. Not too far distant from the Reston-Wolseley line is another line operated by the Canadian National which I mentioned earlier crosses at Mary-field, and I feel that rather than cut out all the services on either one of these lines a compromise arrangement might have been made whereby these two lines would have been merged into a circuit; then the railways might operate one train a week to remove the grain from along the route and the freight from the towns in the affected area.
There is one other point that should be mentioned, namely the economic factors involved in connection with these rural villages and towns if there were a complete abandonment of the line. We all realize that the railroads developed the west and made it known as the breadbasket of the world in the last 50 years.
I might suggest that this is one of the better farming areas in that part of Saskatchewan. It is interesting to note that it has one of the highest concentrations of population in that part of the farming area. It is also interesting to note that it has one of the highest livestock populations per capita of any place in Saskatchewan. In addition, the area is noted for some of the highest quality livestock. This fact was most forcibly brought to my attention a year ago last fall when I was attending the royal winter fair in Toronto. I made inquiries from some of the people in charge of the livestock exhibits there. They told me that 101 head of cattle had been selected from Saskatchewan for exhibition at the royal winter fair. I was greatly interested and proud to note that, out of the 101 head of livestock being exhibited at Toronto, 36 head came from the riding of Moose Mountain. This information indicates the calibre of the livestock raised there and of the people engaged in producing these high quality products.
I feel that the mechants and business people in these towns, particularly the major ones I mentioned, would suffer great hardships both economically and socially, if the line were completely removed and they were forced to sacrifice their businesses, because that is what it would mean. It is extremely hard to remove a business lock, stock and barrel and to find an economic opening somewhere else, as in some neighbouring town. The result is that these people would never be able to overcome the economic loss they would suffer through abandonment of that line.
As I mentioned earlier, the elevator companies affected would also be serious losers

in any move like this. I should like to mention in passing that there are seven different grain companies situated on this line. These are the Manitoba pool, Searle Grain Company, Saskatchewan wheat pool, Parrish and Heim-becker, National Grain Company, Lake of the Woods Company and N. M. Patterson Company. The other 16 elevators out of the 23 elevators I mentioned are made up of the wheat pools, either the Manitoba pool or the Saskatchewan pool, and I think one other town has a National Grain Company elevator.
I think one of the salient features is the fact that, in the handling of agricultural products in the west, grain elevators perform one of the basic functions. Most people from the west will appreciate what I am referring to now. If the line were abandoned completely, it would mean having these elevators demolished at some cost and possibly having them reassembled at other points at a loss or possibly it would mean a complete loss. In addition, abandonment of the line would make it necessary for people living in the rural areas to transport grain over greater distances, as I have pointed out, at greater cost to municipalities trying to provide roads and so on.
On the basis of the foregoing information I most emphatically protest the proposed abandonment of the Reston-Wolseley subdivision of the Canadian Pacific Railway and would ask the minister to give this matter, when it comes to his attention before the governor in council, his very earnest and serious consideration.
(Translation):


Paul Léo Maurice Johnson: Mr. Chairman, at the very outset of my remarks I should like to draw the attention of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Balcer) to a problem concerning more particularly the municipality of St. Hubert in my constituency of Chambly-Rouville.
My suspicion that a problem will come up in a year or two arises from an article which I read in the Montreal Gazette of April 19 last, concerning the establishment of a NORAD control centre at St. Hubert airport. No doubt you will allow me to read into the record part of this article in order to point to the nature of the problem and explain it, and above all to indicate the solution which I intend to suggest to the Department of Transport in order to settle it. Here is the article of the Canadian Press which apparently originated in Ottawa:
(Text):
The headquarters of the largest and possibly most vital of the regions through which North American Air Defence Command exercises operational control over combat forces will go underground next year, informed sources said yesterday.
Supply-Transport
The headquarters will be moved from the R.C.A.F. base at St. Hubert, to an underground combat centre at Trout lake near North Bay.
The move is merely awaiting completion of the centre which will house the SAGE-semi-automatic ground environment-electronic system which will control the operations of both manned and unmanned interceptors.
(Translation):
This is not confirmed news, but merely a rumour circulating in military circles and more particularly at army headquarters.
In that case, it seems to me that St. Hubert airport would become a less important military airport and that the number of civilians now working there would probably decrease.
Mr. Chairman, if it is true that such a decision is to be taken by the Department of National Defence, I shall accept the sound reasons advanced for it since this is an important defence problem.
If such a decision were to be arrived at, the government would have the responsibility of using that airport for civilian purposes. If it is decided to remove all the airmen now posted at St. Hubert, the airport will be free and may become a completely civil airport. If they only cut down the military forces, the airport will still be available for civil purposes. I would therefore suggest to the Department of Transport to consider the possibility of making use of the St. Hubert facilities for civil purposes and it is my opinion that this could be done as soon as the authorities of the Department of National Defence decide to move out since there is already some talk about decentralizing the Dorval services. And it will probably be necessary to plan for a civil airport in some other place for test flights or for passenger or freight services.
Mr. Chairman, I offer that suggestion to the Minister of Transport, knowing that he will refer it to the proper person and that he will see to it that his officials study it calmly in order to determine whether it is not possible to reach some practical decision.
I offer that suggestion in quite a selfish intention in my capacity as the member for Chambly-Rouville since the idea is to prevent family wage earners in the St. Hubert, Chambly, St. Bruno, Beloeil and St. Hilaire area from losing their livelihood because of that necessary and warranted decision of the Department of National Defence which could have a serious impact if the government should decide not to make use of that airport.
I know the wisdom of the Conservative government, the Conservative cabinet, and particularly the wisdom of the Minister of Transport and I do not think that there

Supply-Transport
will be any recurrence of what happened under former regimes, according to reports- we will not see any completely abandoned airports that are not used for civilian purposes, when civilian aviation facilities are greatly needed.
Mr. Chairman, may I now examine another problem, namely the problem of passenger transportation from downtown Montreal to Dorval airport. I asked a question to the Minister of Transport in that connection. I asked him if he would forward a suggestion to the railways. I asked him if it would not be possible for the railway companies to provide rail transportation between Dorval and the large hotels and railway stations in downtown Montreal.
I received letters of appreciation in this connection, indicating that such a solution in itself was excellent. There were even some newspaper articles. The next week the Montreal Star published a study of the question. It had to do with questions to the railway companies and the air lines.
The air lines were obviously most favourable, but the railways were reticent. Yet, if the C.P.R. does not want to do anything, the C.N.R. could possibly examine the possibility of such a service.
Allow me, sir, to quote part of an article written by Alfred Ayotte about that matter in La Presse of March 4, 1961-please forgive the personal references, my modesty will suffer-I quote:
The suggestion of the member for Chambly-Rou-ville, Mr. Maurice Johnson, to establish a railway link between the Dorval air terminal and Montreal central station is excellent. We must add that it is excellent in principle, because according to information we have been able to gather, there would be some difficulties in the implementation of such a suggestion. The Minister of Transport, Hon. Mr. Balcer, has passed on to the C.N.R. Mr. Johnson's idea and he has admitted that it has created keen interest among the public.
After what the newspapers have published about the existence of a taxi monopoly at Dorval airport and the inconvenience that resulted for patrons, a railroad would be a relief.
Railway travel offers two advantages: speed and low fares. Would it not be wonderful to leave the plane and get aboard a commuter train to reach downtown Montreal in a short time as it is done in Belgium and as it is probably done in Italy? Indeed, some airports are serviced by trains elsewhere in the world.
A little train takes only twenty minutes to cover the distance between the Brussels airport and the Belgian capital.
After a rapid calculation, I would say that it would take about that time to travel from Dorval to the centre of the city. I will now continue my quotation:
Travellers only have to go down a staircase to reach ground level. In Brussels itself, the trains

reach the station underground. The fare is only the equivalent of 50 cents, in Canadian currency.
Will we be getting the same thing in Montreal? The railroads are non-committal on that point. They are considering the question from a financial point of view and wondering whether a line a few miles long or a few acres of tracks and the inauguration of frequent commuter trains on tracks which are already quite busy, would be profitable.
If they go by the number of passengers in 1960-61, they may well doubt that such a new train service would be profit-making: but if they stopped to consider that in five to ten years from now, the number of passengers will have greatly increased, they would be justified to conclude that the income would justify the expenditure.
In any case, the idea is in the air. It is now up to the railway people and to the Department of Transport to consider the matter and appraise the cost of railway development near the air terminal. If the project could materialize, it would bring about the solution of a ticklish transportation problem.
I would add, Mr. Chairman, that it would perhaps be desirable, when the railway companies change their schedules or their services, either by adding or removing trains, that their decisions be made known to the public. It did happen that railways had some lines in operation on a temporary basis, in anticipation of a special event or that they established new permanent lines without advertising them, in order that the general public might be informed and be able afterwards to use the facilities offered.
As an example, I take the case of the train between Granby and Montreal, when the Canadian National had established a train service in 1959 between those two places, for the duration of the centenary of Granby. Recently, representatives of the Canadian National were complaining of the lack of passengers on that train. It so happened that nobody knew, that publicity was lacking, perhaps as much on the part of the organizations responsible for the centenary celebrations, but certainly on the part of the Canadian National. That is why the service did not have the success desired or hoped for.
Mr. Chairman, I therefore submit this problem to the attention of the minister. I would ask him to put the necessary pressure on the railway companies, in order that they may consider this problem and take a decision, rather than have the matter shelved.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I take the liberty of commenting on a matter which does not come directly under the Minister of Transport. I do not want the minister to think that I am in any way blaming his department or his officials in this regard. However, I should like to deal with this matter just the same,

because it is of general interest and the company involved, the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, must, to a certain extent, be subject to the authority of the board of transport commissioners which comes under the Department of Transport.
Time and time again, in cases of emergency, people have to dial a number to reach someone, without knowing that number. In such cases, they dial the numbers of the Bell Telephone Company information service.
God knows how long the operators take before answering. We have the same thing in the long distance service at night. Of course, I cannot believe it is the operators' fault, unless I am shown evidence to the contrary. It seems to me that their number is much too limited for the requirements of the job. It is time that the company attempt to better that service because, when it applies to the board of transport commissioners for an increase in rates, it will be extremely difficult for the customers to accept any increase.
When the company applied for an increase not so long ago, if I remember correctly, it alleged some extension to or improvement of its services. Since then, I did not notice anything of the kind with regard to information or -long distance services. As I said before, it is certainly not the operator's fault if there are too few of them. It is the company's fault which refuses to employ enough people to ensure good service.
Mr. Chairman, as the voters in Chambly-Rouville know, I am particularly interested in the Richelieu seaway problem. I heard my colleagues make some improvised speeches on the subject. I also heard the hon. member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis), earlier this evening, make a statement on that seaway issue. I would like to be able to examine the issue calmly and see what he did say in his speech. The hon. member dealt with the economic soundness of the project. If my memory serves me right, he said that according to various people the project would be economically sound. Now, I shall ask the hon. member, to name those people and authorities because that is precisely the most important point in respect of the Richelieu seaway project.
We cannot but wonder whether, once it is built, that seaway would pay its way. Unfortunately, I did not find any authority or any qualified and competent person having studied the problem who could tell us authoritatively whether the project would be economically sound.
Please note, Mr. Chairman, that I should like to hear someone say so, but I would
Supply-Transport
like to know the people, and be given the references according to whom and which the seaway would be sound, if it were built. That is the most significant point, and because the economic soundness of the project is still unknown, the chamber of commerce of the province of Quebec does not ask this government to undertake the Richelieu seaway project now, alone, or jointly with the government of the United States, without previous consideration.
The Quebec chambers of commerce which are anxious to arouse public interest for this project, dare not maintain that the seaway would be economically sound. What is requested by the chambers of commerce of the province of Quebec and by all the experts who have studied the problem, is that a study be made of the feasibility of the scheme. At the December meeting, which was attended by the member for Richelieu-Vercheres (Mr. Cardin) and the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville-whom I did not see before the banquet in the evening- and also by a number of people interested in the scheme, no one among all the experts and among all those who had studied the scheme was able to answer this question of the economic feasibility. I even raised the question with a representative of the port of New York who was giving a talk on the subject. Questions had to be put down in writing, so I wrote my question, and when it came up, the chairman of the panel-it was no doubt a diplomatic gesture-referred the question to a town planner who had been studying the problem. No, I am sorry, he asked the question of another person, a Montreal economist, I think, who came up with some general considerations but would not come out with a definite conclusion.
Though I have been dealing with this matter of economic feasibility, Mr. Chairman, I would not want the voters or rather the people concerned in the Richelieu area, to think I am against the scheme. I merely raise the question in the hope of getting an answer. I suggested last week, as I did in other speeches and in private conversations, that the question be referred to a joint commission including a group of American representatives, or to a strictly Canadian body. After all, we must ask ourselves whether the Richelieu canal, once developed, would be in the best interest of Canada. That is the point.
Mr. Chairman, I am not in any sense antiAmerican. However, I am now reading a book written by an authority in the field, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier), and I remember the Americans were not too


Jacques Flynn: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I must tell him that his time has expired.
(Text):


William Hector McMillan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal briefly with tolls on the Welland ship canal. In 1958 the tolls committee of the St. Lawrence seaway set tolls for the operation of the canal in order to amortize the $29 million in capital costs involved in deepening the canal, over a period of 50 years. This was done on the basis of a 1959 tonnage forecast of 40 million tons, and a 1960 forecast of 43 million tons. During those two years the total tonnage that passed through the canal was 25 million tons below the estimate.
The income forecast for 1959 was $2 million, and the actual income was $1.2 million. The estimated income for 1960 was $2.2 mil-lin, but the actual was $1.3 million. The income was therefore down $1.7 million under the estimate. We find also that the cost of the operation is much higher than the estimate. As a result of this, the net revenues do not meet the operating costs.
I have always taken the position that charging tolls on the Welland canal would in effect toll lock all the ports around lake Ontario, as well as those on the Welland canal. Ships and cargos have free access from lake Erie to the head of the lakes. Ships cannot get out of lake Ontario without paying a toll, and I suggest this is an unjust discrimination against the ports on the shores of lake Ontario.
Most of the plants in Ontario which make use of waterborne traffic are situated on the shores of lake Ontario and the Welland canal. Industry located along the Welland
Supply-Transport
canal when it was toll free. Industry has expanded and developed there on the assumption, and rightly so, that the canal would always be toll free.
The Welland canal was adequate for the purposes for which it was designed before its deepening, and the deepening of the canal did not provide any assistance to the plants to which I have referred. During the first year, its deepening was a hindrance rather than an assistance, because their own canal boats were held up by the slower European boats using the canal. I know of two or three instances when plant boats were held up as long as 12 hours.
Paper companies could not make use of deep draught boats because they obtain their pulpwood down along the St. Lawrence and around the shores of lake Superior, in areas that did not have deep harbours for loading. They therefore must use shallow draught boats.
There have been rumours in the area of the Welland ship canal that the canal is going to be twin locked. New industry will not settle there, nor will the industries which are there enlarge, because of the uncertainty of the policy of the government in this connection. I say this is uncertain, because of the fact that if new locks were built, and the cost was amortized over a period of over 40 or 50 years, the position of the plants along that canal would be economically untenable.
The tolls on the Welland canal were imposed, as I have said, in an attempt to amortize the original cost of deepening over 50 years as well as to pay operating costs.
At the present time the United States is spending $150 million to deepen the channels in the Detroit river, the St. Clair river and St. Mary river. I have seen references in the press two or three times reporting that the Americans have said they have the right to recover tolls in connection with the deepening of that part of their waterway if we collect tolls because of the deepening of the Welland canal.
I may say also that industries situated near the locks at Sault Ste. Marie have access to their properties without paying any toll. I think it is only right that industries along the Welland canal should have the same privilege.
The tolls structure was to be examined in five years. This would be in the fall of 1963. It strikes me that the capital cost, including the deficits, might easily be somewhere between $35 million and $40 million instead of the estimated $29 million. Therefore, at that time we would need to amortize the $35 million to $40 million over 45 years instead of

Supply-Transport
the $29 million over 50 years. To my mind that would put up the tolls even if we did not have any twinning of the locks. This creates uncertainty in the minds of people in the industries in that area. They have two uncertainties, one because of the deficits, and the other because of their fear of twinning of those locks. If the locks are twinned and they are charged for it in tolls it certainly will be disastrous for their industries. I would say that industries in my part of the country look at this matter with some concern. I should like to hear the minister pass some comment on it.


Mr. Small:: I had almost given up hope that I would get on tonight. I am always glad to take the adjournment.
I covered a certain amount of the subject matter in connection with the Canadian National Railways when I spoke last but there are one or two things that I should like to clear up. The hon. member for Vancouver East touched on the matter of passenger service and dealt particularly with reservations. Without repeating what he said I can verify or corroborate everything that he said in regard to the matter of reservations and of having to wait and when you get to the train you find space had not been all booked up as you had been told. But the part that impresses me very much-and I think most hon. members have come to the same conclusion-is that the directors, whether it is the head of the board of directors or others, have come to the conclusion that they should try to fold up the passenger service in this country because it is not a paying proposition. Therefore, they are going to do their best to get rid of it. It is not a very easy thing to do because the minute a passenger line is slated for cancellation of course the members in that particular area are seized upon by their constituents and are asked to see that something is done about it through bringing it to the attention of the Minister of Transport.
Hon. members have been congratulating the minister all night. Probably the minister deserves our sympathy and condolences in his holding of this position because generally he is the whipping boy. He has to take the whip lash of every person in this house who has a grievance from his constituents, or from a person who was laid off by the railway. They come to the house and they confront him with the situation and he has to tell them that he will take it up with the president or the chairman of the board of directors. Then he comes back with the story that they have done their best but they could not avoid laying them off. They have to give them all a chance. This is what the Minister of Transport has to go through. It is not

only this minister but the previous minister. They all go through the very same thing. The pattern is the same. They have to go off and come back with a story which alleviates the situation. Peace reigns until the next time someone is laid off. The whole sum and substance of the problem is that the railway passenger service is not paying and the managers of the railway have to fold it up.
What I say is that if the passenger service is not paying, then the wisest thing to do is to terminate it. But if the railroads are going to continue it, then they should give service. It is no use running a service that is down at the heels and is on a hodge-podge basis. If they are going to give service they should give the very best service there is. I do not think they are even trying to do that. If they were trying to give service, then they would have the trains running on time and they would be giving of their best; they would be giving what could be called a high-class service.
I have spoken time after time in the house and tried to depict what took place at the Ottawa station and also at the Toronto station. Whenever I ran into what I called shabby or sloppy service I would bring it up. When I first started I tried to put a little humour into it and depict it as I saw it. I tried to make sure I was not being too severe, but what I did was just entertain hon. members, and they thought it was nothing more than good humour. But when I started to comment upon the board of directors who I thought should do something about it, well, then, I saw there was a little change. They did attempt to do something about the situation in Ottawa; but surely they did not have to wait for 20 years to try to do something about improving the service in Ottawa. I will say this for them. They have taken the trouble to so bring in the trains as to make it easier for the people to get off the trains and come to the station. They now do not have to walk so far. The reason why I took this attitude was that I had seen some passengers who could hardly walk; they were lame or handicapped, and there was no service to help them carry their grips. Some of the people were obviously infirm or had heart conditions. They were subject to the inconvenience of having to walk a long distance.
Then I checked into the way in which the freight and also the baggage were handled, in the stations. I do not blame men for trying to earn their living; they are doing what they are told. They took the baggage from the express and they put it on a lorry. What did they do with it? They ran it over to No. 3 bay and put it on another car, waiting there,

instead of taking a truck or a car as it comes in to the bay and then transferring it over to another vehicle. That would save a lot of time and not inconvenience the passengers or the people in the station. One fellow said to me, "Why do they not do it this way?" I looked at him and said, "My dear friend, do you not understand why they do not do it that way? It is quite obvious they do not do it that way because it is the simple and proper way. That is why they are not doing it that way".


Lionel Chevrier: Ten thirty.


Robert Hardy Small: May I take my turn next time?
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lionel Chevrier: May I inquire what the business will be for tomorrow and Saturday, and could we get some indication of what we will be doing next week?
18, 1961	5037
Business of the House


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow we will carry on with the estimates of the Department of Transport and follow with the estimates of the Department of Justice; that is, for Friday and Saturday. Monday and Tuesday-


Lionel Chevrier: Pardon me; does that mean if we do not finish transport we shall take some other department on Saturday?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, we intend to finish-* I am sure everybody wants to finish transport tomorrow-and this would leave Saturday open for the Department of Justice; but we will complete transport first. Then, on Monday and Tuesday we will deal with legislation and the house will be prepared for the items now on the order paper. I will announce tomorrow night the exact order in which they will be taken.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Friday, May 19, 1961