1963-07-12

Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tisdale):: I am rising on a question of privilege affecting all hon. members of this house. Yesterday Your Honour ruled out of order two private members' bills, giving as a reason that they were money bills. One hon. member appealed your ruling and a division followed in which your ruling was upheld.
Your Honour will recall that on a previous occasion you ruled one of my own bills out of order for a similar reason, as being a money bill. At that time I accepted your decision-reluctantly, nevertheless gracefully. That is one reason I voted yesterday to uphold your ruling. The other is that I felt politically bound-and this would not concern Your Honour-not to support the appeal.
My point of privilege is that it came to the attention of hon. members that the assistance which private members receive from some officials of the law branch who help draft these bills seems to be at variance with the opinion of other law branch officials who communicate with Your Honour on these matters. This is a point which affects all hon. members and unless these difficulties are resolved to the satisfaction of all, private members' bills will eventually disappear from the order paper, which in the opinion of many hon. members would be a tragedy, to say the least.



MR. KNOWLES  OPINION OF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL ON VALIDITY OF CERTAIN APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Yesterday the Prime Minister tabled a document which is identified as sessional paper No. 39B. It contains an opinion given by the deputy attorney general on the validity of certain arrangements made for appointing special advisers to the Minister of Finance.
My point of privilege can be very succinctly stated. In addition to the affront which I believe was already given to parliament by the manner in which these men were
appointed, the matter is now compounded by our being asked to accept as approval of these appointments a document which in itself admits there were no provisions for the arrangements which were made, but that it can be "construed" that there was proper authority.
This opinion of Mr. Driedger, which was presented to the house by the Prime Minister, who therefore has to take responsibility for it, says quite clearly that there are two subsections of the government contracts regulations under which these appointments might have been made, but that they cannot be made under either of those subsections. One of these subsections sets out the classes of contracts which can be made-transportation, snow removal, garbage removal, and that kind of thing-and Mr. Driedger says that the contracts in question do not come within any of those categories. The other subsection has to do with contracts which do not exceed a certain amount of money. Mr. Driedger says there is no guarantee that they will not exceed that amount, and therefore they do not come under that subsection.
Having removed these arrangements from any provision set out in the government contracts regulations, he says:
Although the government contracts regulations do not express in positive terms that a contract for services under which more than $1,000 is payable may be entered into with the approval of treasury board, they have been construed as authorizing a contracting authority to enter into such a contract with the approval of the treasury board-
My point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is that what we now have is precisely what we had last June. We have the government construing that the Financial Administration Act or regulations made under it gives them authority to do something which the act itself says cannot be done. The Financial Administration Act says that no appointments by the treasury board can be made under it. The government contracts regulations themselves say that no appointments can be made under them. But the government, by construing that it has such authority, is doing something which I submit is contrary to the provisions of the act and the regulations made thereunder. Last year hon. members who are now in office strongly objected to the action of the then government in construing that it had the right under the Financial Administration Act to bring in the surcharge order. Now

Tabling Report on Supply the same hon. members are doing the same thing, construing that they have a right which the deputy attorney general says is not specifically set out.
I think this matter calls for very serious consideration by parliament, because the relations between the executive and parliament depend upon the government paying attention to the letter of statutes, and not governing by construing.



FINANCE


Mr. E. J. Benson (Kingston):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) I beg leave to table in English and in French copies of a report on supply for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963. This report, Mr. Speaker, relates to the resolution which stands on the order paper as government order No. 19. Its purpose is to furnish the house with detailed information necessary for informed discussion and consideration of that resolution and/or the bill which will follow. I am informed that copies of this report will be in hon. members' letter boxes within ten minutes of tabling.



ANNUAL VACATIONS ACT


Stanley Howard Knowles: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-85, to amend the Annual Vacations Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to make still further improvement in the Annual Vacations Act. The bill provides that employees who have had five years of employment shall thereafter be entitled each year to three weeks vacation with pay.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Hon. J. P. Deschalelels (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether, with the unanimous consent of the house, I could revert to motions to make an announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the house that the government has authorized the national capital commission


to proceed with arrangements for reconstructing that part of the Prescott subdivision of the C.P.R. from where it crosses the Rideau river to approximately Somerset street in the city of Ottawa. It is estimated that the reconstruction of the railway line will cost between $3J and $4 million.
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members of the house will be pleased to know that the new railway grade will be depressed and carried under the Rideau canal in a tunnel and underneath Carling avenue and Gladstone avenue, returning to the present grade at about Somerset street. It is hoped that arrangements can be made for construction to start this autumn and thus provide winter employment, as it will continue throughout the winter months.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker,
I	should like to address a question to the Prime Minister arising out of remarks made on television by Mr. Ackerley, president of the Canadian federation of mayors and municipalities, in which he said that the request of that organization to have the sales tax removed on the purchase of building materials by municipalities got a warm reception from the government. Is it the intention of the government to exempt municipalities from the sales tax on building materials?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the remarks to which my hon. friend refers. I will try to get a copy of them and study them; then I will be in a position to answer the question.



EXEMPTION OF PUBLIC LIBRARIES FROM SALES TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I should have liked to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Since he is absent perhaps I might direct it to the Secretary of State. Is it the intention of the minister to include public libraries in the list of exemptions from the
II	per cent tax, in line with other educational institutions.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Secrelary of Slate):: Since that question is obviously out of order it would be improper for me to answer it.



POSSIBLE IMPOSITION OF FEDERAL GASOLINE TAX

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Righl Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of ihe Opposition): I should like to ask the
Prime Minister whether the minister of northern aifairs, speaking in Radium Junction, British Columbia yesterday was enunciating government policy. The article in the Globe and Mail says that the possibility of a new federal tax on gasoline was raised here yesterday by the minister. Is that government policy? Is it the intention of the government to bring about an additional gasoline tax in order to expand highway policy?
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman has based his question on a press report. I would prefer, before replying, to discuss with the minister what he said and hear from the minister about it. Even according to the press report, Mr. Speaker, the minister merely said that if further assistance is to be given by the federal government to highways, to transportation, or matters of that kind, further taxation and further revenues will be required.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: When he said that, was that a statement of government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Whenever government policy on this matter is decided it will be announced in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: That is what we want to know. Why outside?


Mr. Marlineau:: Why was government policy not announced at this time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Because it is not a statement of government policy, and my right hon. friend knows from experience, when he was on this side of the house, that many speeches were made by members of the government of that day indicating what the government might do in certain circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is this
another portion of the budget by degrees and by sections?


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister is looking into this matter of the possibility of a federal gasoline tax, perhaps he would look into the thought, as announced by the minister of northern affairs that he would prefer to develop north and south roads rather than a second trans-Canada highway?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for New Westminster.
28902-5-136
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Mather: Mr. Speaker, the question I was about to ask has been very ably put
forward by opposition.	the	leader	of	the	officialINQUIRY AS	TO	REFUNDS	OF	SALES	TAX



ALREADY PAID

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinlhe-Bagot):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue and ask him what procedure should be taken by a citizen to recover excess tax paid to a retailer on the purchase of construction material between June 14 and July 8?
Hon. J. R. Garland (Minister of National
Revenue): If I understood the question correctly, it would be strictly a matter for arrangement between the retailer and his customer.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Does this mean the government has no procedure for helping the fellow who has been overtaxed?


Mr. Garland:: Lest there be any wrong impression left here, may I point out that I answered this question three times on Tuesday.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to hon. members that this type of question is better answered during the discussion on the budget resolutions.
(Translation):



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS MUNICIPAL LOAN LEGISLATION WITHOUT CONSULTATION WITH PROVINCES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister answer the charge made against him by Mr. Jean Lesage to the effect that he has broken one of his promises in introducing in the House of Commons, without consulting the provinces, the plan for a municipal loans fund?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the letter to which my hon. friend refers was received in my office about an hour and a half ago, though I am familar with its contents, of course, because they have already appeared in the press. I would be very glad indeed to table the letter, except that there has not been time to translate it into English, the other official language of the country. When that is done I will be very glad to table the letter. I think the text of the

Inquiries of the Ministry letter will not justify the actual words used by the hon. member in reference to that part of it which he has mentioned. Naturally this letter from the prime minister of Quebec will have to be replied to.
(Translation):


Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomption-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. Since the Prime Minister seems to have replied in the affirmative, am I to understand that the purpose is to refer to the conference to be held in Halifax this fall the study of capital assistance in the form of loans to municipalities?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to make a statement on this matter on Monday, but meanwhile I can say that the legislation in question in the form in which it is drafted is within federal jurisdiction though it will recognize, of course, the rights of the provinces in this matter. It is obvious that the success of such legislation will depend on the co-operation that is received from provincial governments. In the light of circumstances that have now developed it is obviously desirable, I think, to have a conference to see whether this co-operation will be forthcoming.
We propose to try to arrange such a conference without delay, Mr. Speaker, so that the bill, which is concerned primarily with employment, can be proceeded with at the earliest possible date.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: May I ask
a supplementary question. I wonder if the Prime Minister is considering a face to face conference of his own, separate from the other provincial premiers, with Mr. Lesage in order to facilitate progress on this legislation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The consultation to which I have referred will, of course, include all provincial premiers; at least I hope it will.
Yesterday, in answer to a question, I said that to my knowledge no observations had been received from any other leader of a provincial government except the premier of Quebec. I found on returning to my office that there had been a letter received from the premier of Manitoba indicating that in his view it would be desirable to have consultation on this matter. Before the resolution was introduced, after the house met but before any legislation had been introduced, there was a communication from the premier of Saskatchewan indicating that he had heard such legislation might be introduced and expressing his interest and support in the principles embodied in it, as he had heard them described.

(Translation):



ECONOMIC COUNCIL


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he intend to suspend also the study of the bill providing for the establishment of an economic council of Canada, in order to submit it first to the provinces and take advantage of the conference he has announced?
(Text):


Lester Bowles Pearson: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker, any more than the previous government had any such intention when it proposed to introduce such a bill.
(Translation):



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell us if, at the present time, nuclear warheads are stored at the military airport in Bagot-ville or if commitments have been made to do so soon?
(Text):



STATEMENT BY CHIEF OF NAVAL STAFF RESPECTING FRIGATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday the minister said he was giving consideration to the statement made by the chief of the naval staff, Admiral Rayner, to the effect that general purpose frigates were necessary to the Canadian navy. Could the minister say today whether he is in agreement with that statement?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Paul Raymond Martineau: No answer.


Mr. Pugh:: No answer from the minister; no knowledge.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is against the rules. [Later:]


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Does he consider that subjects which are being discussed by the defence committee should not be the subject matter of questions here in the House of Commons?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is not what I consider; it is whether or not it is within the rules. It is my understanding that the rules do not permit of this.



ALLEGED DENIAL BY MINISTER OF INFORMATION PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I have a question for the Minister of National Defence relating to an answer he gave to the house yesterday in which he equated the word "approximate" with round figures and the word "estimate" with accurate figures.
I should like to ask him whether he accepts as an authority the Oxford dictionary which says that "estimate", the noun, means an approximate judgment of numbers or amount. If he does-and I think the house as a whole accepts that definition as authoritative-I then say once again, speaking on a question of privilege, that the minister misled the house in the written answers he gave to the written questions put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister which is prompted by a flood of telegrams, telephone calls and interviews. My question is based on clause 11 of the agreement between Canada and British Columbia respecting the Columbia river.
In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has informed President Kennedy of certain changes desired by Canada in the Columbia river treaty, and that the government of British Columbia has already been informed of the federal government's wishes in this respect, will the Prime Minister take the Canadian people into his confidence in respect of these proposed changes by informing this house of them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Negotiations are about to begin between the two governments on this matter, Mr. Speaker. The United States government, the President and other members of that government, have been informed of certain matters as an indication of the kind of change required. This was done to find out whether it would be worth while proceeding with the negotiations. Under the circumstances, to make public in advance the manner in which the treaty must 28902-5-136i
Inquiries of the Ministry be changed would certainly not be conducive to the success of the negotiations.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister assure the house that the text of the agreement as printed in Hansard two days ago is correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: To the best of my knowledge it is correct or it would not have been tabled in this house.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I have a question supplemental to the one I asked the Prime Minister concerning the Columbia river treaty. I have been mulling over his answer, and I hope he does not mind my directing this question to him. As I understood it, the Prime Minister mentioned that he had indicated to President Kennedy the kind of changes Canada might require in the treaty, but of course he could not give details of these because of continuing negotiations. I understand that. But can he give the Canadian people some indication as to the kind of changes that are required, without going into detail?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, after mulling over the hon. gentleman's question I can say that the kind of changes we have in mind are such as to make the treaty a better one for Canada.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: While we are mulling over the Columbia river treaty I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he is still of the opinion that the words to which I drew his attention yesterday are as lucid as he suggested they were when he gave his answer.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: I thank the hon. member for mentioning this. I do not think I shall withdraw anything I said about the lucidity of the agreement, but the hon. member directed my attention yesterday to a discrepancy between the Hansard report of the text and the document which was tabled.
In order to correct what has been drawn to my attention as being a mistake in Hansard I would ask that this correction be made in the Hansard of July 10, at page 2059, in subparagraph (j) of section 3 of the agreement between Canada and British Columbia. The word "and" should have appeared in the fourth line of subparagraph (j) between the words "not do" and the words "so far"; that word "and" appeared in the signed original and in the copy of it which I tabled in the house for printing in Hansard. I thank the hon. member for bringing this mistake in Hansard to my attention.

Inquiries of the Ministry (Translation) :



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, last Friday in reply to a question put by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) concerning Canadian students who are now in Pakistan, I promised to inform the house of any possible development.
I have now received a report from our high commissioner in Pakistan, as well as a dispatch from Dr. Leddy, national president of the World University Service of Canada. These two gentlemen tell me that they have obtained the most formal assurance from academic authorities in Pakistan that Canadian students were beyond reproach in their behaviour in the course of their meetings with Pakistani students.
The statements in question were made by a small uninfluential group within the Pakistani student community which is in no way representative of the opinion of that country's academic circles.
(Text):



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the minister inform the house how the negotiations stand concerning the purchase of the Soulanges canal by the Quebec government?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should be placed on the order paper, but I have estimates coming up later today, and if the hon. member wants to put his question then it may be possible to answer it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: On the estimates?


George James McIlraith: Yes.



TRENT CANAL


Mr. Fred F. Slenson (Peterborough):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Has any change been made in the regulations regarding the opening of locks and bridges on the Trent canal in the last two weeks?
[Mr. Martin (Essex East) .1


George James McIlraith: I would prefer to answer that question on my estimates. It is the kind of question which would be more appropriately dealt with at that time.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I will direct it to the parliamentary secretary. In view of the outbreak of the scrapie disease in sheep flocks in the province of Alberta, is it the intention of the Department of Agriculture to order the destruction of those flocks and compensate their owners in order to protect other sheep producers in the province?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I
will be happy to take notice of the hon. member's question and bring it to the attention of the minister.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I regret giving her such short notice of it, but my question is based on a report in the July 12 issue of the Winnipeg Free Press of an interview which the hon. lady gave Mr. Victor Mackie, that eminent member of the press gallery with encyclopedic knowledge and literary integrity, in which the hon. lady told him she had accepted a cigarette from a French diplomat, had taken one puff and suffered a consequent dizziness. In view of the general concern, conversation and consternation relating to this report, has the minister any information she can give the house, which is not a breach of security?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend suggests the condition to which he refers is not a permanent one so far as I am concerned, and I beg leave to undertake to him and the house that it will be the last time I will voluntarily subject myself to such a condition.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of northern affairs, or in his absence the parliamentary secretary, or in his absence the acting minister. It is based on a report that the university training program in the Northwest Territories might be delayed. My question is, could not this program be carried out under the provisions of the five year financial agreement that was concluded with the Northwest Territories government last year? In view of the importance of education to the northern young people, this matter is one of some urgency.


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this question is drawn to the attention of the minister, who is expected back at the next sitting.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the Columbia river project. Have any provisions been made for diverting any water of the Columbia river to the eastern slopes of the Rockies, for the benefit of the prairie provinces?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, provision is made for that in paragraph 1 of article 13 of the treaty.



STATEMENT AS TO GOVERNMENT POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Grey North asked me two questions about trade with Cuba. In the first he asked:
Is it the policy of this government to promote increased trade with Cuba, similar to the approach made by the former Conservative administration?
I was not convinced in my own mind, Mr. Speaker, that the policy of the former government was as clear cut as that. However, let me outline the policy of the present government. This government prohibits the
Inquiries of the Ministry re-export to Cuba of goods of United States origin. Otherwise the government places no obstacles in the way of trade with Cuba in non-military and non-strategic goods.
The trade between Canada and Cuba has been running at about the same level as in the previous year. In the calendar year 1962 Canadian exports to Cuba were valued at $10.9 million, and imports from Cuba were valued at $2.8 million. Our most recent export figures indicate that during the first five months of 1963 Canadian exports were valued at $4.6 million. I think the house will be interested to know the composition of that export trade. It consists in the main of inedible tallow, infant and junior foods, agricultural chemicals, cured pork, veterinary medicines and dairy cattle.
The second question from the hon. member was:
Now that fish rationing has ended in Cuba, will the government make an effort to sell more fish products to that country?
As hon. members know, in the past Cuba has been an import market for Canadian fish, taking up to 12 million lbs. annually. Unfortunately no sales have been made since 1962. This government is looking for opportunities to resume the sale of fish in the Cuban market.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister upon carrying on the policy of the former government. I want to ask him whether there is any thought-and I am sure there is not-of departing from the policy of refusing anything of a military nature or a defence requirement to that country.


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition remembers certain statements made by my predecessors in office which caused some uncertainty about Canadian trade policy with respect to Cuba. But I shall not comment further on that. At the moment there is no intention of changing the policy with respect to trade with Cuba, but if any changes are made they will be announced when the decisions are made.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce arising out of his answer of a few moments ago with regard to trade with Cuba. Can he tell us whether the government's hope of expanding this trade to its former level is to be implemented by the dispatch of a trade commission to Cuba.


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, there is no intention at present of appointing a trade

Inquiries of the Ministry commissioner to Cuba; but of course policy is always under review, and if such an appointment were made it would be announced in this house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State having to do with the business of the house. At adjournment time last night the Secretary of State indicated that on Tuesday our business would be the budget resolutions, and specifically he said we would be dealing with the resolutions coming under the heading of the customs tariff.
Since the resolutions under this heading include one regarding the surcharge order, will he tell us how it is going to be possible for the house to proceed with this item, in view of the rule of this house that we cannot deal with matters that are sub judice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to give consideration to this matter, and I will ask my colleague the Minister of Justice to give consideration between now and Tuesday to the point raised by the hon. member, though at first blush I do not think there is in fact a problem at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I suggest to the Secretary of State that when he refers the matter to the Minister of Justice he draw his attention to citation 149 (c) of Beauchesne's fourth edition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thank the hon. gentleman for his advice.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex Wesi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Can he say what plans the government has to break the blockade in the processing of the hundreds of divorce applications now accumulated on the parliamentary agenda?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government, in consultation with other parties, is doing its best to arrange a satisfactory agreement which will permit of that blockade being broken.
[Mr. Sharp.)



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Justice, but in his absence I will direct it to the minister's parliamentary secretary and ask the hon. member whether his office has made any request for a restricted list of law firms to deal with his department's business.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to bring this question to the attention of the minister when he returns.


Malcolm MacInnis: I should like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice in the absence of the minister. Has the hon. member's office made a request for a restricted list of law firms to deal with urgent business?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will bring the question to the minister's attention.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I wish to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question occasioned by reports I have heard that the government is planning to spend a greater portion of the $5 million statutory grant for fitness and amateur sport than was the case last year. I should like to ask the minister whether she has had any meeting with Mr. Farmer, head of the amateur fitness and sport group, and whether she has given any indication to that gentleman and his associates of the degree of approval which would be given to any planning program they might develop in the coming year.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: May I say to the hon. member that I have seen the chairman of the fitness advisory board, Mr. Farmer, though I have not discussed in detail any projects for the spending year which have not already been approved. All projects which have been submitted have been approved and in most cases cheques have been sent out. Applications are being received in connection with the next fiscal year. Normally these are referred to the council for discussion and recommendation to the minister. Afterward the project is taken to the cabinet for final decision. At the moment, though, there are

none awaiting decision. It is too early in point of time for the next fiscal year's program.


Mr. More:: Does the minister agree with the comment of the hon. member for Norfolk that this is a phony program?
(Translation):



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Sauve (iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Secretary of State could tell us if the negotiations that took place yesterday between the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canadian Federation of Authors and Artists were successful?
(Text):


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am happy to be able to say I was informed just before coming into the house that early this morning a settlement was reached satisfactory to both sides.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. B. Morison (Wentworth):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister assure the house and the 5,000 worried residents of Aldershot that Canadian National Railways will confine their building program in the Aldershot area to the proposed set-off yard.


George James McIlraith: This is another question which could probably be answered more appropriately later on the estimates. In any event, I know this has been in the papers a great deal, and there is some justification for the view expressed by the hon. member that there are 5,000 worried residents. I may say, however, there are no plans for additional work other than the announced off-set tracks.



FINANCE


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to approve certain expenditures authorized in respect of the fiscal year ended on March 31, 1963, including those provided for by the special warrants issued by the governor in council of February 8, 1963
12, 1963	2129
Approval of Expenditures 1962-63
(P.C. 1963-227) and March 4, 1963 (P.C. 1963-361) but not including the expenditures authorized by appropriation acts for that fiscal year; and to authorize the application of certain amounts in the accounts of the said fiscal year.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-86, for approving certain expenditures authorized for the public service, and the application of certain amounts in the accounts, for the financial year ended the 31st March, 1963.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall said bill be read a second time?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair I wonder whether I might be permitted, in view of the point raised by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings last night, to explain that the bill has been printed in English and I think will be ready for distribution very shortly. I regret very much that because of its voluminous character the French edition will not be ready until Monday. I apologize for the delay but it is a very great burden of translation, and I assure hon. members that the bureau of translation has been doing its utmost to do it as expeditiously as possible.
(Translation):


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, under the circumstances we will accept the statement made by the Secretary of State but I should like to point out to him-
(Text):
I should like to point out to the Secretary of State that the same thing happens every day with Hansard. Moreover I receive many letters from various departments in Ottawa saying that the translation does not receive the care it should receive. I should like to point that out to the Secretary of State so that in the near future he will see that there are enough translators in that department.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that if he will send me a list of competent translators I will transmit it at once to the civil service commission and ask them to expedite the appointments if the qualifications are met. I regret to say that we have not as many translators as we should like in the government service. This is a field in which we would be only too happy to make a lot more bilingual appointments-and I know I am expressing the

Supply-Transport
view of the civil service commission in saying this

if we could find suitable candidates willing to come to Ottawa to accept these positions.


Gilles Grégoire: I am ready to add to my
commission on bilingualism another commission replacing the civil service commission.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Might I point out to the Secretary of State that if they were paid well I am sure he would have no problems in finding bilingual men.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will convey that to the treasury board.


Gilles Grégoire: When are they going to translate Beauchesne?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time? Next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

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



DEPARTMENT OP TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration-$3,388,600.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, while it is not my intention to make a lengthy statement on the first item, I think I should take a few minutes of the committee's time to deal with some matters. I believe those hon. members attending their first session would particularly appreciate a brief explanation of the extent of government activity in transportation, a field which I think all hon. members would agree is of decided importance to the economy of our country. It is quite possible that in doing so I may fail to mention certain items which hon. members will consider of major import. In many instances this may be because I have dealt already with the particular matter when answering a question during the session or in discussions with hon. members from the areas concerned.
The main estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance on May 29 contain a total of $231,038,000 to be voted for the needs of the Department of Transport. In addition there are certain statutory items and various sums to be voted for the several related agencies. These latter figures are readily available in a general summary set out in the blue book.
I think I should go through the main estimates first and content myself with remarks about them. The activities in our marine services are such that the standard of service rendered for shipping generally is being improved substantially and continuously year
[Mr. Pickersgill.l
after year. Our shipping construction program is similar in size to that of last year. Strong support was received for the decision to provide eight high speed cutters to improve the marine search and rescue operations. By the end of July 1963 four will be in service, and all will be in operation by this fall. The department in this year's estimates is provided with $1,282,800 toward this construction.
Another large item relates to the new weatherships which will replace the existing obsolete ships in the manning of Pacific weather station "PAPA". Tenders have been called for the first vessel and construction will commence very soon. It is anticipated that three progress payments totalling $2,700,000 will be made by March 31, 1964. The department will be ready to contract for the second vessel by the fall of 1963 and the amount of $450,000 has been allowed in the estimates for the payment due on the signing of the contract.
Last year special mention was made of an unusual type of ship, namely an icebreaking cable repair vessel. The current estimates contain $4,021,000 for this ship, which is under construction at Canadian Vickers Limited, Montreal. A depot ship for the accommodation of stevedores for the off-loading of military and civil cargo at far northern sites was accepted last month. The Canadian coastguard ship Vercheres, built in 1901, has been replaced with a new vessel, the Canadian coastguard ship Montmagny completed last month. Contracts have been placed with Allied Builders Limited, Vancouver, for the construction of a tender for Prince Rupert and a work boat for the Mackenzie river.
Still on the subject of vessel construction, I might mention that $300,000 will be expended on the preparation of plans and specifications for northern supply ships, a small icebreaker for the lakehead, a vessel to replace the Saurel and Chesterfield, and an icebreaker for the Charlottetown agency. The design of the triple screw icebreaker, construction of which was approved in 1959, is practically complete and a contract will be let during the fiscal year, $750,000 having been provided to cover the payment due on signing the contract.
On the operational side the appropriation for the operation and maintenance of the coastguard fleet is up by over $1 million to a total of $21,680,000, and here again northern work is a big factor. A substantial amount of this is reimbursed to the government for northern supply work done for others. The program initiated some years back to modernize the marine agency depots is coming along quite well, and we contemplate a further outlay of some $2.4 million this year.

Expenditures for administration, capital construction and equipment for the marine works program, which covers marine aids to navigation such as light stations, fog signals, buoys, lightships and the supporting marine agencies, will involve an outlay of some $11,940,000. The total number of marine aids maintained by the department under this program is about 15,000.
For administration and further development of secondary canals the estimates provide $4,351,000. Included in this is some $400,000 for a start on the new lock on the Trent canal at Swift Rapids and the initial planning for the new lock required at Big Chute. Two hundred thousand dollars each is provided in connection with the new lock under construction at Fenelon Falls and for the restoration of a dam at Campbellford, and $175,000 is included for the rehabilitation of the Peterborough lift lock.
During the past year the departmental officials have devoted considerable thought and effort toward reducing the hazard involved in the operation of small pleasure craft, which I am sorry to say seems to be increasing because of the increase each year in the numbers of these small craft on our inland waters. Last year the department introduced a scheme requiring pleasure craft in certain categories to fit plates bearing recommended load and horsepower limitations. While the limitations set out on the plates are recommendations only, and that is necessary because of the various conditions under which boats operate, it is felt that such guidance does restrain many inexperienced operators from excessive loading and powering, and this is particularly true when they are buying boats and engines separately. It is in this field where, regrettably, there have been many tragic drownings on our waterways.


Mr. Winkler:: Could I ask the minister a question? Does he have any figures as to the numbers of licences now issued for this type of boat?


George James McIlraith: When we come to the detailed items I will give what information I can. There is other supplementary information on the subject which can appropriately be given at that time. The issuing of these plates is a large effort in view of the tremendous number of small boats involved, and I must say that the boating public generally and the industry concerned are giving every reasonable cooperation to the department.
Small boat safety and small boat regulations are, as I have indicated, an increasing problem, particularly with regard to demands for licensing of boat operators and more
Supply-Transport
extensive licensing of boats. I have had in mind and have given some thought, attention and study to possible courses of action to deal with this situation which will require both further legislation on the part of the federal government and an approach involving the co-operation of the provinces in administration. I can perhaps deal with that aspect of the matter more appropriately when the expected legislation is before the house.
With regard to coasting vessels, in order that coasting vessels in Newfoundland may be drydocked for steamship inspection purposes the department is providing a slipway at Clarenville. It is hoped that this haul-out facility will go into operation in the spring of 1964. Its construction is the first phase of a project to provide a marine haul-out, transfer system and fitting out wharf at Clarenville, the total cost of which is estimated to be $549,000.
I should also like to speak briefly on the air services appropriations which cover the broad fields of civil aviation, telecommunications and meteorology, both in regard to capital programs and operating and maintenance programs. In total these votes represent approximately $135 million in the 1963-64 fiscal year.
The largest single appropriation once again is that contained in vote 155 entitled "Construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment" with respect to national airports. While the vote is slightly over $38 million, this figure represents a decrease from the level of recent years. The terminal building program for international airports undertaken to meet the heavy traffic demands generated by growing acceptance of air travel is nearing completion and this, together with the fact that the large runway pavement construction program associated with the introduction of turboprop and jet aircraft at major airports has passed its peak, has tended to effect the reduction of this vote.
While new international terminals such as the imposing buildings under construction at Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton will be coming into operation this year, several trunk and feeder terminals at locations such as Fredericton, London, Sault Ste. Marie, the lakehead and Whitehorse are still in various stages of planning and construction and have been provided for in the vote.
Since the acquisition of the city of Vancouver's interest in the Vancouver international airport, planning for the international terminal has been advancing and action has already been taken on preparation of plans as well as on preliminary site development. Because of both the requirement for preloading the area due to the nature of the

Supply-Transport
area and subsequent time for settlement and the complexities of planning an up to date international terminal, it will probably be next year before tenders are called on the terminal building itself.
The current year's estimates represent the beginning of a trend in air services toward gradually decreasing capital expenditures on airport facilities. Offsetting this, of course, is the gradual increase in operation costs which it is expected will continue as public demands for expanding services continue to be satisfied in the aviation field. However, this needs to be measured against the airport revenue situation. Over the past three years airport revenues have increased from $9.1 million in the fiscal year 1959-60 to $15.6 million for the fiscal year 1962-63. While this increase has not been at a uniform rate, we expect this general trend to continue in future years.
Now, while I have indicated that capital expenditures for airport facilities will decline over the next several years, such a trend does not hold in the field of radio aids to air and marine navigation. Here, due to the continuing increase in the number, size and speed of aircraft, provision is being made for improvement in the efficiency and safety standards of the services. Procedures and equipment for handling traffic are continuing to become more complex, and while the level of the 1963-64 expenditures might indicate a stable condition, it is anticipated that significant increases may have to occur in the years immediately ahead if our facilities are to be adequate for the growing traffic.
There is also provision in vote 180 for the department to enter the field of international space communication. This activity will be in the area of operational experimentation and testing, by provision of a ground station to participate in international communication by satellites. The objectives are to assist our common communications carrier industry engaged in international communication and the development of the use of this new media, and at the same time to assist in focusing the attention of our communications manufacturing industry on this new field.
In the field of meteorology, construction or acquisition of buildings, works, land and equipment, vote 200, the main projects are the continuation of the program to instal transmissometers and ceilometers at our international airports to provide information on landing conditions during marginal weather. Also contained in this vote are funds for the procurement and installation of weather radar at Halifax, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton. In the field of upper air soundings, funds have been included to initiate a program to

equip the upper air stations with new equipment capable of measuring meteorological conditions up to 100,000 feet.
In addition to the estimates of my department I am submitting those of related agencies or bodies including, the national harbours board, a statutory crown corporation which administers the principle deep sea Canadian harbours. The main and supplementary estimates of the board for 1963-64 amount to some $18 million, and the money will go toward the construction or reconstruction of transit sheds, wharves, grain elevator systems and other works at certain ports.
As the national harbours handle the bulk of Canada's overseas trade, which I think again all hon. members will agree is of vital concern to the national economy, the development and maintenance of these ports has kept and must keep pace with traffic and shipping demands. As Canadian ports compete for foreign cargoes with ports in the United States, it is especially important that facilities and services provided at Canadian ports be kept adequate, efficient and economical to use. In its efforts to remain competitive the national harbours board works closely with other Canadian transportation interests such as the railways, trucking companies and shipping lines. Close liaison is also maintained with exporters, importers and domestic shippers, and the board consults and co-operates with the Department of Trade and Commerce in the promotion of direct trade between Canada and foreign countries.
The St. Lawrence seaway authority advises me that the task of preparing the 1964 report to government on the sufficiency of tolls to meet its statutory obligations is proceeding as planned in full co-operation with the United States seaway development corporation. In so far as operations for the 1963 navigation season are concerned, the authority reports that for the months of April, May and June tonnage has increased by 1,250,000 tons over the same period of 1962. In the same three month period revenues have increased over those of 1962 by some $625,000 I may say at the moment there is considerable study, at a very active stage I might add, being given to the question of twinning the locks of the Welland canal.
The Canadian maritime commission is responsible for the capital subsidies for the construction of commercial and fishing vessels. During 1962-63 funds totalling $22.5 million were paid out in respect of construction of 110 ships. Of these 94 were completions and 16 were in various stages of completion. The aggregate value of ship construction involved

in the subsidies was approximately $79,835,000. For the fiscal year 1963-64 capital subsidies lor this purpose in both the main and supplementary estimates will total $30 million.
I have not had the responsibility of office long enough to complete a full review of major aspects of transportation policy, but I have been sufficiently long in office to ascertain the major matters which in my opinion need prompt attention, and to initiate studies of these. Paramount, of course, and I think all hon. members will agree, is the matter of legislation affecting the railways of Canada in order to eliminate the present massive temporary subsidies and to provide a new framework for future rationalization to meet the increasing competition of other modes of transport. I have been engaged in discussions with a great many interested groups, including representatives from some of the provinces very directly concerned, on the whole subject of proposed legislation arising out of the MacPherson royal commission report on transportation. Much work on this subject had been done by my immediate predecessor in office, the hon. member for Three Rivers, and I have been carrying that on from the point where I believe he left off.
I am quite sure he will understand when I say that, while I have been carrying on from the point where he left off, my continuation of this study and some of the things I found in the course of this study so far will undoubtedly lead to some adjustment in the proposals that were to be brought before parliament. I would not want him to believe that the continuation of the studies, which has been taking a great deal of my time, would merely result in the presentation of the legislation that he had been preparing. There are some major points on which further study has revealed the need for a somewhat different approach, and I hope he will appreciate that.
I expect to have this proposed legislation ready for submission to the house later in the session. I hope the program of the house will be such that at that time it can be dealt with, because I believe it to be of major importance to the economy of this country. I believe that to be a view which is shared by a great many hon. members on both sides of the house.
I have also come to the conclusion that a careful review of major aviation policy as it affects our scheduled air services, and carriers providing these services, is necessary. I believe that some clarification of the relationships and future role is essential to meet the rapidly changing technical and economic circumstances of aviation, and the highly competitive world of international aviation. What this may involve I am not prepared to
Supply-Transport
say in any firm way until the review has been fully completed, but some fairly substantial changes may be needed to protect our national and international position and prevent us from weakening and dissipating our efforts.
As for the field of shipping and shipbuilding, I believe the program initiated by my predecessor has produced useful results, particularly for the shipbuilding industry and other related sectors. I will keep this program under continuing review. Apart from this I have little to add at present, other than to note that various representations, suggesting the need for something more in the way of a shipping policy, all seem to involve additional government subsidies. I can say quite frankly this is not an easy or attractive prospect, and I am reminded that the MacPherson royal commission on transportation stressed in general the need to allow each mode of transport to compete with other modes without subsidizing one at the expense of another.
I have also commenced, with my departmental officials, a review of the general machinery of transportation under the Minister of Transport. I subscribe to the view expressed, I believe, by the MacPherson royal commission and touched on by the Glassco royal commission that this country can best be served by an over-all, integrated approach to transportation. At this stage I am inclined to feel that improved arrangements for coordination of policy, as among the various agencies outside the department which report to me, may be desirable, but I have not yet decided how best this can be achieved. This is another subject that is getting quite active attention at the moment, and I hope to make some changes in this regard in the relatively near future. When I say that I mean within a very few months. It is one of the matters I consider of utmost importance.
Mr. Chairman, I hope this brief and general review will simplify and expedite consideration of the estimates which I respectfully submit to the committee for its consideration and approval.
Before concluding my remarks I must repeat something I said on one occasion on orders of the day. While I do not find orders of the day disagreeable, there are times when I find one has to over-abbreviate replies, and one is not able to explain the subject in quite the way one would wish. However, when I was asked my very first question as minister I took the opportunity to express to the former minister of transport my thanks for the courtesy he showed me on the day I was sworn in as minister. It is perhaps a very small thing, but under our processes of

Supply-Transport
government it is one which I regard as very important, and I want to have it on record when transport matters are being considered here. I therefore repeat my acknowledgment of that courtesy.


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, my first words are of congratulation to the minister on presenting the estimates of the Department of Transport for the first time, and on his appointment as head of that extremely interesting department. I thank him personally for the kind words he expressed about me, and I can assure him that I am quite convinced, when the government changes again, I shall receive the same treatment from him. Anyway I thank him very much for the sincerity of his expressions.
Transportation is definitely a major industry in a country of the size and importance of Canada, even more so than in any other country in the world. Transportation as an industry in itself is of tremendous importance for the services it is called upon to render to the population of Canada, and it is even more important for the tremendous role it plays in the development of trade and industry in a country which lives on external trade. In fact transportation is one of the key factors in the position of Canada as a major exporter.
The government headed by the present right hon. Leader of the Opposition was very conscious of this importance of transportation, and I am sure any independent observer would agree that during the last five years great things were accomplished by the Department of Transport and by the previous government in matters of transportation. When saying that I want to pay tribute to the staff of the department for their wonderful devotion during my term as head of the department. The Department of Transport is a huge department and a modem one. Many things happen in transport, and there is a lot of work for any minister; but during the period I was in charge I always had the good fortune of being able to rely on devoted public servants.
I do not want to make a complete review of everything accomplished by the previous government in transportation matters during the last five years, but I do wish to deal with some of the major problems our administration was faced with and the solutions that we brought forward for the benefit of the Canadian people. During those years Canada took great strides forward in shipping, aviation and railways. Today our position is sound because the previous government dealt with many major problems. However, in transportation things change so rapidly that new problems are created every day. We

might not have settled all the problems, but we certainly attacked them with vigour and determination.
I should like to deal with these three fields separately, and first I shall discuss shipping. At the end of the second world war we had 10,000 Canadians employed on deep sea ships and about 18,000 others on coastal vessels and lakers. During the term of office of the government of our predecessors, Canada's deep sea fleet was allowed to disappear completely, and the same fate was facing our lake and coastal fleets on the St. Lawrence with the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway. Our lakes fleet was protected by the barrier of small canals between the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river, but unfortunately it was composed of old ships which were at a disadvantage, compared with foreign ships, immediately the seaway was opened. In addition, replacements were very difficult to secure owing to the fact that the wages we pay in Canadian shipyards do not compare with wages paid in Europe or Japan. As far as our fishing fleet was concerned, it was also in a most inferior position vis-a-vis European fishermen, starting with Russia. We have probably the best fishermen in the world, but they were handicapped by the fact that they were manning ships which were too old or too small and which could not go far enough out to sea in order to catch the fish. Our fishermen were in the sad position of having to observe huge fleets of modern vessels coming from across the Atlantic to fish right off our shores.
The previous government decided to attack this problem, and in attacking it we took into account the position of our shipyards. We all know the tremendous effort the shipyards of Canada were called upon to make during the war. They expanded at that time, but unfortunately around 1957 the shipyards were facing tremendous problems. All that was left to them were direct government contracts. That was the situation in 1957 when our government took office. We decided to take action. We set up a subsidy policy that has given Canada good, fast, modern ships. This policy also brought about full activity in our large shipyards. At the present time our fleet of lakers is a first class one and I think we can face the competition of foreign vessels in this area.
As far as fishing trawlers are concerned, the new subsidy has meant a great deal to maritimers and the fishermen of our east coast. At the present time all our small shipyards are busy building fishing trawlers. The federal government pays a subsidy of 50 per cent in connection with this shipbuilding. We have given the tools to our Canadian fishermen to go out and compete

with the fishing fleets of the world. Indications are that our fishermen are really increasing their fleet and the program is working extremely well, thanks also to the co-operation of provincial governments in many cases.
Another problem facing our shipping was that of the coastal shipping treaty we had with other members of the commonwealth. Of course the government hesitated before making a decision in this regard. We carried on an investigation of the situation and discovered that this commonwealth treaty did not mean anything today compared with what it meant in 1930 or 1932. One could see some strange situations. You had a group of United States financiers forming a small company in Nassau, with only a telephone and a girl to operate the telephone. A ship was registered in Nassau, the ship was built in Japan, owned in United States, manned by Italian officers and a Chinese crew, and plying Canadian inland waters because it was a commonwealth ship.
This situation was becoming absolutely impossible, and for that reason we decided to take action. We first extended the inland waters of Canada to include such harbours as Seven Islands and Havre St. Pierre, where our great steel mining industry carries on its activities. We notified Great Britain of our intention to withdraw from the treaty and asked her to contact the other commonwealth signatories to the treaty and obtain their agreement to this action. This enabled us to withdraw from the treaty and restrict our inland waters from Havre St. Pierre to the end of the lakes to Canadian flag ships. I think this measure will help our coastal fleet and will assist shipping carried out on the St. Lawrence river and the great lakes. Our action in this regard has produced a great deal of activity in the Canadian shipping world.
Of course it does not settle the matter of the deep sea fleet, but I can assure the house that before the election we were working on some very interesting plans to try to deal with this problem. Canada has a very good seagoing tradition. During the war we had a very large deep sea fleet. I think it is very important for a country which is an exporter, such as Canada, to have a certain number of deep sea ships. Let us not forget that the transportation of our goods to the countries to which we export is a very important factor, and we have a foreign exchange deficit of between $100 million and $150 million in transportation itself. Let us not forget also that the millions of bushels of wheat exported from western Canada to China were all carried in foreign ships. Therefore I hope my hon. friend the Minister of Transport will
Supply-Transport
study this matter and find a solution. We have assured the necessary protection to our coastal, lakes and fishing fleets. I think the next step is to deal with the problem of the deep sea fleet.
Mr. Chairman, I would now like to turn to another field of interest in transportation. I refer to the field of aviation. Aviation in a country such as Canada is a natural. During the five years we were in power we pushed with determination our airport building projects, not only to keep up with the present needs but also to plan for 10 or 12 years in advance. As a result we have in the main cities of Canada large, functional and modern terminals which compare advantageously with those of any country in the world. One has only to see Montreal airport on a Friday night, for instance, to realize that this magnificent air terminal was needed. Another interesting point is that the Montreal airport, even though it is a huge and very modern building which cost a great deal of money, is a paying proposition for Canada. I am sure that as aviation develops all these investments would prove to have been good investments. We have pushed very hard for Toronto to make progress in regard to Malton international airport. I had hoped that this matter might be terminated by last June, but my information is that it will be some time in the fall. It is going to be an important addition to the Toronto area and will provide much needed accommodation for the public.
After the war our regional carriers were in a very sound position due partly to the very advantageous D.E.W. line contracts. These contracts represented many millions of dollars. They were awarded every year, and practically all our regional carriers made progress as a result of these contracts. However, the contracts came to an end and the position of the regional carriers became extremely difficult. We asked the air transport board to make a complete review of all the permits, routes and schedules of the regional carriers. This important inquiry was held across Canada with sittings in all the major cities which had a special interest in aviation. After this review the pattern was revised and special areas were allocated to each of our regional carriers. This new scheme has been in operation for a few months now, and the picture is very encouraging. The new scheme gives efficient service to the population and I think that must always be the key purpose of these enterprises.
We had a difficulty in connection with the milk run. As Your Honour knows, Trans-Canada Air Lines wanted to withdraw from the operation of this run. It was, of course, a deficit operation, but it was one of extreme

Supply-Transport
importance to the population of western Canada. We were faced with the problem. T.C.A. wanted to get out of this route because they had to use DC-3's and they had only two of them; it was an expensive proposition for them to maintain anything but turboprops or pure jets in their fleet. We arranged for the transfer of this route to Transair, and I am informed that the service now is very good and that the population is satisfied with the service it gets in this area.
As hon. members know, we have two major air lines in Canada, one government owned and the other a private corporation. Our government tried, I think with success, to achieve a proper balance between the two. It was not always easy. Both air lines have very aggressive management which is essential in a field such as international aviation. During those five years we witnessed the advent of the large pure jet carriers of the DC-8 type. These huge carriers with their extraordinary capacity, tremendous speed and range, and especially their amazing technical perfection, really revolutionized aviation. But due to the high cost of these planes both air lines faced a period of heavy deficits. Fortunately these deficits are of a temporary nature and already they have nearly disappeared. They will be wiped out completely next year.
I should like to refer to one problem, in particular, which we had to face, the question of the development of the T.C.A. overhaul base in Winnipeg. As hon. members may recall, Trans-Canada Air Lines had decided that after the last Viscount had been overhauled in Winnipeg facilities there would have to close and the overhaul of both turboprop and pure jet planes would be carried out in Montreal. This decision had, of course, to be taken by T.C.A. at the time the $30 million base in Montreal was approved by the previous government. According to the president of T.C.A., this is when the decision was taken. However, thanks to the intervention of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and other hon. members from Manitoba the government to which I had the honour to belong made a very full inquiry at cabinet level at meetings with representatives of the provincial government, various interested municipalities, chambers of commerce and so on. We got from T.C.A. an undertaking to submit the whole matter anew to a firm of industrial consultants specializing in aviation so that a fresh study of the whole situation could be made. That was the position when we left office. I understand the new government is awaiting this report from the firm of consultants.

There is a further point I wish to raise. As you know, Mr. Chairman, Trans-Canada Air Lines has unfortunately never bought a plane built in Canada since the North Star. Now T.C.A. has to buy about 50 short to medium range pure jets. The previous government got from T.C.A. a commitment to obtain the approval of the government before it placed at least the final order for these planes. The purpose was to ensure that a complete investigation of all the possibilities of building the major percentage of the components of such planes in Canadian aircraft factories should be undertaken.
The results were most encouraging. All three possible suppliers of these aircraft have been negotiating with our aircraft industry and proposals, I am told, vary between 60 per cent and 100 per cent Canadian content. I think this is a most interesting and encouraging development, and one from which the Canadian people and in particular the Canadian aircraft industry will derive considerable benefit.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he provide some documentation or directives to this company setting out that policy? I have been unable to find any on that subject, though I have looked carefully.


Léon Balcer: I know there was a cabinet conclusion to that effect. I recall that I myself transmitted the decision of the cabinet to the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines. It is, I am sure, recorded in the cabinet minutes. In addition it was, I am sure, agreed in writing by the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines that he intended to do this. I think it is an important and encouraging development when we consider that this involves contracts in the range of $250 million.
I should like to deal briefly now with the subject of railways. As the minister has said, one of the most important steps we took as an administration was the establishment of the MacPherson commission. When we took office Canadian National Railways were faced with huge deficits. Such deficits are most depressing for both management and employees. During our term of office we witnessed some very thorny labour relations problems in both Canadian railways. The men understandably wanted to get pay adjustments which they considered essential in view of the cost of living and the wages paid to employees in similar industries. Management was faced with the alternatives of a still larger deficit or higher freight rates. The government felt there were clear limits to freight rate increases on account of their effect on Canadian

producers and manufacturers. Our competitive position in the world markets could be jeopardized by any major freight rates increase. These freight rates are of the utmost importance, especially in the western provinces and in the maritimes.
Conscious of this deep-rooted problem, the government instituted the MacPherson commission with very precise terms of reference. This commission did a tremendous amount of work and produced a most thorough report containing a new philosophy and a wide, sweeping approach to the railway problem in Canada. As soon as it was in possession of this report the previous government set to work on the necessary legislation. Needless to say I agree with the minister that the preparation of this legislation was a tremendous job, and just prior to the last election our legislation was practically ready. I should have liked to see our government bring this legislation before the house because of the very hard work that has been done by some of my colleagues. I am sure the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings would agree with that. Much work was done by our cabinet committee on this matter and, of course by responsible officials. It was a very complicated piece of legislation embracing a vast field, with a tremendous impact on railway transportation in Canada.
I am very pleased to hear from the minister that this legislation is coming soon, and will probably be considered this year. I think it is a much needed step and is especially important when you think of the tremendous impact that the well-being of our railways has on the rest of Canada.
I think that is all I want to say at this moment, Mr. Chairman, but I should like the committee to realize what was accomplished by the previous government in the matter of transportation. I think we can say that we were faced with real problems and that we worked toward the solution of those problems. When we left office transportation in Canada had taken some major steps forward which I think was good for Canada as a whole.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I see it is close to one o'clock, but there are one or two remarks I would like to make and some answers I should like to have from the minister regarding our consideration of the estimates today. I should like to know if at the same time we are studying amounts provided for the reduction in freight charges by the C.N.R. or the other railway company. Last year we used to pass those items in the standing committee before bringing them
Supply-Transport
to this committee. If we had passed these estimates before-I see the minister is ready to answer.


George James McIlraith: I think I could usefully answer that question now, Mr. Chairman. C.N.R. matters as such are not embodied in these estimates; they come under another item on the order paper, I think No. 7. That measure concerns the C.N.R. financing act and the financing of Trans-Canada Air Lines. The C.N.R. is not included in these estimates with which we are dealing today, but railways are the subject of one of the supplementary items. There is a major item involving the railways generally. Item 18 on the order paper is the motion to set up the committee to examine into the accounts, estimates and bills relating to the Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines and with certain other powers. The practice has been for that committee to examine in a detailed way the annual report of Trans-Canada Air Lines and the annual report of the C.N.R. and all matters relating to the operations of those companies. Therefore I think it would be out of order to discuss the C.N.R. or T.C.A. today on these estimates.
If I may say so, the portion of the former minister's remarks concerning the purchase of T.C.A. aircraft concerns a matter which does not come under these estimates at all and should be discussed under the other two items on the order paper. It is a difficult line to draw. By the way, I hope that committee can be set up soon. I am ready and anxious to get it set up at the earliest moment, and I had put forward a proposal that the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be reduced in number and that it do the work normally given to the special committee. I had undertaken to refer the two annual reports immediately that was done.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Can I ask a supplementary question. In view of the minister's explanation-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.


Lucien Lamoureux: May I bring to the attention of hon. members that the hon. member for Lapointe has the floor and should be allowed to complete his remarks.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I assumed that the minister was speaking to a point of order, not answering a question.


Lucien Lamoureux: No point of order was raised. I believe the hon. member who had the floor asked for some information.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Then let me raise a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Our party certainly

Supply-Transport
does not accept what seems to be a tendency on the part of the minister to suggest that the C.N.R. and all its ramifications, and that T.C.A. and all its ramifications, should not be discussed, and that they are not properly under these estimates. If that is a ruling, Mr. Chairman, we do not accept it. As a matter of fact we have five or six speakers who will be spending most of their time on Canadian National Railways matters.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should also like to speak to the point of order. We should be able to discuss in a general way-and I think the minister may have gone this far-railway abandonment as it effects the C.N.R. and C.P.R. We should be able to discuss in a general way T.C.A. I do not think those items should be excluded, because railways in western Canada and other parts of Canada and the activities of T.C.A. are the most important features of the department. I think this question should be clarified before discussion proceeds.


Gilles Grégoire: I think it should also be clarified that if we are voting estimates for the C.N.R. and T.C.A. we should withdraw those estimates and first set up the special committee dealing with railways, canals and air lines and then come back to the estimates of the C.N.R. I should like some clarification of this point also. When I asked whether we were discussing the estimates of the railways I included vote 213a in the supplementary estimates, which concerns a payment of $20 million to provide payments to companies subject to order No. 96300 dated November 17, 1958, and also the $50 million payment resulting from the recommendations of the MacPherson commission.


George James McIlraith: I think this point of order should be resolved. Item 213a is a general item for railways and embraces the item in the former Freight Rates Reduction Act and the subsidies paid through the board of transport commissioners. It just happens that the C.N.R. is one of the railways concerned, so that in that indirect way there is something that goes to the C.N.R., but only in that indirect way. The financing and deficits of the C.N.R., as well as of T.C.A., are embraced in the C.N.R. financing act. The practice has been for that legislation to be referred to the special committee set up for the purpose of examining the accounts, operations and so on of the C.N.R. and T.C.A. That has always been the practice. In these estimates there is no direct vote either for T.C.A. or the C.N.R.
To come to the point raised by the hon. member for Bow River, it is quite true that you cannot discuss transport policy without

referring to the nationally owned railway system or nationally owned air line, but it is only in that context. Operational matters and other matters relating to their detailed financing and so on would properly be discussed on either of the other two items, the motion to set up the committee or the financing act itself. That is my point. I hope I have made it clear, and I would hope we could proceed in that way.


Gilles Grégoire: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is not too clear. With regard to the items I have mentioned, the $20 million and $50 million payments by the board of transport commissioners, I think it has been the custom of the house to study them in the standing committee and not the other committee before studying them in the house.


George James McIlraith: That was never the practice.


Gilles Grégoire: That is what was done last year. We had the opportunity to study those two items in the standing committee, not a special or sessional committee but the standing committee. I cannot see why we should not do the same thing this year and study them in the standing committee. Therefore these two items should be withdrawn from committee of supply until the standing committee has had an opportunity to study them. I think the minister should give us this opportunity.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2.30 p.m.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, since we have received the assurance of the Minister of Transport that he will stand item No. 213a in the supplementary estimates, I think this will permit us to study this item in the standing committee before we resume a detailed study of the estimates in the committee of the whole. I believe this procedure will permit us to go a little faster in our study of all the estimates of this department.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, there are several points to consider in the field of transportation. It might be noted, first of all, that the Department of Transport itself is probably one of the largest in the present government.
It must also be admitted that transportation is probably one of the most important means of communication between the Canadian people from all parts of the country. Thanks to our modern means of transportation, it is

much easier than formerly for people from one part of the country to get better acquainted with Canadians from another area.
In a country as large as Canada, transportation must be developed in order to foster a better understanding between the various areas and racial groups, especially the two main groups that make up our country.
Mr. Chairman, when we consider the estimates of the Department of Transport, we note that a great number of fields of endeavour are affected by transport, and therefore, by the Department of Transport: aviation, navigation, canal and railway services, grade crossings, etc.
The first point that comes to my mind is the following: All those areas must undergo some changes and must be brought up to date to meet modern needs, that is, they must develop and expand.
That is why, at the outset, I shall direct a number of questions to the minister. He might deal with them when he closes the discussion and provide answers if he deems it advisable.
Will the new 11 per cent tax levied on materials affect the Department of Transport in its development, its progress and its capital expenditure program with regard to railways, ships, wharves and canals?
If so, I submit that the minister should bring pressure to bear on his colleague so that the implementation of his department's main projects will not be affected by this tax on building materials. Otherwise, the progress of one of the most important departments would be slowed down.
Progress must not be hampered in the transportation industry because it is one of the industries that provide the most jobs in Canada and, therefore, is one of the prime factors of national growth.
Take, for instance, private industry. Considerable progress has been made there with regard to automobile plants, in assembly lines, various service stations, even gas stations, and motels. Add to that what has been accomplished by the provincial governments, such as bridges, roads, etc., and you will realize that the federal government must also do its share in this great industry, particularly with regard to railways, air lines, canals and navigation. The federal government must be in a position to develop those various services I have just mentioned and their progress must not be hampered by needless taxation.
Supply-Transport
In fact, in view of the degree to which private enterprise has developed and modernized, we realize that the transport problem is most alarming because the C.N.R., which is a crown corporation, is competing in such an irregular fashion with private enterprise that its competition practically becomes illegal.
Canadian private enterprise has succeeded in building up a trucking industry which provides a number of our fellow citizens with both employment and income. What happens? The government, through one of its crown corporations, the C.N.R., starts competing with the trucking industry which was set up by private enterprise.
It is noteworthy that the trucking industry shows a profit and pays taxes to the federal treasury, while the C.N.R., a crown corporation, not only does not pay taxes, but also show deficits which we, the Canadian citizens, must make up through our taxes. That is an abnormal situation.
Why should the government compete with private enterprise which has surpluses and pays taxes to the government, when the C.N.R. have deficits without paying any taxes? Such a situation is abnormal, and when one considers the figures one realizes that we give them rather substantial amounts. For instance, we see that the C.N.R. deficit for 1961 was $67,308,000, and $48,919,000 for 1962. And that does not take into account the many subsidies they received from the government. Apart from the $61 million deficit of the C.N.R. for last year, they received $80 million in subsidies of all kinds. We find that this C.N.R. item alone costs $150 million in taxes collected from the Canadian people, to make up for their deficit or fill the gap between their revenues and operation costs.
Mr. Chairman, if the government would instead see that the C.N.R. leave a business that does not concern them, leaving private enterprise to develop by itself the trucking industry which shows surpluses, the Minister of Finance would not have to tell the house this year: like our predecessors, we shall continue to grant subsidies to make up for some deficits. In our opinion, that should not be done, but we shall keep doing it anyway, because we have to do it.
The government should leave private enterprise in peace since it is efficient in that field whereas the government has met with failure. Mr. Chairman, we shall stress that particular point.

Supply-Transport
I shall not insist anymore today, since the minister agreed in a private conversation I had with him to stand item. No. 213a.
However, there is a matter on which we would endeavour to obtain as much information as possible during the discussion on the estimates for next year. We shall try to find through those items before us today what has been the part played by the French Canadians in the administration of public affairs and more particularly within the Department of Transport.
I have here some figures concerning the C.N.R. which I should like to quote and which give a quite accurate idea of what is happening in the Canadian National. In reviewing the various items we shall raise questions about the role played by French Canadians in the administration and in the awarding of D.O.T. contracts.
Why all those questions? Because we would like this government to recognize that the French Canadians should have a bigger place in the administration of the business of this country, so that they may realize that they are equal partners in their own country.
(Text):
"Summary of road property capital budget projects-total of 1962 proposals and cost to complete projects approved in prior years". This shows new lines in the St. Lawrence region, $5,000 out of a total of $34,107,000 for the whole of Canada, an expenditure of only $1 out of every $1,000 spent by the department in the province of Quebec. Road improvements in the St. Lawrence region were $4,141,400 out of a total of $38,392,200 for the whole of Canada, or $1 out of every $10. Large terminals in the province of Quebec were $1,038,000 out of a total of $32,293,000 for the whole of Canada, or $1 out of every $32. Yard tracks and sidings in the province of Quebec were $111,000 out of $1,215,600 for the whole of Canada, or $1 out of every $10.
We will admit we have more than our fair share of buildings. In the province of Quebec these totalled $4,185,000 out of $5,666,100. That is the first item where we have not only our fair share but more than the usual percentage that we should have. The same holds true for highway crossing protection which was $224,300 out of a total of $314,400. There was nothing for signals in the province of Quebec, out of a total of $7,012,200 for the whole of Canada. Anyone who comes into
[Mr. Gregoire.l
the province of Quebec will see how many accidents are caused because there are no signals across roads. How many signals would we require in the city of Quebec alone? How many underpasses and overpasses for railways?
Roadway and shop machinery totalled $278,200 for the St. Lawrence region but out of $2,253,100 for the whole of Canada, which comes to one twentieth of the sum. On that point I would like to bring to the attention of the minister that there is a machine shop in my constituency to repair the materials for the C.N.R., and every year part of it is being closed down.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring it to the attention of the hon. member that he cannot at this point go into the detailed operations of the Canadian National Railways. There is nothing wrong with referring to the general policy that affects the railways, but certainly he should not go into the details of the operations of the company.


Gilles Grégoire: Right, Mr. Chairman, but I think the figures I am quoting only go to prove the general policy. For road property there was $11,250,600 in the province of Quebec out of a total for the whole of Canada of $173,848,500. I think those figures speak for themselves, and of the proposed expenditures for 1962 there was $9,243,600 for Quebec out of a countrywide total of $106,376,900.
(Translation):
Mr. Chairman, I am of the opinion that these figures speak for themselves and can lead us to draw a conclusion.
The fact is that if French Canadians were allowed to take a more active interest in what is going on everywhere in the country, that is at the federal level, they would then be less inclined to withdraw into their shells as so many now do in the province of Quebec. I think that they should be allowed greater access to federal employment.
Last year, Mr. Gordon, president of the Canadian National Railways-and this is only one example to illustrate the general idea that I want to set forth in the house-stated that French Canadians made up 11 per cent of all Canadian National employees, even though French Canadians amount to more than 30 per cent of the total Canadian population.
Incidentally, I have to congratulate Mr. Gordon for having appointed a French speaking vice-president. That appointment pleased

all French Canadians, and more particularly those in the province of Quebec, and we hope that the Minister of Transport will suggest to him that we want a few more, until we have our fair share.
However, I And that he added a few members to the board of directors. In contrast with previous years, Mr. Gordon did not even mention the board of directors, because that would be somewhat embarrassing for him. He also added section directors and assistant directors in Montreal and in the St. Lawrence district. I have to commend him for his know-how and ability in making us accept such conditions.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were a few preliminary remarks I wanted to make to illustrate my point. As a matter of fact, we think that, if the federal government granted our request in the field of transportation as we are discussing the subject today we would be most happy, and not because we want to boss everything, for that is not the case, but inasmuch as we represent nearly 30 per cent of the whole population, we believe we are entitled to our fair share and that this position should be considered.
Moreover, when we are studying the estimates, one by one, we shall try to find out the percentage of French Canadians working in each branch, as well as the salary scales, because that is precisely the responsibility of the investigation commission on bilingualism, if we want to establish the degree to which French Canadians are interested in taking part in this country's business, as they should, not only in the field of employment, but also with regard to building contracts, maintenance, repairs and purchasing.
That is the direction we shall give our questions during the discussion on the estimates.
In short, we are of the opinion that the Department of Transport is one of the most important departments which, through its various bodies, permits the establishment of relations between different areas and between the two great races and cultures making up this country.
It also enables the citizens of our country to become better acquainted. But we would like, when travelling in our country and using federal means of transportation to feel at home. And to illustrate my point, let me give you an example. When we are on a train between Montreal and Ottawa and there are two or three trainmen, it would be normal to have at least one of them who can speak French.
Supp ly-Transport
Also, when a plane leaves Montreal for Vancouver, with five air hostesses, it seems only just that one of them at least should speak French. Actually, things should be worked out in such a way that people from the province of Quebec and, for that matter, all Canadians would feel at home not only in their own province-be it Quebec, Ontario or Manitoba-but everywhere, from coast to coast.
The transportation facilities of the department can contribute materially to that end, that is to make French Canadians feel at home in the whole length and breadth of Canada.
English-speaking Canadians may rest assured that we shall do everything possible to greet them with all due warmth. They may find fault with certain situations, but we shall certainly do our best to correct those situations, for we want them to feel at home when they come and visit us. We shall address them in their mother tongue, and try and understand them, for we are convinced that a better understanding brings about a deeper appreciation.
(Text):


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I do not think there is any department that more closely affects the people of Canada than the Department of Transport. I would like to join in the congratulations that have gone to the minister in taking over the portfolio. I would also like to say to the previous minister, the hon. member for Three Rivers, and his predecessor Hon. George Hees, that I feel they gave members of parliament excellent cooperation and, in a sense, opened up the department to inquiries and interests of members of parliament as well as they could.
The administration of the Department of Transport has never been, I think, severely criticized in this house since I have been here. This is, I would think, an accolade for the gentlemen who are the senior civil servants in the department. Yet I must confess that I felt somewhat disappointed when I heard that the hon. member for Ottawa West had been made Minister of Transport. I have always found him to be one of the most careful, meticulous members in this house and I have a tremendous respect for his integrity and sense of responsibility; but I did feel that the Department of Transport, because of the great needs to develop and fashion a new national transportation policy and a new national policy as outlined by the MacPherson report, might have drawn the

Supply-Transport
appointment by the Prime Minister of some member who had a great interest in transportation, or else was someone who was extremely interested in policy matters.
I hope the minister will forgive me if I say that I feel the very excellent qualities he has are complemented very much by his deputy minister, Mr. Baldwin. I think this may augur very well for the future administrative balance of the department. But I have always felt that the department, in its senior officials, has been somewhat tardy or hesitant; certainly I do not think they have been vigorously forthcoming in setting out new transportation policies, particularly as they cover the broad spectrum of transportation, rather than in specifics, I would be quite willing to concede that in the field of civil aviation the leadership from the senior civil service has been good. However, I do not think the Department of Transport in the last five or six years, in the whole question of railway operations and railway policy, the relationship of the truckers to such agencies as the board of transport commissioners, the relationship of air lines to the air transport board, the relationship of many harbours communities to the national harbours board, has been either especially energetic or leading to any goals that we can easily recognize and easily support.
The primary matter that has always intrigued the Canadian House of Commons, I suppose, since the creation of the railway boom away back at the time of confederation and before, has been the development of railway transport and its effects upon communities. Canadian National Railways year in, year out has borne the largest number of questions and greater interest than any other governmental agency of any kind. You can prove this in a random way just by skirting through the indexes of Hansard. At the present time Canadian National Railways and the railways as a whole are dead centre in the interests of very many hon. members of this house.
Just the other day the minister made an answer to representations that were put to him by a delegation from western Canada with regard to the announced plans of Canadian National Railways to go ahead with run-throughs in the middle of August. The minister's reply was to the effect that it was a matter for negotiation or relationship of a contractual kind between management and labour. I want to say to the minister that his answer is a typical one, typical over the past number of years, and it reflects an inability to recognize, on the part of the government, any kind of responsibility in this very touchy area. The minister will remember that the group which came to him and the

delegations from Rainy River, Melville and these other places did not ask him to interfere in labour-management relations. They asked him if he would use the position he holds to request the Canadian National Railways to postpone the introduction of these run-throughs until there was an opportunity to make a really good presentation of the whole matter. I should like to point out that the problem involved in these run-throughs has been developing all the way along in the relationship between the railways and their employees, as technological change has been advancing. We have never been able to get the government to accept responsibility for some of the dislocation caused or to place the responsibility upon the railways.
At the present time, through the action of this house, the subject matter of a bill I brought forward this session has been referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. The question I wish to put to the minister is this: Will he endeavour through the position he holds to see that these run-throughs are not proceeded with until that committee has had a chance to hear representations concerning changes in the Railway Act which bear directly on this problem? I say they bear directly upon it because these changes would spell out the responsibility of the railway both to the employees and to the communities which this kind of dislocation affects.
There are other hon. members who will, no doubt, wish to speak on this subject. I know that the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar will want to talk about it. I merely want to say that the relationship at the present time between the employees of the railways, particularly in western Canada, and their senior union leadership is very poor. This applies to both major railway companies but particularly to the C.N.R. I am not putting this forward as a fact that can be proven: It is my opinion. I feel this relationship has been worsened by various incidents which have taken place recently and I will mention one of these incidents as an example: The brotherhood of locomotive engineers had a strike vote of over 90 per cent, yet the leadership turned around and settled with the railways without obtaining a single gain beyond those they already had. It is because of suspicions like this existing between the majority of the membership and the unions that one finds such a group as the joint running trades committee, an unofficial group within the locals from Port Arthur to Vancouver, responding spontaneously to the challenge posed by these run-throughs.
I would like to tell the minister this: When I asked the Minister of Labour to get an

assessment made of the situation, I wanted him to make that assessment in order to make sure that the government realizes the threat which is implicit by mid August if the run-throughs proceed. If the railroaders have the same attitude then as they have today, I think there is going to be trouble. I think the minister should be prepared to accept some responsibility for this situation, even though he has denied in a statement he made in the house that this is a matter with which he can interfere. At least, that is my interpretation of what he said.
There is another subject on which I wish to comment in connection with the C.N.R. I want to touch on this matter of railway line abandonment. One of the striking things about the political pressures which have been developing in western Canada as a result of the line abandonment policies foreshadowed in the MacPherson report, is the fact that both the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. have been, generally, lumped together. We do not find the distinction which is often made in this house between the government-owned railway and the privately-owned railway. I should like to tell the minister that this lumping together of the railways in so far as their actions affect public policy is something I should like to see extended into a number of other fields. It seems to me that, given the scope of the subsidies and support which the C.P.R. has been receiving in recent years from the national war chest, it is time we had the opportunity to meet the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway under some kind of formal arrangement in a committee of this house. I make this point because one cannot divide policy in Canada between a government-owned railway on one hand and a privately-owned railway on the other. If the C.P.R. were completely free of regulations or if it were not availing itself of the subsidies permitted to it-and I am not blaming the company for availing itself of these subsidies -I can see why we might leave this company to one side. But in present circumstances I think it is about time an opportunity of hearing the views of the president of the C.P.R. expressed before a parliamentary committee.
One of the questions I should like to ask the minister is this: Will he tell us where are the proposals put forward by Mr. Gordon? Mr. Gordon told us two years ago that he was presenting proposals to the minister of finance and the minister of transport with respect to the long term debt structure of the C.N.R. Since he became president in 1950 Mr. Gordon has changed his mind a number of times as to the factors which are preventing the C.N.R. from presenting a budget ending up in the black instead of in the red.
Supply-Transport
His latest representations seem to me to be to the effect that without a recasting of the debt structure of the C.N.R. the operation is never likely to end on the profit side of the ledger. I had a transportation economist look at the debt structure of the C.N.R. for me and he made the point that one of the reasons these debts are so immense is the large sums which have to be devoted to the repayment of interest charges.
In the last annual report of the C.N.R. for 1962, one finds that the total long term debt outstanding is $1,842,345,846. This is an enormous sum. My friend analysed the two ways in which the C.N.R. has been financing its operations in recent years, particularly with respect to its capital needs, taking care of some of its other long term debt as it has matured. There have been two ways of doing this. One was by the issue of debentures, and in recent years these issues have borne a high rate of interest-over 5 per cent at times. At other times the company has secured loans from government at very low rates of interest. My friend made an analysis as a result of which he told me that if the loans made over the past seven years had been made at a standard or low interest rate of 21 per cent of the total interest charge per year would have been some $350 million less than it is. That is a huge sum to be saved by the C.N.R. had this debt been built up on the basis of an interest rate of 2| per cent. My hon. friend in the Social Credit party could probably make a more effective analysis of that kind of interest rate, but it seems to me ridiculous that the long term debt of the Canadian National Railways, which is a government corporation, should be bearing interest charges as high as 5J per cent, as is the situation at the present time.
I have been very critical, as have other hon. members of our party, of the way Mr. Gordon has operated the Canadian National Railways. He has certainly spent money with abandon I think there have been tremendous results in improving the operations of the C.N.R., but the point is that the debt structure which it bears at the moment is immense. Proposals have been presented to the government over the last two years to alter and to change it, and I think it is time members of this house were privy to those proposals and knew what they were. I think the minister should let us know. I think it would be fair if the minister tabled for us in this house the proposals of the Canadian National Railways with regard to this debt structure. This analysis of the kind of depreciation the C.N.R. is involved in has shown that a debt structure has been developed from which C.N.R. can never get clear in terms of any kind of black gain on their profit sheet.

Supply-Transport
Another point I should like to make at this time is the question of the Matane-Ste. Anne des Monts railway. I have put some questions to the minister about this and I think he will agree that his replies have been less than informative. I can tell hon. members that this was a line which the C.N.R. did not want to build as part of its own structure, so it was launched, as an idea anyway, through a statute passed in this house which set up a government-owned railway which the C.N.R. would build and operate, but whose operating statements, revenues and so on, would be kept to one side as a special sort of government-owned operation. When that bill was before the house I raised some questions as to the economic viability of this road, but the bill went through despite this. I understand from the information which the minister has been kind enough to give me that the estimated costs are higher than those projected, and I should like to know how much higher they are. I feel we are entitled to know this, and I am sure that the people in Gaspe are entitled to know what are the government's intentions with regard to that road. I think the minister should also tell us whether the executive of the C.N.R. feel any more warmly toward this railway project than they did a year or two years ago. It seems to me that the government should be able to give a fairly quick and succinct answer in this regard.
There is one last point in relation to the C.N.R. that I wish to touch on. Mr. Gordon was quoted last January 25 in Labour, the weekly newspaper which is devoted to railway matters on behalf of the unions. The heading is: "Need a fighting morale, says Gordon of C.N.R.", and it goes on:
A strong plea for maintenance of and improvement of employee morale was made by president Donald Gordon of the Canadian National Railways at a meeting of the general chairmen's association of the railway unions held here. He said that "without good morale we couldn't run the railroad" and he asked the general chairmen, who represent union employees all across Canada, to help build this morale amongst their members.
I want to ask the minister whether he would do something that no previous transport minister has done. It is an extra imposition and burden, but I have raised this question of morale, as have other members, with Mr. Gordon before. Mr. Gordon has, to say the least, ridiculed our suggestions. He has said that things were never better, and suggested that if morale on the Canadian National Railway is bad it is probably the politicans who are responsible for it by leading these people along the wrong or improper path. I want to ask the minister whether as Minister of Transport he will consider taking on the responsibility of getting round and talking

to employees of the C.N.R. Everybody says that this question of their morale is important. Mr. Gordon says that he needs a fighting morale. The fighting morale I have seen is the desire on the part of a lot of C.N.R. employees to fight with Mr. Gordon.
I suggest that the minister could not make a better contribution to the Canadian National Railways than to take an interest in its employees. There has been, quite frankly, a tendency for previous ministers of transport to regard it as a hot potato and not to touch it; but I should like to see this minister go out and meet the men-not to call in the union heads, but go out and visit some of the terminal points and get to know the employees, and then arrive at his own conclusion as to why Mr. Gordon wants a fighting morale and claims that they have an excellent morale, when the rest of us who have a great many dealings with the people who work on the C.N.R. find evidence completely to contradict this. I think the minister, given the kind of level head and coolness which he has -I think we all recognize that he is not someone whose emotions will run wild with him- could do this job very well, and then we might reach the stage where a minister of transport could speak to this house about the Canadian National Railways and all the problems which we as members keep encountering with regard to it.
One of my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, is going to talk about the air situation so far as Trans-Canada Air Lines and Canadian Pacific Airlines is concerned, but I should just like to put on the record two resolutions. If we had had the opportunity last year in our sessional committee on railways, air lines and shipping to write a report on the operations of T.C.A. and the C.N.R., I had prepared two resolutions to bring before hon. members which I think speak for themselves. The first one was:
By action of the air transport board following a hearing in 1958, air line competition was introduced in Canada on the transcontinental route. The committee learned during its examination of T.C.A.'s 1961 annual report that that same air transport board has not exercised its authority to ensure that that competition be on a fair and equitable basis.
The reason why we were entitled, as I see it, to come to that conclusion was because on that particular route there are different fares in force as a result of the action of Canadian Pacific Airlines, and also there has been in a sense an extension of the rights which Canadian Pacific Airlines are exercising in light of what was originally expected in 1958.
The second resolution or point which I wanted to put into the report last year was this:

The air transport board, by its failure to disapprove either the T.C.A. domestic passenger tariff filed with it for effectiveness April 1, 1962, or the C.P.A. domestic passenger tariff in force prior to that date, has permitted to exist fare differentials with respect to both first class and economy fares on identical routes flown in the same type of aircraft by both the competing air lines. The committee understands that no similar fare discrepancies with respect to authorized fares exist in the industry, and it therefore strongly recommends that the air transport board be required to take corrective action at once.
The point about the milk runs that bothers some of us, and I have had representations from several air lines in western Canada, is that we do not know what the package is. We do not know what the deal is between the government, T.C.A. and Transair which has the contract at the present time. What did T.C.A. give in terms of dollar value in turning over the DC-3's and Viscounts to Transair? What undertaking did the minister give or the previous minister or the air transport board to Transair?
It is quite obvious to anyone who knows anything about air operations that Transair is losing money hand over fist at the present time. Yet the announcement was to the effect that it was taking this franchise without any subsidy. The only reason that those of us from the outside can figure that it would take over an obviously losing proposition would be that the equipment and services it got out of the deal from Trans-Canada Air Lines were enough to balance off for a period of time, and what some of us are apprehensive about is that once the value that Transair has received in this equipment has been balanced somewhat by the monthly losses that are building up we will get the cry again for a subsidy.
I want to make it clear that the New Democratic party is not arguing against a subsidy on the prairie route, but the point is that several other carriers with experience in that area insist that the route is impractical without some kind of subsidy, and apparently the settlement has been on the basis of no subsidy. I think we are entitled to know a bit more about this particular deal and I particularly should like to know if any great pressure was put on Trans-Canada Air Lines to get them to shift that equipment to Transair, for what I imagine was a very nominal fee.
One of the things that the minister of transport in the previous government took credit for, and I think to a degree deservedly so, was the great improvement in the shipbuilding industry as a result of the Conservative shipbuilding program. The former minister will remember that there are a few of us who have shipyards in our constituencies which have not benefited from the
Supply-Transport
shipbuilding program, and the subsidies. One of the complaints that we at the head of the lakes have, and it is a consistent complaint, is that our shipyard is owned by a very large corporation which also has yards at Collingwood, Kingston and Lauzon, Quebec. Naturally under the present set-up this firm has taken advantage of the subsidies and has directed the majority of its new construction into its yard at Lauzon and, secondarily, to its yard at Collingwood. That is accepted, I suppose, as the right of a private corporation; but the point I have made, and I know the hon. member for Fort William has made it also, is that any time the government is putting up that much of the cost for new shipping by way of subsidy, surely it must have the policy objective in mind of keeping our shipyards in this country to some kind of level both with regard to skills and plant. How effective is a shipbuilding policy if it leads to great concentrations and benefits in certain yards while other yards slip downhill both in terms of the quality of the workmen available and the kind of equipment they have?
I wish to say to the present minister that we think the shipbuilding subsidies have been an excellent thing, but we feel there should have been some provision in the act to permit some extra kind of incentive, not a penalty, to see that all yards in Canada have some opportunity for some of this construction. If the government should feel that even this kind of incentive to a private corporation such as Dominion Shipbuilding is something that philosophically they cannot accept, then I suggest that those yards that are not being given ships to construct by their corporate headquarters should be given first consideration when it comes to the construction of government ships. This is something again that we have been pushing for at the lakehead, but which has never been recognized.
Our shipyard at the lakehead in the main has diversified into a lot of lines and has done very well. It serves a very necessary repair yard. It is not the kind of shipyard that Canada can dispense with, because of its location and because of the great increase in shipping, particularly deep sea shipping through the St. Lawrence seaway and up to the head of the lakes. But what that shipyard needs to give it the kind of staff and the skills, and the opportunities to keep going, is an occasional new ship, government or private, and with the present structure of Dominion Shipbuilding this does not seem possible.
Another point about which I should like to ask the minister is whether he has given any

Supply-Transport
consideration to having a survey made of some of the harbours in Canada at present under harbour commissions constituted by this house, such as the lakehead harbour commission, and having them brought into a closer relationship with the national harbours board.


The Deputy Chairman:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask if I may finish this particular point, with the consent of the committee.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should not like to suggest that at the lakehead, for example, we want the harbour commission to be taken over by the national harbours board at the present time, but I do feel that the national harbours board has experience and knowledge that would be of immense assistance to the lakehead harbour commission if it could be made available on some kind of co-operative or liaison basis. I should like to ask the minister to consider that point. Finally, I would ask the minister when he is making his explanations to please tell us what role he played, and I should like a complete answer, in turning down or seeing that the government turned down the application for a radio station in Hull.


George James McIlraith: Where?


Douglas Mason Fisher: 


George James McIlraith: There is none there.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, people from Hull, but in Ottawa.


Mr. Carter:: Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has just pointed out, the Department of Transport touches the lives of practically all Canadians and I should like to take advantage of this opportunity to bring before the minister a few of the most urgent needs of the people of my constituency. Before doing so I should like to associate myself with those who have expressed their compliments and good wishes to you personally, sir, and also to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker on assuming the high offices to which you have been called. I should also like to congratulate the minister on his appointment and to compliment him on the manner in which he has presented his first estimates to the house.
Before going further I should like to express my appreciation of the work that is being done by the very dedicated staff both here in Ottawa, and in my own province, and to voice my personal thanks for the

great co-operation and sympathetic consideration which I have always received from them whenever I have brought problems to their attention. I hope the minister will be able to come to my province before long. When he does he will discover that the office of his department in my province is seriously understaffed. The austerity program prevented new appointments being made, and I believe that the office has about half of the staff it requires to do its work efficiently. I know that the minister has not had time to inquire into all the facets of his department, but I would ask him to check on the salaries paid to top officials in his department, particularly in my own province, to ascertain how they compare with the salaries paid to the heads of other departments who have to carry comparable responsibility.
Now, practically all of my constituents live by the sea, and most of them live on the sea. It will be appreciated that aids to navigation have an important bearing on their lives in so far as they contribute to their personal safety and to their efforts to earn a livelihood. I want to express my thanks, on behalf of my constituents, for the many improvements that have been made in this regard during the past year. I hope that this improvement will be continued in the years ahead. I was glad to hear the minister say this morning that provision had been made for a marine haul-up at Clarenville. This is very fine, but Clarenville does not happen to be in my own riding. I want to impress upon the minister that the need in the riding of Burin-Burgeo is even more urgent than the need in Clarenville. The whole south coast, from Port aux Basques right around to St. John's, has no facilities at all for hauling out small boats for steamship inspection, maintenance and other purposes. There used to be one at Burin, but that has gone into disrepair and is no longer useable. Even the one at St. Pierre and Miquelon is now not as useful as it was. It is a very serious handicap to the people in the constituency when these facilities do not exist. We had hoped that they would have been provided long before this. We are waiting patiently in the hope that the provision of them will not be delayed very much longer.
I want to express my appreciation of the fact these estimates do contain some provision for expanding the ferry services between my province and the mainland. I want to urge the minister to speed up the construction of these ferries because I can assure him, from my own personal knowledge, that the travelling public is exposed to very serious inconvenience for the lack of these services. I do not want to expand on that, but I can say that I have seen people sitting

around without even a place to lie down because all the motel and hotel services at Port aux Basques or in the vicinity were completely filled. I should like the Minister of Transport to communicate with the management of Canadian National Railways, who should also have some responsibility to the travelling public to see that this situation is alleviated whenever possible by making sleeping cars available at the terminal when no other facilities are available.
I know the minister has not had time to examine all the different bits and pieces of administrative machinery in his department, but I want to bring to his attention one suggestion which I hope he will consider. My suggestion has to do with harbour administration. We do not have very many harbour boards, but I believe in decentralization of authority whenever possible. We do have in my province a number of pilotage commissions and a number of small harbour boards. They are set up under the act and their duties are separated. I believe it would tend to greater efficiency and better service if the scope of their authority could be extended. I see no reason why any efficient pilotage commission could not also have some responsibility for harbour administration. I see no reason why an effective harbour board could not also assume some of the duties of a pilotage commission. In small communities such as we have in my riding, the very same people act on these boards practically all the time. For all practical purposes, therefore, they are the same people wearing different hats.
I do know that a good deal of inconvenience could be eliminated if when we set up public harbours we did set up some local authority to which the harbourmaster could report, instead of having to report to the district office at St. John's. The district office, in turn, must get in touch with Ottawa before a decision can be reached. During the summertime, when we have short hours, with four o'clock closing on Friday and extra long week ends sometimes stretching over until Tuesday, long and unnecessary delays are experienced. If the minister would consider this suggestion, I think it would be beneficial to all concerned.
The last point I want to make is in connection with the subsidies for coastal shipping, to which the hon. member for Three Rivers referred this morning. I think that was a good move, but as the former minister himself pointed out it was designed mainly to help the shipyards. We do not have many shipyards in my province. We have one, possibly two. Most of our ships are built by the people who are going to sail 28902-5-137
Supply-Transport
them. These people go into the woods in the wintertime, cut timber for the frame and then proceed to build a ship. When these people try to take advantage of the subsidy, despite all the efforts of the maritime commission to help them with their problem, it is a very long and difficult operation before they can be assured they will receive the benefit of the subsidy. I think it should be possible to amend these regulations so as to take care of the cases which I have just described. I agree with the former minister of transport that we should be thinking in terms of expanding our merchant navy.
Our coastal fleet in Newfoundland has practically disappeared and there is not much incentive to replace it. Even with the subsidies granted, it is cheaper for the ship operators to have new ships built in Holland or Japan.
We are a nation of seafaring people, and we need small coastal ships to distribute our goods from the larger centres to the smaller communities. This type of service can best be supplied by small, locally built ships, which very often are built by the persons who are going to own and use them. I hope the minister will try and make it easier for such people to take advantage of the assistance that is available from his department.


Clarence Owen Cooper: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a few words about railway abandonment. I believe there should be a good long look taken before railway companies can go out and indiscriminately roll up tracks and abandon branch lines. When the former administration was in power there was a verbal agreement that all abandonment of branch lines would be frozen until there was a meeting called with the railways, the government, the large grain handling agencies in western Canada, and that in conjunction with the Mac-Pherson report an over-all policy would be worked out.
We in western Canada are very much concerned about this, as there is only one way of getting our grain out to the northern port of Churchill, the west coast, or to the head of the lakes, and that is by the railways. We have many grain handling devices on our farms, such as augers and blowers, but I repeat there is only one way of getting grain to the delivery points, and this is over the railways.
Railway abandonment will have a serious effect on Rosetown-Biggar constituency, which is one of the larger grain growing districts in Saskatchewan. I do not like to take individual cases, but there is one line for which there has been an application to abandon, and where this would affect many more people than the farmers. It is a short line running from Stewart Valley, a little village, out to the main C.P.R. line. At present the farmers

Supply-Transport
in the district haul their grain to the town of Stewart Valley, but if the railroad is abandoned and they haul their grain north they will have to cross the Saskatchewan river. To go east they would have to cross Stewart Valley, and if they have to haul it to the main line this would involve a distance of 40 or 50 miles in many cases.
The farmers and businessmen are not looking for passenger service or express service. Their whole plea is service for the handling of their grain. Stewart Valley is a thriving little town in the centre of a good wheat growing area. Businessmen in the district have their life savings tied up in small businesses, grocery stores, implement businesses and the like. If this line were abandoned there would be nothing else for them to do but move out, and leave their lifetime savings behind them and start all over again at some other point. This would cause considerable hardship to everyone in the district-and this is just one instance which will be repeated over and over again throughout the whole prairie region.
There is another matter which should be looked into in order to get a clear picture of the whole railway system in western Canada. I would like to bring to the attention of the committee the new policy which the C.N.R. intends to inaugurate in the very near future. It is known as the run-through, and is the doubling up on divisions.
The hon. member for Port Arthur has explained this very well, but I would like to call attention to just a few of the hardships it would cause at home divisional points, where the railwaymen make their homes. This is a case where train crews would run over two divisions, and it would cause a lot of unemployment.
One of the main towns in my constituency is the town of Biggar, which is known as a home division. If this run-through system is inaugurated it will take 150 men out of that little town of 3,000 people, 79 of whom are home owners. In many cases the railway employees who have built homes would have to pick up and leave, and go to wherever they were transferred, and when you take 79 home owners out of a little town of 3,000 people there is not much left for the town.
Biggar is not the best wheat growing area in my constituency, but it has a very good cattle industry. This alone would not support a town of its size, and if the railway employees had to move, as many of them who have built homes and are paying for them would have to do, there would be no chance of selling these homes, since there is no industry to bring people into the district.
I have talked with many railwaymen and all they are asking is a chance to work their

regular hours. They tell me that after eight hours in the cabs of fast moving freights, the strain is too great, and more accidents are caused after working that length of time in the cab. I know railway companies have as their motto, "safety first", and this is one of the things that should be taken into consideration. This is a matter at which we should take a good long look before the railways are allowed to go out and indiscriminately roll up the lines. I have a lot more to say on this point but there are other speakers who wish to participate in the debate. Therefore I ask the minister to give consideration to these things before the railway lines are abandoned.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether I should answer some of the questions now, before too many accumulate. I shall try to confine my remarks to answering specific questions asked by hon. members. No doubt I will overlook a few, but this will be solely due to my system of doing my own reporting to myself, which I can assure hon. members is grossly inadequate.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: I would like to put one question to the minister. On the orders of the day I asked a question concerning the Soulanges canal.


Mr.   Mc@: Perhaps I should answer that first, although I had hoped the hon. member would leave it until we came to the appropriate item when I would have the precise information in front of me. The situation is quite clear and it originated under the former minister.
As I understand the matter, there was an intimation from representatives of the government of the province of Quebec that they would take over the canal. Then the negotiations as to the detail of doing that were continued during the last year or two years- some considerable time anyway-and the result now is that we have an intimation that they are not interested in taking over the canal. Therefore it is a matter of determining the method of disposing of the canal.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to cut in on the minister but I would like to take this opportunity to point out that as far as the federal government was concerned, we had reached a conclusion on this matter of the Soulanges canal-


Mr.   Mc@: That is right.


Léon Balcer: -and the Department of Transport had notified the Quebec government that we had agreed to give over the canal to the province. We then wrote to the province and asked them to pass an order in council to this effect, but we never received the order in

council. It has only been during the last few days that I have read in the newspapers that the federal government had refused. That is absolutely wrong, because we did not refuse.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear that the federal government did not refuse and has not yet refused. It was quite the other way around; the federal government always took the position of being ready and prepared to carry out the transfer to the provincial authority, and the provincial authority has now indicated that it is not prepared to accept this transfer. That is the situation.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: What will you do with this canal?


George James McIlraith: I will have an announcement to make very shortly, I presume; but I expect we will be disposing of it by one means or another. There is no objection to providing the correspondence on this matter, if any hon. member wants it. I do not have it here with me at the moment. I had expected, when this question was asked on the orders of the day, that it would not be raised again until we came to the appropriate item in the estimates, when I could give the information in a more precise way, with dates and that sort of thing.
I think some of the other questions that have been raised should be dealt with. A good deal was said by the hon. member for Lapointe about the C.N.R. deficits, and that sort of thing. The very point he makes there is the kind of thing that should be raised when the annual report and financial statement of the C.N.R. are before the committee. This question should either be raised there or when the house is considering the proposed legislation having to do with C.N.R. financing. It is not the kind of question that can be fully and thoroughly answered here. Indeed, this kind of question is not, in the detailed way in which the hon. member asked his question, relevant to these estimates.
However, I wish to say to the hon. member that we would be very glad to deal with all the points raised by him in this connection, and my saying what I have said is not in any way intended to deal with the whole subject which he has raised, because it deserves far more adequate and thorough treatment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question. Last year, when Mr. Gordon was before the particular committee to which the minister has referred, the present Minister of Justice and I asked him a number of questions with regard to this deficit, the debt structure, and so on, 28902-5-137i
Supply-Transport
and he made the point at the time, "I cannot deal with any one part of the question that has been raised without dealing with it all"; that is, the whole question of formulas and all the rest of it. I would make the point to the minister that we were not able, in the committee, at the resolution stage or during consideration of the financing bill last year, to get into this question of the C.N.R. debt structure.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, I was going to come to another part of the same question raised by the hon. member for Port Arthur. However, I should point out to him that the C.N.R. financing bill did not come before parliament last year, as I remember it. The bill presented this year will cover the two years; this matter did not come before parliament last year. As to the remarks of the hon. member for Port Arthur, I quite appreciate what he has said about a policy regarding civil aviation. I cannot help recalling some of our concern when we were considering this legislation before the hon. member was elected to parliament, in earlier years, when I had a rather close association with the civil aviation branch. But I think he failed to take note of what I said in my opening remarks about the need for a statement on over-all air policy. The hon. member is quite correct in asserting that there is a need for clarification of over-all air policy in relation to present day conditions. One can argue about whether some of those things came about because they should have been done differently by the former government, or are due to the modern development of different types of aircraft, or development in different countries. You can argue that question as much as you like, but the fact remains that this matter is now receiving close attention. I would anticipate that it would be another two or three months before it would be possible to make the kind of complete statement that is required in order to deal with it in an adequate and proper way.
The hon. member talked a good deal about the run-throughs on the Canadian National Railways, and the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar made some reference to this question. I feel quite sure that other hon. members will wish to speak on this matter. That, again, is the type of question I would have hoped would come before the committee, but because of its importance I think I should say something about it now. I think the hon. member for Port Arthur did not make it clear that the group which came with him in the delegation on May 30 was made up of representatives of municipal councils of the towns concerned, boards of trade and employees of the railway, who of course were also union members. I made it very clear,

Supply-^-Transport
when he and other hon. members came with the delegation, that as to those parts of their representations which had to do with union agreements between the railroad company and the unions, it was my position that I would not discuss with individual union members those internal matters which come within union agreements, that those agreements provided the method by which the unions should raise with the management matters which concerned them; that is, through their general chairmen, and so on. It is all precisely set out in the agreements.
I think I made that reservation, if the hon. member will recall, two or three times in the course of that interview, because I think it is most important that in any arrangement with employers regarding union matters there should be no interference by the minister in the internal affairs of the union. The answer I gave the hon. member, when he asked some questions on this subject matter in the house, reflected the same view. In other words, as I see it, it is quite impossible for unions to conduct their business properly as between union and management if a minister of the crown is dealing with individual members of the union, rather than having such communications pass between management and the unions through the defined channels set out in the union agreements. I have noted the hon. member's remarks to date on this subject and, I am sure he will wish to change at least part of them when he reads what he said. I refer to that part of his remarks where the hon. member indicated it is the function of the Minister of Transport to have consultations and dealings with individual union members with a view to taking some kind of action with their own elected or chosen officers of the union.
I wish to make it plain that I would regard that as a most improper intrusion on my part into the internal affairs of the union. I believe that it would, in effect, be destroying a very simple right of the union members.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister allow me to ask a question in that regard? Would he not agree that as Minister of Transport he has the authority to ask the Canadian National Railways to postpone this very comprehensive step until such time as it can become a matter of discussion between the union and the railways?


George James McIlraith: I hope the hon. member will not misunderstand me when I tell him that if he would just permit me to make my own statement I will try to make it in sequence and deal with all the major points he has raised. He is referring now, of course, to the notification that went out indicating that the target date for the change, as far as
[Mr. Mcllraith.f
these run-throughs are concerned, is August
18.	The hon. member requested me to in-terfere-to change that date arbitrarily. I considered that, and I think it would be an improper way of dealing with such a situation. I feel that matters of the internal management of the railways must be left to the management. Nevertheless, I took great care to communicate the brief immediately to the management of the railways, together with my comments on the presentation of it, the additional views which were expressed by way of explanation, and certain other correspondence. I wish to point out one or two other facts. If the hon. member would read carefully the correspondence which was sent out he would find that this date, August 18, is a target date. He would also see, if he referred to an answer I gave him the other day-it is reported in Hansard on July 10, at page 2044-that meetings have been going on between management and the unions. These meetings are continuing now, and I do not understand the desire to have me interfere in this matter in the way indicated by the hon. member.
The hon. member made certain firm assertions about the run-throughs. I would point out to him that there are a lot of men and a lot of views involved in this. All the circumstances are by no means as he has indicated. Many of them are, but many of them are not. Here, again, we are getting into detail as to how the run-throughs work; but a great many of the men seem to consider this as being an improvement which enables them to put in the required time in a shorter period. It has certain other advantages which, again, could be set out on the appropriate occasion, that occasion being when we are dealing with the C.N.R. In any event, I wish to make it clear that I am keeping closely in touch with developments in western Canada as they are affected by this proposed run-through program and I have been careful to send out letters to those hon. members who are directly concerned with the problem. These letters are intended to provide helpful information, and I hope they do so. I have also sent them out to various other persons who appeared with the delegation.
As to the minister calling in union members, I think that where there is a union agreement between management and labour it would be most improper for the minister to deal with certain union members in the way indicated. I wish to make it clear that I would not have any part in dealings of that kind, because in my view if one started that kind of practice and carried it through to a logical conclusion he would be destroying the whole union system.

I am glad the hon. member raised the question of air fares.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Before the minister gets to that subject, may I say this: His last comment suggests that I put to him the proposal that he should call in union people. I did not do that at all. I suggested he should go and find out something about the morale on the railways by visiting C.N.R. employees at all levels, not just union people, because I think this matter is intrinsic to an understanding of the C.N.R. position. I suggest he should start with the hon. member who represents the city of Moncton, who is a railway employee with the C.N.R. and who is associated with him in the Liberal party.


George James McIlraith: In my opinion, the hon. member in question and the Minister of Transport communicate rather well. I do not find they have much difficulty in communicating satisfactorily, at least as far as the minister is concerned. In any event, I thank the hon. member for Port Arthur for his suggestion.
I am glad he raised the question about air fares. This has been causing me a great deal of concern, and it is a matter which will have to be dealt with. I must say I have found a good many problems of this kind which I feel need to be dealt with. It is a matter of taking action in an orderly way as fast as I can. Incidentally, while the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo was very keen that I should do a great many things, I could not help reflecting that it is less than two months since I have had the responsibility of office- not much time in which to build all these structures or even to design and plan them. That cannot be done in a few days. I hope the hon. member will not mind that remark. I can assure him that one of the matters he mentioned concerning the office in Newfoundland has already come to my attention. I have already dealt with that, in a satisfactory way, I hope.
The hon. member for Port Arthur raised a question in connection with the Gaspe railway legislation. He asked whether the C.N.R. feels more warmly about that railway now than it did two years ago. It is not a matter of how the C.N.R. feels on this subject. It is a matter of government policy, because we are dealing with legislation respecting the line. It is clear that the estimated cost, as indicated so far, is very much greater than that indicated in the legislation. The significance of that is that the whole project has to be re-examined and a decision taken. I hope to have an announcement made shortly on policy in connection with this railway. I can assure the hon. member it is getting close attention.
Supp ly-Transport
There are other factors which will have to be taken into consideration also, such as the damage caused by splitting these very narrow farms in the valley and damage resulting to a good part of that region from putting a railway through the middle of it, and other questions of that sort. In any event the matter is very close to decision now, and an announcement of policy will be made, I anticipate, in about three weeks or a month.
There was reference by the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar to railway line abandonment. That is, of course, a matter for the proposed legislation which, as I indicated in my opening remarks this morning, will be coming in later this session. I fear that my good friend from Rosetown-Biggar has not been reading his mail very carefully. I think he will find that it indicates that none of these abandonments of freight lines in western Canada will take place until this legislation has been dealt with. In fact, that appeared from an answer to a question asked me in the house some weeks ago. The question of the prairie milk run is another matter which I think should come from T.C.A. before making any commitment.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Would the minister give an undertaking that when he appears before the committee, in association with the president of Trans-Canada Air Lines, he will allow the president to give the details of the arrangements? I ask this question because he may recall that on occasion both the presidents of T.C.A. and C.N.R. have turned to the minister of transport and asked whether they could give this information.


George James McIlraith: I would want to look at the question, but I do not see any reason why there could not be some further disclosure of the information, whatever it was. Perhaps I could give it here, but whichever the hon. member would prefer. If he wants me to give it here I will, if I have a few minutes to get the information.
Questions were asked about the harbour commission. Legislation has already been prepared on this matter. I am not sure whether it is on the order paper in the other place or not, but legislation, dealing with the subject of harbours in an effort to bring a more cohesive system forward than presently exists, is ready. A question was asked about a radio station in Ottawa and a recommendation made by the board of broadcast governors to grant a licence. If I correctly identify the station, and there has only been one where no approval of a licence was given, the situation was very simple. Last February, I think it was, although I am speaking from memory, the board of

Supply-Transport
broadcast governors recommended approval of an application for a French language station in Ottawa which was to be privately owned. They also recommended approval of a French language C.B.C. station. There is in existence in this area a French language C.B.C. station, the station in Hull. Those recommendations were not dealt with by the former government and remained to be dealt with.
When the matter came to me-I might say here that I have some familiarity with the subject matter, a good deal of which was acquired before I became minister-it seemed to me that what was being done was to destroy the whole system of French language broadcasting in Ottawa by putting two additional stations into operation at the same time, or by increasing the present coverage by three times what it was. That seemed to me a thoroughly wrong policy, and in the great many conversations which I had in Ottawa with persons of the French language I found complete unanimity on that point. Therefore what I did was to approve one of the recommendations and decline the other. I thought that that was the fair and proper thing to do in these circumstances. It may interest hon. members to know that I received only one letter of protest on the matter, and the writer had not realized that two applications had been made, and I think he was quite surprised to learn that one application had been approved.
While I do not propose to substitute myself for the board of broadcast governors on these matters, I must point out at the same time that the legislation is very clear and explicit. Certain duties are set out in that act obligating the board to conduct hearings and to make recommendations. There is also a direct responsibility explicit in the Radio Act on the Minister of Transport to issue licences. I cannot believe that direct statutory obligation is intended to be nothing but the mere writing of a name in the appropriate place.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Might I ask the minister a question. He must surely agree that his reasons, which sound very common sense and reasonable, for not approving this application are also reasons which the board of broadcast governors are supposed to consider. It is not a question of its statutory right, which we all concede, but the fact that this does cast a reflection upon the capacity of the board of broadcast governors to make a sensible and common sense decision.


George James McIlraith: No, I would not agree with that proposition. This is a problem which I think I can properly say I inherited from the former government, and I dealt with it

in what I thought was a fair and proper way. I think the best evidence of that is what happened subsequently. I might add there were editorials in some papers miles away from Ottawa on this subject, but I had no correspondence except the one letter to which I referred.


Léon Balcer: Just to keep the record clear, Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the committee that although this matter was before the former government, it was during the election and we did not have time to deal with it. It was not a matter which was lying around for six or seven months; it rose right at the start of the election when everybody was away from Ottawa.


George James McIlraith: I think the date was February 11, or some time in February, when this recommendation was made; but in any event it was during the election period and the former government did not deal with it. I am not criticizing them for not dealing with it; quite frankly, I wish they had.
In any event, I did not particularly mean to criticize. But I would also point out to the former minister that the present minister has been criticized for not dealing with some matters which have come much more recently, very much more recently, and have covered a much shorter period of time. I am going to find his answer most helpful and useful, and I thank him for it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does the minister feel that this might be a precedent for him to substitute his discretion for that of the board on future occasions? There is an old adage: What is the sense of hiring a watchdog to do your own barking?


George James McIlraith: The answer is quite simple. I sharply criticized the legislation when the government of which he was a member put it before the House of Commons, but it was passed. That government had some 208 supporters and we had some 49 or 50. I do not recall the numbers precisely. In my opinion, as appears from the records of the house, that legislation was not clear and was not good legislation. It may well be that the legislation requires improvement and clarification, but that is another matter with which I am not concerned today. The point is that that is the way they left the legislation. It was his government that put the legislation in this form. All I could do was carry out the statutory obligation imposed on me as best I could and exactly as I saw the obligation under the statute, and that I did.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This is your interpretation.


George James McIlraith: It is more than my interpretation: It is the fact.

(Translation):


Mr. Lessard (Lake SI. John):: Mr. Chairman, I would not fail today to take this opportunity to refer to the transportation policy in Canada and the way it affects the economic development of our country.
As a citizen of the province of Quebec first and also speaking on behalf of my group, I shall deal only with the things affecting the province of Quebec and particularly the Saguenay area which I represent.
Mr. Chairman, transportation, in Canada and in the province of Quebec has, in the past, played an important role and I am convinced that its role will be as important in the future.
I should like to refer more specifically to the railways which were built at the end of last century or at the beginning of the present one in the Saguenay area. According to the information we have now, there has been no improvement in the Montreal-Saguenay railway line.
The Saguenay area has some heavy industries like paper and aluminum and a great deal of their production and raw material are transported by railways.
I know that the C.N.R. gets a lot of revenues from the Montreal-Saguenay line. This being so, it behooves us to bring to the attention of the minister the fact that his department should see to it that the Saguenay service is immediately improved so that those industries may have better transportation facilities. In the past, people used to take the train to Montreal and back, but they abandon more and more this means of transportation because it takes too long to travel the 300 miles between our area and the Canadian metropolis.
This line, which was laid out at the beginning of this century, follows all the contour lines in the mountains, and skirts around the lakes. But since at that time the machinery necessary to undertake such major works was not available, we can readily understand why this is such a winding line. However, I think that in 1963, it is possible to remedy such problems and to bring about some improvements at a really reasonable cost, which would result not only in a reduction in freight rates, but in cutting at the same time the number of hours required to travel between my area and the metropolis.
Naturally, the government would have to provide certain sums of money, but I believe it would be a good investment because of the additional profits the C.N.R. would derive from it.
Supply-Transport
Mr. Chairman, in the policies of railways, there are certain aspects which could be questioned. I wish to point out, for instance, that recently, that is yesterday, the Canadian Pacific asked for aluminum cars. You will readily understand that I am interested in that because the Saguenay area is an aluminum-producing region. Well, if the C.N.R. is thinking of changing its rolling stock soon, or of improving its rolling stock -something that is required, for a good percentage of it is already quite obsolete-it should consider the advisability of using aluminum in the manufacture of its cars. In doing so, it would not only be using a light material, but a Canadian product as well. And the crown corporation would have everything to gain because, by reducing the weight of the cars, aluminum makes possible an increase in the payload. In short, companies that have put that material to the test in the manufacture of their rolling stock have found that it represents some real savings.
I know that the Alcan company itself has, for its own use, built just such a car. The practical technical proof having been established, the government should examine the advisability of using that material, which is a real Canadian product-except, of course, for the raw material-in the manufacture of the equipment required by the Department of Transport and especially the Canadian National Railways.
I should like to state briefly at this time that the residents of the Saguenay district have asked the government repeatedly and for a long time to consider the advisability of completing the railroad around lake St. John. At present, the line goes from Dolbeau to Chambord where it is connected to the railroad which serves the Chicoutimi area, via Hebertville, so that on a distance of some 60 miles there is no railway service.
In the past, several industries have thought of establishing themselves on the north shore of lake St. John but they dropped the idea because of the lack of essential transportation facilities and went elsewhere.
There are vast mineral deposits in the north part of the riding of Lake St. John. Northern Quebec could well open up on that part of the Saguenay district and on lake St. John in particular. I know that in the future the mining production of the Mistassini will have to pass by the Saguenay area. That will compel the government to build that railroad and to extend it towards the north.

Supply-Transport
Mr. Chairman, there was a debate recently on a bill to set up an economic council. That body will certainly have to work in close association with the Department of Transport if it wishes to contribute to the orientation and the economic growth of underdeveloped areas where progress is slow.
As I said, we have two industries in the Saguenay district, paper and aluminum. They date back to the turn of the century and we now have a labour surplus because their production is for export. We cannot encourage secondary industries to settle in the Saguenay area because of the high transportation costs of their production to the exterior markets and the populous centres is prohibitive.
Mr. Chairman, the transportation system will be a direct and very important factor on the future industrial growth in Canada, in the province of Quebec, and particularly in the Saguenay area where I live. That is why I strongly urge the minister to consider the economic situation of the Saguenay area in the light of that disadvantage. Almost 300,000 people live in that area which is serviced by a very outmoded railway, badly in need of renovation. We need also better shipping services. We need an improved air service, so that the companies that would be attracted by cheap power will settle in the Saguenay district.
I believe that the preferential rates granted by the Department of Transport help balance production costs in the various parts of the country. If we objected to the subsidies paid by the government to the C.N.R. we did not object to the subsidies themselves but to the fact that they allowed the C.N.R. to compete against a transportation system which is also entitled to exist and expand. I refer to the trucking industry.
We suggested, and at that time our Liberal friends supported us, that those subsidies should be paid to shippers whoever they are, in order to cut transportation costs. If someone prefers to use trucks, it is obvious that it will cost him more than if he used the C.N.R., but he will benefit from this adjustment in subsidies granted to transportation. In my opinion, the Minister of Transport would render a great service to the people of the Saguenay area if he would take these factors into consideration.
Our area needs new industries. Those industries will settle in the Saguenay area when we have eliminated that obstacle, which seems

to be the only one, that is the cost of transportation for their finished products to the export and domestic markets. In fact, the Saguenay area is fairly well situated, if not in a better situation than any other part of this country, because it can use the magnificent Saguenay river up to Bagotville.
We need port facility improvements, but I especially want to tell the minister that Bagotville is, in my opinion, the best place to erect the planned warehouses for the storage of feed grain. Last year that question was raised several times here in the house; I myself raised it this year and I take advantage of this opportunity to deal with the matter again, because farmers in the Saguenay area rely very much on those future developments. I contacted every agricultural organization in the Saguenay area and if they were not previously convinced of the necessity of this improvement, they are now unanimous in admitting it.
I know that the ministers of agriculture and transport have received representations to that effect from those organizations. I am convinced that the government would make people happy if it were building this warehouse in Bagotville or in Chicoutimi-at any rate the choice of the site is merely a technical matter-as soon as possible, in order to enable our farmers to get feed grain at a reasonable price and especially to make it available all year round.
In the past, transport and grain tycoons have unfortunately created shortages so that a great number of our people could not get the grain they needed.
While on this subject I should like to tell the house that the Department of Transport intimated that consideration is being given to improving the air transport system and the air fleet.
When, three weeks ago, I took part in the debate on the budget, I submitted to the Minister of Transport the necessity of exerting some pressure-and I do mean pressure- on the president of T.C.A., so that he would choose the Caravelle, which was being suggested to him. Actually, that aircraft is known to offer all the advantages and guarantees of the so-called medium-range aircraft.
At present, the officers of the Department of Transport are deciding what aircraft to pick from among the three that have been suggested. We all know, however, that two of

these planes are in fact one and the same, both being Caravelles, the second just slightly modified.
Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister should see to it that this selection is made as soon as possible and that those 50 planes, the cost of which wil be above $200 million, are built in Montreal, which would certainly help improve the current unemployment situation in Montreal, and at the same time contribute to reducing our yearly trade deficit. This, in my opinion, would be a practical contribution from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) who tries and wants to try balancing his budget and, above all, balance our trade deficit.
On the other hand, I agree that should these planes be built in Montreal, the cost might be a few million dollars higher, but I am sure that any such extra expenditures would be more than compensated, because the unemployment insurance fund would not have to support those unemployed who are at present getting benefits, and because we would not have to give any more assistance to our unemployed. In a word, this country would benefit from the building of those Caravelle aircraft in Canada.
Mr. Chairman, there is another matter on which I would like to comment, and it concerns the air transport division. I want to talk about Trans-Canada Air Lines. Representations were made to the minister to the effect that the name of that corporation should be changed and the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has a bill to that effect on the order paper. As a matter of fact, this measure is identical with the one moved last year by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), providing that the company should simply be known as "Air Canada", since, Air Canada is at the present time known throughout the world as the name of this crown corporation. I cannot see any merit in the objection raised by the Minister of Transport who said that the cost of such a change would be prohibitive, when I consider that the Canadian National Railways, some time ago, had all their cars repainted with the new "N" initial on the side. I am wondering what would be the cost of changing the name on those planes- (Text):


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member permit a question?


H.-Pit Lessard: Yes.
28902-5-138
Supply-Transport


George James McIlraith: Is he suggesting that taking an aircraft out of operation when there are only very few in operation for the company, is comparable to taking a few railway cars out of use from among many thousands, for a few hours, for a much different kind of painting job?
(Translation):


H.-Pit Lessard: Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that I worked myself in industry and I know how long it would take to paint over those planes which actually are grounded for several hours each month for inspection. Those planes must go through adjustment and maintenance routines when they are in service. Besides they remain in hangars for days on end for repairs and checking and I am convinced that the painting over of the fuselage and the lettering of the words Air Canada would raise no major problem. In fact, I suggest to the hon. minister to inquire directly from the maintenance service division, not from the brass hats, but from the little people, those responsible for the maintenance of the planes and indeed, he will be in a position to reply that the painting of the words Air Canada on the planes does not constitute the tremendous job that he seems to indicate to the house.
I think we want to have a bilingual country;
I think bilingualism is valuable and that we, as Canadians, must be prepared to foot the bill. In fact, if it was thought necessary to place the letters C.N. on the C.N.R. railway cars, we feel that the painting of the words Air Canada on aircraft would mean a very small expenditure. Indeed, I will put a question on the order paper in order to find out what was the cost of painting all the C.N.R. railway cars, and I am convinced that when I get that information, the minister will see for himself that the cost was significantly higher than what it would cost to paint the words Air Canada on the aircraft. Besides, I do not think that expenditure in the field of transportation worked a hardship on Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) made reference to the labour question and I also should like to discuss it.
I know that all hon. members often receive representations from C.N.R. employees, through their labour union, with regard to their salaries. I know that this is a delicate matter and more particularly the relationship between unions, employees and employer,

Supply-Transport
the latter, in this case, being the C.N.R. itself. But all the complaints we receive arise from the fact that C.N.R. employees are now submitted to a kind of dictatorship by their union. As I am a workman myself, I am not afraid to raise this point because I worked in the unions, and I have always thought that they should have Canadian leadership, and that we should not get our instructions from people abroad.
It seems that, at this time, C.N.R. workers are members of a union affiliated with an American organization, or which is nothing but an American union. I think that C.N.R. employees are now facing a problem because they are not enjoying freedom of action within their union, and they are making a concerted effort to obtain their own Canadian union which will be entirely dissociated from the international American union. Now, to my mind, we should all, as Canadians and members of parliament support their efforts to that end.
I am, indeed, giving my support to the part played by the unions, but I want Canadian workers to unite in Canadian unions, and be represented by Canadians who will, first and foremost, defend Canadian interests.
At this time, it seems that instructions are given by leaders living in a foreign country. Now, as those directives come from foreigners, they are not necessarily in accord with the needs or interests of the country where the unions are.
Mr. Chairman, I want to call the minister's attention to this matter and ask him to give us his full co-operation, to the extent of his ability, with regard to the efforts made by Canadian workers to free themselves completely from American control in the field of industrial relations.
Mr. Chairman, there are several other matters I would have liked to broach, but the time at my disposal prevents me from doing so. However, I want to point out to the minister that there are some employees in the Department of Transport who are not protected by workmen's compensation. Some hon. members will certainly find this strange, but myself made inquiry, and so did others, I trust.
As a matter of fact, it is about a Department of Transport employee who had an accident and remained without help for three days. He was in a remote spot deprived of any means of communication, and it is only after three days that he managed to reach

a hospital. He had to pay all the costs. This employee lost the use of an eye, which, in my opinion, is a most serious injury. Now, because of this accident, this man is unable to hold a job today. He himself had to pay all medical and hospital costs. Unable to find work since the accident, he has to live on public welfare. Everybody knows that no company wants to hire a one-eyed worker.
I wish to point out this case to the house, because the Department of Transport claims it has no responsibility at all in the matter. This man had been hired by an employee of the Department of Transport who is a lighthouse keeper. According to the regulations of the Department of Transport, one of their employees is authorized to hire an assistant. However, that assistant is not paid by the lighthouse keeper, but directly by the department which sends him a cheque issued by the department. He is subject to income tax and his unemployment insurance dues are deducted at the source. In fact, he is a federal government employee who works with government appliances in a government building and on government property.
In fact, I know that as a Canadian and an ordinary citizen, if I hire someone to work on my property, I am responsible for him. For my own protection, I carry insurance against possible damage or injury to my employees. I know that the government must also have some, but I do not think it is justified in hiding itself behind a mere formality, thus refusing to assume its true responsibility in this matter.
The government must try to fill in this gap for, though it may be a small detail, it could now do much harm to Canadians employed by the government.
I therefore ask the minister-I do not blame him, for the fault lies in the regulations-but I ask the minister to make sure that these regulations are changed so that all lighthouse keepers may be protected by the Workmen's Compensation Act.
I hope that I have made that clear to the parliamentary secretary to the hon. minister and that he will take note of this remark.
In the Saguenay area, there is a magnificent lake, called lake St. John; no doubt everybody has heard about it. It is a wonderful resort area and no other can compare with it. It is also a place where there is plenty of fish and we have there a unique kind of fish called wananish.

You may ask what this has got to do with the Department of Transport? Well, Mr. Chairman, I am coming back immediately to the subject. Villages scattered all around the lake, overlooking it, with splendid beaches, and wharves erected by the Department of Public Works but under the responsibility of the Department of Transport. However, rocks and reefs are scattered around the lake and they are dangerous. Mr. Chairman, thousands of boats daily ply the waters of lake St. John. I would very much like to see the Department of Transport place signal buoys at the dangerous spots and if possible get rid of the larger reefs.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, I wish to thank the house for giving me the opportunity to express my views on some problems of the Department of Transport.
(Text):


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, like many other hon. members who have spoken I should like to congratulate the minister upon assuming his new responsibilities as Minister of Transport. I have known him personally since I came to the house and other members of my family have met him. We have always found him to be a very congenial gentleman and certainly very easy to get along with.
I wish to deal with one phase of the activities of this department which affects western Canada, which is dealt with in the report of the MacPherson royal commission on transportation. Before doing so I would like to reply to the minister's remarks regarding the discretion of the B.B.G. and ministerial discretion. I think he would agree with me, as he is also a lawyer, that, like the board of transport commissioners, they have certain judicial discretion which they exercise as an administrative body. That discretion is set out by statute. The B.B.G. also has discretionary powers set out by statute. Just as the cabinet can decide to veto or accept a recommendation or decision of the board of transport commissioners, so can the minister decide to accept or reject a judgment of that board. I fail to see very much difference in that particular kind of discretion.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit a question?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly.


George James McIlraith: Would the hon. member not agree that the two pieces of legislation are not parallel at all. I refer to the hon.
28902-5-138J
Supply-Transport
member's reference to the board of transport commissioners and the cabinet. The Radio Act and the other legislation dealing with the board of broadcast governors are quite different. One piece of legislation sets out a duty for the board of broadcast governors and a duty for the minister; and the board of broadcast governors fulfilled its duty and the minister fulfilled his duty.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Yes, but I was merely putting that forward as an analogy. I think the minister will go this far, that there is still a legal discretion which he can exercise, irrespective of whether that power is spelled out by that particular legislation. I have not been briefed on this matter recently but I say the minister has a discretion and he can exercise that discretion. That is a discretion within the realm of the responsibility of the minister himself. Then there is the discretion of the board, whose powers are set out in the act. However, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get into a legal argument on the powers of the B.B.G. or the powers of the board of transport commissioners. I was merely pointing this out as an analogy and saying that he still has a discretion which he can exercise, and a discretion which he does exercise under the law, that is his responsibility.
I am rather sorry that the Minister of Agriculture is absent on Fridays, because on one occasion in the house he said-and this matter will be relevant to the question before the committee-he was praying that the rain was stopping in western Canada. I would point out that in western Canada at the moment there is growing one of the largest crops seen on the prairies and it appears from reports of the wheat pool and the grain elevator companies that there is going to be a bumper crop. No other industry in Canada, in my opinion, is affected more by transportation than is the agricultural industry, particularly in western Canada. I recall the terms of reference being laid down when the royal commission on transportation was set up, and the former prime minister, now the Leader of the Opposition, stating that the Crowsnest pass agreement was the economic Magna Carta of western Canada. I think that is true. This was an agreement entered into with the railways at that time, and that type of agreement which controls the freight rates on grain is the economic Magna Carta of western Canada. The margin which exists between profit and the costs of production of grain might easily be wiped out if the freight rates on western Canada grain were increased.

Supply-Transport
I also recall certain statements of hon. gentlemen then in opposition, particularly those of the present Minister of Justice, who said he thought the Crowsnest pass freight rates were like chains or shackles around the railway companies. It was set out very clearly by the then government, the Conservative government, and by the then prime minister that there would be no change in the Crowsnest pass freight rates.
I wish to come to grips with another question for a few moments, because the hon. member from Rosetown-Biggar discussed the question of rail line abandonment. I want not only to discuss the question of rail line abandonment as far as freight is concerned, but also as far as passengers are concerned. I should also like to point out why certain lines should not be abandoned. The Minister of Transport did answer some questions in this regard today. However, I think when we are dealing with the question of the abandonment of railway lines, whether passenger or freight, we must first of all have a national policy on the subject. I think we should look carefully at what was recommended by the MacPherson royal commission in this regard. In dealing with the abandonment of passenger railway lines I should like to take issue at this time with the abandonment of a particular line between the city of Calgary and the city of Saskatoon, known by people in that area as the Goose lake line. Those passenger trains were taken off, and at the present time, except for T.C.A., they find there is no other means of transportation between those two cities by anything like a direct route. There is a bus, but it stops at a little place called Oyen inside the border of Alberta. It spends seven hours there; passengers are forced to spend seven hours in the town before continuing their journey to Calgary. I recall the hon. member for Lethbridge asking the Prime Minister a question about this, and the right hon. gentleman said he would look into it personally. But the line has been abandoned and nothing has been done about it to date.
I think we should look at what the MacPherson commission had to say in this regard. It was certainly not in favour of abandoning lines holus-bolus. I realize the minister has suggested that this is not the occasion to get into a detailed discussion about the abandonment of railways, but this is a subject of such importance to agriculture that I hope I may be allowed to make a few observations on it and to remind hon. members of what was said by the royal commission on transportation set up by the previous government under Mr. MacPherson. People familiar with
IMr. Woolliams.]
transportation in all its phases gave evidence before this commission, and it is on the basis of this evidence that the recommendations were made. On the subject of the passenger service I should like to refer to volume 1 of that report, dated March, 1961, page 60, where it states:
To facilitate the reduction of the passenger deficits, we recommend that the pertinent statutes be amended to enable the railways, upon application to the board of transport commissioners, to remove any uneconomic passenger service except when the board is satisfied that no reasonable alternative public highway exists.
I think that had been overlooked when they decided to remove the passenger train service between Saskatoon, a city of 100,000 people and Calgary, a city of 300,000, without any alternative method of transportation being available as far as the railway is concerned.
If we read volumes 2 and 3 of the report we find there is evidence to suggest that the provision of a passenger service in Canada is uneconomic, no matter to how great an extent the facilities are used. As an example, I understand that at one time there were two luxury passenger trains known as the Canadian and the Dominion. I am told by the employees of the Dominion train that even when it was packed to capacity they were losing money on the route from Calgary to the east. So it is obviously not good enough to be able to say only that the service itself is uneconomic. These trains should only be removed-I make the suggestion to the minister-when, in addition to being uneconomic, the cabinet is satisfied that no reasonably satisfactory alternative public highway exists. There is a public highway between the two cities I have named but it is not paved all the way and, surely, if a passenger train is to be removed, these things should be taken into consideration. As I have said, at the present time, passengers on the 400 mile route by bus have to spend seven hours waiting in a small town, in some cases without proper accommodation.
Certain recommendations were made by the commission with regard to freight. I think it must be acknowledged by any government that a revolution is taking place in western Canada. I think that in the next ten years we are going to see a new picture. It has to come, it is true, in these days of automation which are having such an undeniable impact on the farmers of western Canada. It is now possible to take away 500 or 800 bushels of grain in a truck. It is, therefore, easier to take that grain a greater distance than was formerly the case, and it is possible to conceive,

especially as these railways are being subsidized by the taxpayers' money, that some of these lines may have to be abandoned. But they must be abandoned in some kind of order. In the near future much larger elevators will probably be built to replace small country elevators every eight, ten or twelve miles. In the meantime, a definite plan must be set up so that the abandonment of lines where necessary will not cause hardship to our farmers.
I can recall a debate in which the present Minister of Trade and Commerce was discussing the building of a large elevator in the town of Tisdale, the gateway to the Carrot river valley, and many thousands of acres of magnificent farmland. The minister told the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale that he did not think this was a proper place for an elevator. But maybe the hon. member in question has put his finger on the revolution which is taking place in the west, because I can see the day when these larger elevators will be built in western Canada in much larger numbers as grain is taken to market over longer distances.
Be this as it may, lines cannot be taken up without a definite plan in mind. This is why the former government appointed a royal commission to make certain that a national plan will be set up so as to avoid hardship. I suggest to the minister that he and his department should study most carefully the recommendation made by Mr. MacPherson and his commission in this regard. I can say this of Mr. M. A. MacPherson, a lawyer from Regina: he is a man who has had much experience not only of agriculture but of railroading in western Canada, and of the economy of western Canada in general. At page 65 of the report, the following paragraph appears:
In the light of these considerations, of the analysis presented in chapter 2, and of the recommendations for meeting passenger service deficits and the problem of light density lines, we recommend that in the case of the Canadian Pacific Railway a sum of $9 million annually shall be paid on behalf of the export grain traffic as a contribution to constant costs. This should place export grain traffic in a position comparable to other segments of traffic in the light of the permissive level of earnings.
That was the answer to the complaint made by the railways. In spite of this treatment by the royal commission the railways were saying at that time they were losing money on the freighting of grain from western Canada and the lakehead to Vancouver and Port Churchill. Then they say:
Making adjustments necessary due to the different financial structure of the Canadian National Railways, the payment recommended to that company as a contribution on behalf of the export grain traffic to overheads is $7.3 million.
Supply-Transport
The shipping of grain is one commodity which the railways ship differently from any other. In western Canada you see these grain trains going through which, particularly under diesel power, are almost a mile in length, consisting of cars carrying grain across to the ports, where it is loaded on to boats and thus reaches the export market. The commission said that if losses are occasioned in the shipping of grain-the C.N.R. shows a deficit in practically all its operations although the C.P.R. does show a profit *-the government should set up a subsidy so that the returns on that commodity will be comparable with others.
Then on page 66 of the report they say:
When the process of rationalizing plant by the elimination of rail lines occasioning a system net loss has substantially progressed, or when it appears that there has been any other substantial change in the overhead costs of the railways, the constant costs of the railways should be re-evaluated. After these re-evaluations the remuneration paid on behalf of the movement of grain and grain products to export positions at statutory and related rates should be adapted to the changed situation.
The commission say that there should not be any change in the Crowsnest pass freight rates. When the Minister of Justice, who is not here today, was in opposition he said that these freight rates were shackles around the railways. But the commission say that if there is any loss, subsidies must be applied to make these commodities comparable with others. The former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition, said that the Crowsnest pass rates were the economic Magna Carta of western Canada and should not be interfered with, because the margin between a loss and a profit is so narrow on wheat farms, with the high cost of machinery, that these people could not stay in business. That is the point I wish to make particularly, when dealing with estimates, and in reference to the recommendations made by the royal commission on transportation. I sincerely hope that this commission will not suffer the fate of other royal commissions appointed under another government, and lie on the shelf in the library, because some fine recommendations are made here by a body of men who heard the evidence of people who understood business and industry. The royal commission on transportation was long overdue. Their report is now in the hands of departmental officials and it should be checked thoroughly before the government commence abandoning rail lines holus-bolus.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce mentioned another problem in western Canada concerning the loss of markets. One of our problems is getting wheat to the ports. One of the problems the former government were faced with in western Canada when

Supply-Transport
they took office in 1957 was that box cars were unavailable. There were many sidings, villages and towns which for months on end had no trains taking out wheat. Most of the quotas in 1956 and 1957 were either two or five bushels per acre, and many farmers could not get grain to the elevator because there were no box cars. The time to think about these things is not in September or October when the problem arises; I suggest with respect to the minister that the time to be thinking about this problem is now. If you recall, Mr. Chairman, there was a report made by Mr. Bracken, and as a result the allocation of box cars certainly improved. Anyone in western Canada will admit that the transportation of grain and other commodities out of western Canada improved under the Conservative government 100 per cent compared with the situation under the previous government with C. D. Howe.
When dealing with the question of line abandonment I might say that I do not think the board of transport commissioners have the capacity to deal with all the applications. I say this with no disrespect to the personnel of the board. I have appeared before them and they are fine gentlemen. But if they are to consider each application individually they will not be able to do so in an orderly fashion. The board must either be enlarged or some other body set up in order to consider a properly planned abandonment, so as to protect the agricultural industry which for the last five or six years has been in a pretty healthy state. There has to be a gradual working out of rail abandonment which will logically fit into the resolution which has taken place. New economic circumstances must be considered if railways are abandoned holus-bolus. Not only must you consider the industry, but the people and farmers who live in the towns, villages and cities, and also the personnel of the railways themselves. That is one recommendation which I would make.
In spite of the fact that the minister says he has legislation hot in the oven, I would like to hear what is the policy of the present Liberal government with regard to rail abandonment in western Canada. I hope he does not reply in the way he replied to the hon. member for Port Arthur and say that he will discuss it on another day or two weeks from now. This government assured the Canadian people that they were people of decision. Well, we have had the first 60 days, and we know that it will take another 60 days to undo what they did in that first 60 days. We want to know what the government is going to about rail abandonment, how it will occur, what board will have the power
[Mr. Woolliams.l
to make decisions, and whether the government recognize that a revolution is taking place as far as agriculture and the marketing of grain is concerned. What is the government going to do this fall when western Canada produces 600 million bushels of grain? A recent article was put out by the C.N.R. to the effect that there is a shortage of box cars. Is the government meeting with officials and discussing the problem with the companies? Now is the time to build new box cars to haul the grain from the particular marketing areas in western Canada to the ports. We have heard a lot about unemployment, and this would certainly help this problem as well. I should like to hear from the minister what is his reaction to the recommendations made by the MacPherson commission on transportation.


Mr. Prittie:: Supply-Transport
Lake St. John, have made a plea that Trans-Canada Air Lines should purchase their new jet aircraft from Canadair, and should purchase the Caravelle aircraft. It may well be that Trans-Canada will ultimately select this particular aircraft, but I believe that the corporation should be left free to make its own decision. Their hands are tied to a certain extent. From what we have heard today I believe they are committed to choosing an aircraft with a large amount of Canadian content, but there are two or three companies in competition to supply the aircraft. I should like to see this decision based upon economics and not upon what I would call political economy.
It has been proven in the past that this has been a good policy. Not too many years ago attempts were made to pressure Trans-Canada into buying the CL-44 aircraft and I think events have proven that their decision to obtain the DC-8 was the correct one, because for their particular use the DC-8 has been more versatile. I say again that I deplore the efforts made by politicians in this house to force the corporation to take a particular plane. I hope Trans-Canada is left free to make this decision themselves. They may come to the decision some members want but it should be an independent decision.
There is another matter related to air services to which I should like to make some reference at this time. I refer to a particular group of employees of the Department of Transport, employees who play a most important role in the operation of aircraft in Canada. These are the people who man the air control towers. I imagine that from time to time most members of this house who travel in aircraft are aware of the responsibilities of the pilot and crew. I am not at all sure that they are aware of the tremendous responsibilities which rest on the people who direct air traffic. This responsibility is growing year by year. As aircraft become bigger and faster, the importance of keeping them in the right place at the right altitude, and correctly spaced apart, becomes increasingly difficult.
I believe that this group of employees have made representations to the government concerning their pay and working conditions. If I may put it briefly, their pay is about 33 per cent lower than that of persons in the United States doing the same kind of work. I have watched them at work, and it is very nerve-wracking work. You sit for hours in front of a screen, guiding aircraft. In fact, close to the airport the air traffic controller is the actual navigator of the aircraft. I hope the department will give careful consideration to the representations

of the air traffic controllers because they have a most responsible job and I believe they should be well rewarded for it.
Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude on the point on which I started, namely, the necessity for a department of civil aviation in this country. I should like to read some appropriate sections from a recent editorial in the Montreal Gazette of June 8. I quote:
The air transport association of Canada has submitted a set of recommendations to the Prime Minister which it believes would bring greater cohesion and harmony to the entire air transport field ...
To establish a department of civil aviation would be to alter the trend set by the formation of the Department of Transport in 1936, for the transport department combined marine, railway and civil aviation services.
Yet there is much to be said for this recommendation. The responsibilities of the Minister of Transport are extremely heavy. The growth of the past 20 years has been sufficiently great to make it doubtful if any one person can really master all the duties for which the minister is directly or indirectly responsible.
For in addition to administering the department, the minister must report to parliament for Canadian National Railways, Trans-Canada Air Lines, the national harbours board and other bodies. The field of civil aviation has undergone such an expansion that a separate department might well be justified, and the proposal deserves careful consideration.


Mr. Weichel:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a few remarks to the Minister of Transport in connection with the Waterloo-Wellington airport economic survey which has been mentioned to his deputy minister by the hon. members for Wellington South and Waterloo South. This airport has become so popular that extra accommodation is necessary in order to provide adequate service.
About three years ago, approval was extended by this department to the former government for lights which have been installed. This addition to the airport has encouraged the Waterloo-Wellington airport commission each year to go on to greater things. With this in mind, the airport commission has had a survey made which I understand has been sent to the deputy minister for his study. I sincerely hope that this department will give the economic survey serious consideration and will be instrumental in having steps taken to have some of the initial stages of the recommendations commenced as soon as possible.
As the minister is no doubt aware, the need for greater facilities at this fine airport is becoming urgent. A very comprehensive report has been prepared by Mr. W. O. Chisholm, a consulting engineer, as a guide for future development of the airport. The report was compiled with the co-operation of the officers of the Department of Transport in Toronto, and Mr. D. P. Glenn, director of civil aviation at Toronto has intimated that the

project will be progressed through Mr. J. R. Baldwin, deputy minister of transport, with the recommendation that an economic survey be made in order to secure authority to implement the first two stages of the plan as soon as possible.
For the information of the minister, I should like to advise him that the Water loo-Wellington airport is located on a 658 acre site in Waterloo township near Breslau, Ontario. Serving primarily the counties of Waterloo and Wellington, the airport was constructed in 1948 with the aid of the federal Department of Transport and is operated by the Waterloo-Wellington airport commission. Represented on the commission in 1963 are the municipalities of Kitchener, Guelph, Galt, Waterloo, Preston, and Waterloo township. The members of this commission are outstanding citizens of our area and have given much of their time and money to bring about the excellent progress that has been made.
The airport consists of two surface runways and a grassed strip, in a triangular layout. The prevailing winds favour the two surfaced runways for the major part of the time. Published information regarding the airport is as follows: airport elevation, 1,030 feet; runway 13-31, 4,100 feet; runway 7-25, 3,700 feet; grass strip, 2,800 feet; runway 13-31 is lighted for night flying. Aircraft fuel and maintenance services are available as well as hangar storage facilities.
The airport is the headquarters for the Water loo-Wellington flying club, and Swift Airways Limited has established a commercial aircraft centre at the site. In all, the airport is being operated very progressively and is situated in the centre of a prosperous business and industrial complex. The design and development of the original airport was well planned and the site is well suited. With few exceptions the surrounding land use is presently agricultural, so that any necessary additional restrictions in the area may be imposed at this time with a minimum of difficulty. There is a keen interest in flying in this area, as well as an increasing business use and realization of the importance of the airport facilities. Yes, this airport is very important, as we have well over 600 industries in Waterloo North, Waterloo South and Wellington South counties, along with many others within a radius of 25 miles.
Considering the relatively short time the airport has been in existence, the activity which has developed is remarkable. This activity has reached the point where taxiway facilities and a plan for future development are required. It is my sincere hope that in the near future members of the Waterloo-Wellington airport commission may have the
Supply-Transport
opportunity of meeting with the minister and his deputy so that this economic survey may be fully discussed. Then, perhaps, in the near future this airport may become one of Canada's most important in the handling of commercial and passenger plane service.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I should like to discuss briefly while we are on the first item of the estimates of the Department of Transport. There are some other matters I might prefer to bring up when we get to the details of the estimates. Like other members, I am pleased that the new Minister of Transport is having an early opportunity of bringing in the estimates of his department for the consideration of the committee. I think all hon. members have appreciated the constructive, co-operative attitude which the minister displayed in answering various questions put to him so far.
I wish to deal briefly with the alteration announced for harbour commissions. Earlier the minister referred to the fact that certain legislation was being introduced in the other place. I have no idea what approach that legislation is going to take, but I think it indicated there would be some move to coordinate more closely the operations of the national harbours board and the various independent harbour commissions across the country. I hope this may have some relation to the information brought to my attention, that the two appointees of the government to the Port Alberni board of harbour commissioners have received notice that their term of office will not be renewed.
Up to a point I would not deny that there may have been certain political overtones in the appointment of the commissioners whose terms are expiring, but other commissioners connected with that board hope that appointees will not be decided from a political point of view. Going back to the genesis of the Port Alberni board of harbour commissioners, there were certain political aspects to that situation which involved certain internal relations within the minister's party. Although I have never been associated with his party, I may have become better acquainted with those details than the minister himself. However that is ancient history, and the only reason I bring it to his attention is that I hope when he may be considering the renewal of terms of office of government members he will not be governed entirely by political considerations.
Another relatively minor matter I wish to raise has to do with the radio regulations and the situation that governs the installation of radio broadcasting and receiving equipment, particularly in the marine field on the Pacific coast. I have made some inquiries as to the

Supply-Transport
availability of a consolidation of the regulations issued, and according to the best of my information the current regulations are not available in consolidated form. I suggest they should be made available in that form to all hon. members, to those who sell the equipment and to those who instal it. I also hope such a consolidation could be easily kept up to date, without those concerned having to consult the various issues of the Canada Gazette, part II, where various amending regulations appear from time to time.
While the old saying that ignorance of the law is no excuse, may be a fine principle in theory, I believe hon. members would agree that as regulations become more and more complex, particularly in the technical fields, provision should be made by this house whereby the public can have easy access to a knowledge of the law, particularly where it exists in regulatory form under the authority granted by parliament to the governor in council.
Another matter I wish to raise involves a question of principle. A situation has developed which requires a re-assessment of the terms of reference which have been given to the air transport board in the performance of the duties assigned to it under the Aeronautics Act. I am referring to a situation in which one of the air lines on the west coast, Pacific Western Airlines, was involved in a strike with certain of its employees. The air transport board, in accordance with the principles under which it operates, had given authority to Pacific Western Airlines to operate what constituted a monopoly in transportation service on their class 1 route between Vancouver and Port Hardy. However, when the strike developed, in accordance with the established principles of labour legislation the unions concerned established picket lines.
Many of the normal patrons of Pacific Western Airlines are members of unions and they object quite strongly to the idea of crossing a legally established picket line. This situation put the air transport board in a rather invidious position, because its members apparently understood their terms of reference to apply only within the narrow confines of the text of the Aeronautics Act. In effect, by their action they placed people in the position where they had the alternative of crossing a picket line or not being able to travel freely between their normal place of work and the place where many of them live. The loggers of the Pacific coast are organized into a union, the international woodworkers of America, and the union took steps to enable its members to avoid the dilemma in which they had been placed. They had no transportation at all, or they

had to travel by a very roundabout, circuitous, time consuming and expensive route.
In order to solve this dilemma the union tried to arrange to charter an aircraft from one of the other air lines, which would in effect have enabled the members of that organization to get back and forth without the necessity of using the facilities of Pacific Western Airlines while this strike was in progress. They made the charter arrangement, and one flight actually took place on April 2 this year. However, the air transport board took the initiative and ordered B.C. Air Lines, which was the firm from which the charter had been obtained, to cease and desist operating under any such charter, on the ground that it roughly paralleled the flight route of the established P.W.A. class 1 service and was in effect an attempt to circumvent the decision of the air transport board to grant that licence.
I would not suggest that in the ordinary terms of reference this particular arrangement was not, in effect, one which would have circumvented the protection which had been granted to Pacific Western Airlines in operating their class 1 service. But I would suggest that the minister and this house should make it clear that in circumstances such as these the air transport board should operate under somewhat broader terms of reference than they in fact operated under in this case. I think few hon. members of this house-at least, I hope few hon. members of this house-would question that there is the well established right for citizens in a free country to choose not to cross a picket line which has been established as a result of a labour dispute. I think that should be recognized as being a very basic, individual freedom in this country. To my mind it is a matter of great regret that a body set up and operating under the authority of parliament should have followed a course of action which in effect denied that right to certain Canadian citizens.
For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I certainly hope the minister will take a lead in seeing that the terms of reference of the air transport board are such that a similar situation will not again develop. As a matter of fact, as I understand the present provisions of the Aeronautics Act it is quite within the powers of the air transport board and the minister, or of the governor in council, to deal with a situation such as this as and when it arises. Section 13 of the Aeronautics Act says:
Subject to the approval of the governor in council, the board may make regulations:
Then it gives quite a list of them. Paragraph (f) says:
Excluding from the operation of the whole or any part of this part or any regulation, order or

direction made or issued pursuant thereto, any carrier or commercial air service or class or group of air carriers or commercial air services;
I would suggest that within the authority of the air transport board and the governor in council there is, under the present provisions of the Aeronautics Act, authority for the air transport board, with the approval of the governor in council, to exercise the proper discretionary powers that are set out in section 13, which would have covered a situation of the kind I have been attempting to describe to the committee. The proper course of action in this instance would have been for the air transport board to raise this matter with the governor in council, with a recommendation that for the duration of this particular dispute the normal provisions of the protected class 1 licence under which Pacific Western Airlines was operating should not apply in a way which would, in effect, give Pacific Western Airlines a monopoly position when the union concerned, at its own expense and for the benefit entirely of its own membership, was prepared to make an arrangement which would enable those members so desiring to avoid crossing this picket line.
As other hon. members have said, the ramifications of the Department of Transport are very wide and varied. There are a great
12,	1963	2165
Business of the House
many matters which I would like to bring forward at this time. However, I have selected what I considered to be the most important matter of broad principle involving the general administration of the department and the agencies under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. This matter has come to my attention since last I had an opportunity of rising on the estimates of this particular department; for that reason I have decided to confine my remarks, at least on the first item of the estimates of the department, to this particular subject and to the other two matters which I mentioned earlier.
Item stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the business submitted to the house for Monday will be as indicated by the Secretary of State yesterday; that is, the appropriations bill and the economic council legislation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, that is a much clearer exposition of the business for next week than we have yet heard this session.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
*
. '* ' . '*) . ..
[Stage Direction]
Monday. July 15. 1963