1964-09-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. M. Batten (Humber-Sl. George's)
presented the first report of the special committee on the Canadian flag, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table an accord signed yesterday at the international peace arch by the Prime Minister of Canada and the premier and president of the executive council for British Columbia, with regard to the ratification of the Columbia river treaty and the coming into force of the protocol to that treaty.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister can give an answer in this regard, but I should like to ask him if the government is now negotiating with the provinces with a view to bringing into effect a plan whereby mental patients will be included under the hospitalization scheme.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wonder if I may take that question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who today is engaged on official business outside the house.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the hon. gentleman's attention been drawn to a statement by Dr. R. J. Sutherland, chief of operational research for the defence research board and one of the principal military advisers to the Minister of National Defence, Who is quoted as saying, "It is beyond question that within the total spectrum of the western military programs the importance of North American air defence has diminished". Mr. Sutherland is also quoted as saying that the ballistic missile has relieved the problem of the extreme vulnerability of the strategic deterrent forces.
In view of the fact that this vindicates the position taken by this party, I should like to ask the minister whether the government now intends to begin negotiation with the government of the United States to discontinue the maintenance of Bomarc nuclear missile bases on Canadian soil.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I did read the statement. I will ask my colleague the Minister of National Defence whether he cares to comment on it. Perhaps he wishes to study it further.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: I do not think the conclusion reached by the hon. gentleman can legitimately be drawn from the text of Mr. Sutherland's statement. If he would look at it closely I think he would find that with respect to the requirement for continuation of North American air defence it reflects fairly closely the view contained in the white paper tabled in March.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps I could ask the Acting Prime Minister this. In view of the fact that during the last election the Liberal party which the government represents spoke of negotiating itself out of a nuclear role, and in view of this statement by Dr. Sutherland
8110	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry that the importance of the North American air defence role is greatly diminished, when does the government intend to begin negotiating Canada out of a nuclear role in NORAD?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Without agreeing with the premise stated by the hon. gentleman, I would remind him that I dealt with this question some time ago in answer to an inquiry addressed to me by one of the hon. gentlemen opposite. I forget the exact date. Perhaps the hon. member for Bumaby-Co-quitlam and I could get together and look at that reply.


Mr. Churchill:: There was nothing in that answer.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the government has concluded that the NORAD plan is becoming obsolete. Was this a leak which was deliberately provided to ensure that a foundation is laid for setting aside NORAD?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There would be no basis for such a conclusion. Mr. Sutherland noted in his statement, which was widely reported today, that he was speaking only for himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Has the government given any consideration to the elimination of NORAD, by agreement with the United States? Is anything being done at this time to achieve that end?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have just said that nothing of that kind is being done. The answer to that question is, of course, no.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it a fact that the government does not intend to invest funds in any new jet planes which can operate only as interceptors, in view of Mr. Sutherland's private or public posture?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The general requirements for tactical aircraft have been set out in the white paper and the department has been studying what types of tactical aircraft might be available and what their general capabilities and performance would be.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is no answer.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the Acting Prime Minister's statement that Mr. Sutherland was speaking for himself, could the Minister of


National Defence say whether the speech was delivered with the minister's knowledge; and if so, did he agree with the content of the speech?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was given with my knowledge, but it was on the understanding that Mr. Sutherland would express his own views and would state that this was the case.


John George Diefenbaker: That is a most devious explanation.


Mr. Lamberl:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of National Defence not agree that it is a rather extraordinary position that one of the chief advisers to the minister in military affairs should be allowed to speak on his own account to an organization such as the Atlantic treaty association.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not at all, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Sutherland is the chief of operational research. He does research and provides facts for the consideration of the defence staff and the defence council. He does not give military advice as such. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on an interjection made by the right hon. leader of the operation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I mean the Leader of the Opposition, but that was right; "operation muzzle". He said this was a devious operation. I can recall that when he was prime minister of this country he refused to let anyone associated with the Department of National Defence speak out for fear they would say something which would cause some embarrassment to his government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon, gentleman this question. Did he look over the speech in advance? Did he make any alterations or suggestions? What manner of system is this, when a minister sees what is going to be said and allows it to be advanced? Is this the new policy of the Department of National Defence?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The system was set out in the bill of rights, that there are some rights in this country to express opinions freely, and no censorship.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should be allowed to say that the bill of rights, that was ridiculed by these people, now becomes the keystone to them. I am glad the hon.

gentleman has learned that the bill of rights means something. I ask the hon. gentleman, did he peruse this speech in advance? Did he make any suggestions? I ask him to answer carefully, because the facts are known.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Did he make any suggestions as to change?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: He made no suggestions, Mr. Speaker. And may I reiterate that a bill of rights must be upheld in practice if it is to have real meaning. I believe in the bill of rights; I believe in free expression of opinion. For that reason I could see no reason why Mr. Sutherland should not be allowed to address the organization and express his views freely.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask the hon. gentleman, after that high minded declaration, why then did he have a perusal in advance? Was it to see whether what was going to be said was in his favour?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: It was so I would be able to answer the right hon. gentleman's questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of National Defence has established that Mr. Sutherland expressed his own views. I would like to ask the minister whether he disagrees with Mr. Sutherland's views, particularly when Mr. Sutherland says that the primary purpose of the North American air defence system is not the defence of North America?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would not want to take complete responsibility for what he said. I find that in public life one carries a sufficient yoke if one accepts responsibility for one's own utterances.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking the minister to accept responsibility; I am asking him whether he agrees with this very important military thesis expounded by someone in his department in a speech which the minister himself saw before it was made. I am asking the minister whether he agrees with it.


John George Diefenbaker: No answer.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is in fashion to ask the ministers to comment on speeches, I would like to ask this question.
Inquiries of the Ministry Does the minister agree with the statement made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra-who incidentally is a member of the defence committee-in an address recently before the Vancouver Rotary club, when he said that the defence department is the "Kremlin of Canadian bureaucracy"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was nice enough to send me a copy of the question he proposed to ask. I must say that in my opinion the question is completely out of order on at least two grounds. First of all, he is asking for an opinion from the minister on a statement made outside the house by a private member; and second, under the rules given me, questions should not inquire whether statements made in a newspaper are correct.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then may I rephrase my question. Does the minister believe that the defence department is the Kremlin of Canadian bureaucracy


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I would say yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is understood that the definition of "Kremlin" is a depository for hard working and devoted servants of the nation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I wonder whether the minister would not like to make a slight correction to his earlier answer to the hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam, who questioned the minister with regard to negotiating out of our nuclear role. The minister referred the hon. member to an answer he had given me in the house earlier this session, which may be found at pages 6759 and 6760 of Hansard. Perhaps the minister would now like to tell the house that he did not give me an answer to that question. His words were lengthy, but he said he would be glad to take the question as notice. Having taken it as notice on August 13, I am still waiting for an answer.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of my hon. friend's question.



ARMAMENT OF EUROPEAN AIR DIVISION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr, Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Yesterday in the course of answering a question I put to him he informed me that the CF-104 Starfighters, of which there are six squadrons in Germany,

Inquiries of the Ministry have a primary strike role, and that two squadrons in France have a primary role in reconnaissance. I wonder if there is any other reason than that of present government policy for retaining these two squadrons in a reconnaissance role, any reason other than the explanation given thereafter by the minister? Further in regard to the same question, he concluded by saying:
-we have certain administrative requirements in order to fulfil our commitment.
Could he enlarge on what those administrative requirements are?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think this is the time to get involved in a debate on national defence. I would be quite glad at the appropriate time, perhaps when the estimates of the department are being considered, to enlarge on this subject; but as my hon. friend very well knows, the commitment undertaken by the government of which he was a supporter was in the strike reconnaissance role. Perhaps it was unfortunate this term was used in the first instance, because it meant airplanes would be equipped for the strike role and other airplanes for the reconnaissance role.
The original plan was to have some reconnaissance planes in each squadron with the strike aircraft, but unfortunately special ammunition storage was not possible in France, and in order to alleviate this problem the squadrons were regrouped; all reconnaissance aircraft were put in two squadrons, and all strike aircraft were put in six squadrons. As I have already explained to the house, this was the best solution under the circumstances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the failure of the Minister of National Defence to make the air division in Europe an effective fighting force does not limit the effectiveness of the minister's statements concerning agreements with our NATO allies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows perfectly well that that question has no justifiable foundation.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Does not the situation
disclose a difference of policy between the two departments and the two ministers which surely, in the words of the minister, is not conducive to the development of a strong

and respected position for this country in the United Nations and elsewhere in the world?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am of course aware that my hon. friend's questions in this particular area are intended to be provocative-


Gordon Minto Churchill: No; helpful.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -nevertheless, because he has put this question I take advantage of the opportunity to say that one of the achievements of this administration is that there has been a clear appreciation by the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs of their dependence one on the other in the matter of policy. Indeed, the present Minister of National Defence in my judgment deserves a great deal of credit for the recognition that defence policy must be consistent with foreign policy. This is one of the cardinal principles of the white paper.
I do not like to make disparaging remarks about former administrations, but I have a suspicion that, following what I have just said, it will be recognized that there is a great difference between the co-operation existing now between the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs as compared with the lack of co-operation between these ministries in the former government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask a further supplementary question. Is there not a definite and obvious lack of co-operation between the two ministers now with regard to our air division in Europe, which is ineffective and which fails to live up to our obligations to the NATO military organization?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I wish, in a very kindly way, to tell the hon. gentleman that there is no lack of co-operation between the Minister of National Defence and myself on this matter. The lack of co-operation in this instance is between the hon. gentleman and myself.



REDUCTION IN UNIVERSITY NAVAL TRAINING UNITS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Considering the fact that two thirds of the Canadian navy is based on the Atlantic coast, in the closing of eight Royal Canadian Navy university training

units how can the minister justify the fact that four of them should be located in the maritime area, namely one in Prince Edward Island, one in New Brunswick and two in Nova Scotia?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: As I explained yesterday, the closing of the university training units was related not to the permanent navy but to the naval reserve and the availability of naval reserve units to absorb the officer output from the universities. I am sure the hon. member will be pleased to know that commencing a year from now, when the new integrated units are established at the univer-sites, it will be possible to take entrants from each of the armed forces because the facilities will be available, as a result of the reduced overhead costs which can be achieved through the integration of the units from three or two into a single unit.


Malcolm MacInnis: Possibly the minister, on re-examination of this particular problem, would find that the very argument he put forward in defence of his stand would work to the benefit of the maritime universities-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: And in these circumstances there should be reconsideration of the government's decision which means that 50 per cent of the closings are to be made right in the centre of the naval bases.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I intended to ask the Minister of Labour a question, but seeing that he is absent and considering the importance of the yuestion I shall put it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to get in touch with the unemployment office in Montreal so that the employees of the newspaper La Presse, who are without work because part of the staff is on strike, may receive unemployment insurance benefits?
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the Acting Prime Minister expected me to ask that question, but I find he just woke up. Of course, so soon after a meal-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Acting Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I was watching the Leader of the Opposition.
Would the hon. member be kind enough to repeat his question?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition may be peculiar enough to watch, but my question was important and for the information of the Acting Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, I will repeat it.
Does the government intend to get in touch with the unemployment insurance office in Montreal so that the employees of the newspaper La Presse, who are out of work because part of the staff is on strike can draw the unemployment insurance benefits they are entitled to?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for asking his question. I shall bring it to the attention of the Minister of Labour.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
Could the Acting Prime Minister also call the attention of the Minister of Labour to the fact that a similar situation was dealt with in Toronto after the strike was on for only three weeks, while in Montreal, after three months and a half, no decision has been taken yet?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Justice based on a story in the Globe and Mail this morning concerning a young boy who spent 11 weeks in custody on a rape charge because he could not raise bail, and who was subsequently discharged by a grand jury. The minister will know that this is only one example of our antiquated and backward bail system in Canada. Would the minister undertake a re-examination of the provisions of the Criminal Code relating to bail, with a view to bringing in amendments which will bring bail into line with modem penology and modern thinking?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, may I first say in answer to the question that I have not yet read the item in the Globe and Mail, but I am in a position

Inquiries of the Ministry to say that the question of bail, including that of personal recognizance, is part of the study I am now making of the Criminal Code.



HAL BANKS-DISPOSITION OP BAIL FORFEITED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Could the minister tell us whether a request for forfeiture of bail has been introduced in the case of Hal Banks and, should that happen, would the amount of $25,000 fall in the coffers of the federal Department of National Revenue or in those of the provincial department?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that, as my hon. friend knows, the matter of the disposal of sums of money coming from a forfeiture of bail is essentially a legal matter, which has been under discussion for some time between the provinces and the federal government.
I think that between my departure from the Department of Justice and my return to that same department, an agreement was concluded between the provinces and the federal government, but I am not in a position to give an immediate answer to that question.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister tell us if his department scrutinized all the charges laid against Hal Banks to find one under which he could be extradited from any country?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as concerns the facts drawn to the attention of the department by any means whatsoever, that must be the policy to follow.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs and also to the Minister of Finance. My question is this. In view of the fact that several years ago Canada made a multi-million dollar contribution to the Mekong river development

project, and since we have had no report on this project for some time, I believe about two years, would either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Finance undertake to give the house a report at some appropriate time, such as on motions, within the next week or so?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wish my hon. friend had asked this question when the external affairs committee was sitting a few weeks ago, at which time we could have answered in detail. However, I assure my hon. friend we will report at the earliest moment possible under our procedures.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question which I think will be helpful in the general interest of repairing some of the deterioration affecting Canadian prestige abroad. I base my question on the minister's speech to the Atlantic treaty association on September 15 in which he was sharply critical of our NATO allies. He used this sentence, and I am quoting:
I believe the time has come to face these problems and honestly deal with them.
The problems referred to affect the fields of strategy, military integration, nuclear control, command structure and cost sharing. Would the minister not think it the part of wisdom to be more careful about his use of language, because his speeches are read with much greater interest abroad than they are at home. Which allies are not facing up to these problems, and which are not dealing with them honestly?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: There was no suggestion that any member of the alliance was not dealing with problems having to do with the alliance honestly. The adverb is used there in a different context position which apparently my hon. friend does not completely appreciate. The statement I made was a sound statement, and I may say it had previously been made by my predecessor, Mr. Green.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: I should like to ask the minister if it is fair to conclude from the answer he has given that he was incorrectly quoted by the press?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: It is only weak minded men who make that statement, and as I do not have a feeling of insecurity, I am not making it.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs which may sound facetious, but it is not. In view of the extraordinary situation where we have a man named Macdonald, who maintains he has been crucified because he was a secret service operator for the R.C.M.P., and who claims he can no longer get employment because of his communist contacts and contamination; in view of the fact that, as reported in the papers, he has asked for political asylum in the United States; and in view of the fact that his publicity agent threw a quart of beef blood on the floor of this house, may I ask the minister whether there is any understanding, agreement, arrangement or treaty between Canada and the United States respecting political asylum?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secrelary of Slale for External Affairs: Without commenting on the merits of the question, Mr. Speaker, the matter of asylum in international law is not generally covered by treaty but by convention. I do not know how this will help in this particular situation.


Harold Edward Winch: I hope I am not being nasty, but I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration because I am concerned about the growth of attention to and discussion of this matter involving Macdonald who has received such attention since his publicity agent threw blood on the floor of this house.
I want to ask my question, and I will put it this way. This man made application last week for political asylum in the United States, according to what I read in the press. His application was turned down by the customs and immigration officers in Vancouver. He has now made application for admission to the United States as a landed immigrant, together with his wife. I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether an effort has been made to determine whether this lady is in fact his wife and, if so, the whereabouts of the numerous children which Macdonald had and
Inquiries of the Ministry ignored for three years, only giving their mother $10 during that period, and this only in the last few weeks.
In view of press reports that Macdonald is now applying in Vancouver for permission to enter the United States with his wife as a landed immigrant, can the hon. gentleman tell us where the children are and whether the person seeking admission with Macdonald is indeed his wife? Perhaps I am nasty, but the whole situation is nasty-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: I will take this question as notice, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Will the minister tell us whether he shares the concern expressed by the officials of the Hudson bay route association in regard to the volume of shipments through the port of Churchill so far this season?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the reported remarks of the Hudson bay route association. All I can assure my hon. friend is that the wheat board is making every possible effort to see that that port is used to its maximum extent.



WORLD FAIR


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to reply to a question that was asked by the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere on September 15. The hon. gentleman directed a question to the right hon. Prime Minister in my absence, concerning the government's intention in relation to the deputy commissioner general of the 1967 world exposition. The inquiry was raised in the light of the judgment recently delivered in an action against the Foundation Company of Canada Limited of which Mr. Robert Shaw was executive vice president.
I am sure that hon. members are aware of the outstanding work done by Mr. Shaw
8116	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry since his appointment to the post oi deputy commissioner general of the Canadian corporation for the 1967 world exhibition. He has contributed greatly to the satisfactory progress made in the development of this important project, and the government continues to have every confidence in his ability and integrity.
I have asked the commissioner general and the directors of the corporation to give the most careful consideration to the judgment of the court, and to let the Canadian government and the governments of the province of Quebec and the city of Montreal have the benefit of their views, as those having a direct interest in the success of the exposition.
I might add that it is typical of Mr. Shaw's high sense of public responsibility that when he was approached several months ago to accept appointment as deputy commissioner general he drew attention to the pending action against the Foundation Company.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Would the minister confirm or deny a report that 14 Cubans left a Czechoslovakian airliner recently at the international airport at Gander, Newfoundland, making a total of more than 100 who have defected from aircraft there, and after being held by immigration authorities for 24 hours were transferred to immigration department detention quarters at Halifax?


René Tremblay: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for giving notice of this question. The report is substantially correct. Fourteen Cubans left a Czechoslovak airliner at Gander airport on September 5. This brings to over 100 the number of persons who have left aircraft at Gander in this way in the past two years.
No decisions have as yet been made in these 14 cases. In accordance with normal procedure, an immigration hearing is convened in each case in order to obtain full particulars of the individual and his intentions. Some of these people wish to go to other countries, while others seek to remain in Canada. Those wishing to go elsewhere are put in touch with the authorities of the countries concerned. The cases of those seek-


ing to stay in Canada are referred to Ottawa where I have the ultimate responsibility to decide whether to grant landed immigrant status or to allow the individual to stay under the authority of a minister's permit.
Pending final decisions the individuals concerned are accommodated in immigration quarters at Halifax or elsewhere.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Keni, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport based on a claim this week that tolls have been charged illegally on the Blue Water bridge at Sarnia due to the failure of the bridge authority to file a schedule of tolls with the transport board. Is the minister in a position to say that this is indeed the case, and whether appropriate steps have been taken to correct this very unusual situation?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, of course the hon. member for Kent (Ont.) will realize that the Blue Water bridge authority does not come under the direct jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. I had heard Indirectly something about this matter, and directed that some inquiries be made so that I would be informed, but I have not heard anything that might be called hard information about it yet. What I did hear was that there had been an inadvertent failure to deposit the tariff with the board of transport commissioners, and I imagine, if that was the case, that has already been remedied.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and in her absence I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary taking it as notice and replying at the earliest possible opportunity. This question is of national interest.
Has the minister or one of her officials at any time requested a study by the defence research board and the institute of aviation medicine to determine whether people who possess monocular vision may be permitted to exercise the privileges of a private air

Inquiries of the Ministry pilot? If these studies have been made and the wheat board was in Ottawa that day, and are available, will the minister table them I wonder if he has a reply to that question at the earliest possible opportunity?	now.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I shall be pleased to do as the hon. member has requested.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Eric Alfred Winkler: I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the water levels of the St. Lawrence and the great lakes. Is there any integrated plan for the solution of the problems that exist, which we on this side feel is possible?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. gentleman, like all members of the house, appreciates the tremendous difficulty of having an integrated plan, having regard to the fact that the great lakes and parts of the St. Lawrence are international waters, and that jurisdiction over many aspects of our waterways is provincial rather than federal. I do believe their has never been a time when a more urgent effort has been made to secure maximum coordination among all the agencies concerned.
I am very hopeful that hon. members might see fit, perhaps next week, to agree to a motion in the name of my hon. friend the minister of northern affairs, which has been on the order paper for some time. If this were done the committee could be set up and hon. members would hear in detail from the head of the international joint commission and other public servants just what is being done in this field, about which there is real anxiety in all parts of the country. I feel we must endeavour to do our utmost to see that co-ordinated plans are worked out. Since it is not within the jurisdiction of any one government, it is not possible for any one government to have a plan of its own.



INQUIRY AS TO DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: On
September 11 I directed a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce as to when the Canadian wheat board expected to have all points in western Canada on the 1 bushel quota. The minister replied that a member of


Mitchell William Sharp: I have just received the most up to date information, and I had delayed my reply until it was at hand. At the moment, out of 1,905 shipping points in western Canada only 450 now remain on a unit quota. The balance are either on 1, 2 or 3 bushel quotas.
I am advised by the Canadian wheat board they expect all stations will be off the unit quota in the not too distant future, certainly well before the comparable date last year when this did not occur until December 23.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATEMENT BY QUEBEC MINISTER RESPECTING CO-OPERATIVE FEDERALISM

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in connection with the question put to the Minister of Justice yesterday by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) concerning a speech on co-operative federalism made by the Quebec minister of natural resources, would the minister tell us today whether he was able to make sure that Mr. Levesque was not misquoted and could he give us an explanation at this time?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I think that my personal attitude on this matter is rather well known, but I feel that the difference in viewpoint or concept either on co-operative federalism or any other political question, between a minister of any provincial government and a minister of the federal government, can hardly be the subject of a discussion in this house.


Mr. Heward Grafffey (Brome-Missisquoi):: On a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the minister contact the premier of the province of Quebec in order to know whether or not this Quebec minister was speaking officially for the province of Quebec, because it is most important to know that at this time?



TRANSFER OF TAX REVENUES RESPECTING SHARED PROGRAMS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last Friday I asked the Prime Minister if he
8118	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry could state the amount of money involved by way of transfer of tax revenues from the federal treasury to provincial treasuries in consequence of the letters he wrote to the premiers on August 15. The Prime Minister promised to get this information, and I wonder whether the Minister of Finance has it now.


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I do not think I should like to answer this question off the top of my head. As it is so important I wonder whether the hon. member would allow me to answer it on Monday; I shall not be here tomorrow.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I understood the Prime
Minister to say the information had been prepared.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: 1 am sure the Prime Minister did take notice of the question. But I was away, and he is away, and probably we did not get together on it.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. J. Bigg (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. I understand there is a limit on the amount of loans available to students in Ottawa and other areas. As a matter of fact I believe the limit here is some $400,000, which means that only 400 students will be able to obtain the maximum loan of $1,000. Will the minister consider asking that the amount available be increased so that all needy students will be able to take advantage of this important legislation?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend has got mixed up in his zeros. The limit is $40 million.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I only have this complaint made locally, but I understand there are 625 students here wishing to take advantage of the loans, and that only 400 will be accepted unless there is an enlargement of the limit.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the limits are set provincially. If there were any limits suggested locally within provincial boundaries, that has been done by the provincial government and is outside my jurisdiction.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: If this situation does exist will the minister take it under advisement?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to look into it, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I might say that the total amount of money provided under the legislation is $40 million for the first year, so it is inconceivable that any students in Canada who want to take advantage of this legislation should be prevented from doing so.


Mr. William Dean Howe (Hamilton South):: Has the minister received representations from the Canadian union of students requesting a supreme court ruling or a test case on the Canada Student Loans Act? If so, what has been his reply?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I shall be glad to inquire.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberl):: As a further supplementary question would the minister table or make available the different quotas for each of the provinces; because in spite of what he has said, in the case of New Brunswick they are already limiting applications to certain institutions?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I shall be glad to do that, Mr. Speaker. It was made public, I think, during the course of the debate on second reading, but I shall look into it and I shall be glad either to table the quotas or answer the question on orders of the day on Monday.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Finance tell us if the Quebec government asked for the money it is entitled to get under that program, in order to set up in the province of Quebec a system similar to the one existing in the nine other provinces?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: The province of Quebec have their own program, which is a very comprehensive one, and they do not need to make any formal claim for compensation under the act. That is provided for in the act which was passed by this house, and they will receive the amount provided in the normal course.



STUDENT LOANS-DESIGNATION OF CREDIT UNIONS UNDER ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: I was
about to ask the Minister of Finance a question, but apparently he has disappeared from the scene temporarily. Actually it is a question which, had time permitted, I would have addressed to the hon. gentleman yesterday.

It arises out of the reference he made to the relationship between the credit unions and the new student loans act. Perhaps this could be another question for the minister to answer on Monday; he has indicated he will answer several others.
I should like to ask him whether he has received any representations from the credit union league of British Columbia with respect to the omission from all the publicity in connection with this new student loans plan of any reference to the inclusion of credit unions. If so, what steps is the minister prepared to take to rectify this omission? My own observations confirm that there has been such an omission. It is not widely known that the term "bank" in the relevant section includes credit unions. Perhaps the minister would answer this question on Monday.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: The Minister of Finance has been called from the house. I will take the hon. member's question as notice and draw it to the attention of the minister later today.



CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Dean Howe: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Is the minister aware of a recent case in which citizenship was refused because the couple involved were atheists and could not take the oath "so help me God"? If so, is this consistent with the bill of rights with regard to freedom of religion, and will the minister look into this and report to the house?


René Tremblay: I am not aware of this case, Mr. Speaker. I shall inquire and report later to the house.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister on a subject upon which I have asked previous questions of great importance, namely government policy with respect to our water resources. In view of the great and vivid difference between stateinquiries of the Ministry ments made in this house by the minister of northern affairs with regard to water policy and the speech made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano in Prince George recently, can the Acting Prime Minister inform the house which of them is stating government policy?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course one of the statements was made by a member of the government. I do not know whether they are available or not, but in any event I would want to look at the original sources before making any comment.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: I wish to address a question to the Minister of Finance. Are investigations being carried out by officials of the Department of Finance or the Department of Trade and Commerce at the present time to try to make tax incentives for the attraction of industries to depressed areas more effective than they are at present?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Officials of the Department of Finance are always engaged in studies to see whether they can make these incentives or any other incentives more effective. I have nothing further to add on this subject at this time. If and when there is an announcement of government policy to be made it will be made at the appropriate time.


Robert Carman Coates: A supplementary question. Have the recommendations of Professor Wilson to the governments of the Atlantic provinces been given serious consideration?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I have a copy of Professor Wilson's report. It is being studied, and certainly it will be taken into consideration.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. My question relates to one I put to the Prime Minister on Monday of this week concerning the possibility of time being -made available on the C.B.C. for the leaders of the three smaller

Supply-Transport
parties in view of the time given recently to the leaders of the two larger parties. No answer has yet been forthcoming, and I wonder whether one could be made soon. I have in mind that the leaders of the smaller parties might well speak on television without touching the question of the flag.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The hon. gentleman will remember that his leader, for whom we all have great affection, suggested yesterday that we ought to have a moratorium on this subject. Nevertheless I shall be glad to see that the Prime Minister has his attention directed to this question. He will be back late tonight. He has been away, you know, on important public business in British Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I point out to the Acting Prime Minister that I was not asking for time for the three leaders to discuss the flag. I am sure they do not wish to do that. I am asking for fairness in the matter of time allotted over the C.B.C. television network.


Paul Joseph James Martin: The attention of the Prime Minister will be drawn to this.

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



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration (including the former vote for the operation and maintenance of official railway cars), $3,773,800.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall vote No. 1 carry?


Mr. Balcer:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister will be making a statement on this item.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I had hoped, Mr. Chairman, some time before the day was over to make a statement which would incorporate whatever replies I could make to the observations of hon. members. In that way I would be sure to talk about the things members were interested in, and not just things that I was interested in.


Léon Balcer: I know the committee will be disappointed, Mr. Chairman, because of course when the minister speaks he is always interesting, and everything he talks about is always of the utmost interest to all members of this house. But unfortunately for the committee, we shall have to wait.


Mr. Chairman, I should like to make a few remarks at the very outset of the consideration of the Department of Transport's estimates. I am very pleased that we should be examining these estimates, since the present minister has been in function for quite some time.
Having had the privilege of being minister of transport, I must say that I consider it the most interesting department in the whole federal administration. There has often been talk of dividing it, but I am convinced that the present minister would be very disappointed if such a decision was made.


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. May I bring to the attention of hon. members that it is very noisy and difficult for the Chair to follow the remarks of the hon. member who has the floor.


Léon Balcer: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am of the opinion that it is possible at the present time to run the Department of Transport without dividing it. But, and this is a personal opinion, I believe that it would make sense to take the management of the civil aviation division away from the Department of Transport. However, we must wait for the decision of the government before making any comment in that regard.
Mr. Chairman, the day after his swearing in, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) made a great play about a plan to give Canada, at long last, a national policy with regard to civil aviation. Everyone was very interested to learn that the minister was undertaking such a large scale project. Though couched in a rather mysterious language, the plan had roused everyone's attention.
Yet, for the information of those who followed the work accomplished within the Department of Transport in matters of civil aviation, I must say that since then, we had cause for wondering what the minister meant by "national civil aviation policy". We also have every reason to wonder why the minister reversed his decision. Could it be that he has abandoned that project he had announced with such fanfare? Indeed, as far as our two large international air lines are concerned, that is, Air Canada and Canadian Pacific Airlines, the only achievement in that direction we were able to see to date was the meetings of the two presidents at the minister's suggestion.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the minister told the presidents of those two companies: "Now be good boys and try and get along together. Make an effort to see each other more often. There is really no problem; try to agree. Take your time, and we shall see how things stand later".
That is about all the national civil aviation policy that applies to those two large international lines.
At the time when the minister announced this new national civil aviation policy, the papers speculated quite a bit and wondered whether the minister meant that those two great lines would amalgamate, or whether Canada would decide to have one single large international service for all our international airways. The matter still comes up from time to time in the papers. We see some efforts being made in one direction or other, and I think that the house would be interested to know the present situation, because it is about time to put a stop to those rumours. Clearing up the matter in that way would give a certain peace of mind to the employees of those two companies, while allowing the directors of the two great international lines to progress and make plans for the years to come.
There is no doubt that during the last months, the two big international air lines have had very good financial results and that they are still bringing the name of Canada to the fore in the field of international air transport.
About the same time, the minister also announced great and mysterious plans concerning local air lines. There again, we have seen, as yet, no concrete results. As a matter of fact, newspapers reported that the minister had given to understand that the big air lines would probably have to give up some of their air routes for the benefit of local carriers.
For my part, I have not yet seen a single result of that project. If there have been any, I feel the minister should tell the house about them. There is no doubt that, when he made his statement, everyone interested in civil aviation in Canada saw in it the announcement of a new policy and then eagerly awaited the results.
Now, I recall that when I was minister of transport the opposition of the day was most critical of Canada's position, as compared to that of the United States, with regard to the bilateral agreements on civil aviation between our two countries.
Supply-Transport
I must confess that, in my capacity as minister, I was in no way satisfied with the situation. Our big air lines were undoubtedly quite right in insisting that the government make representations to the United States government, in order to improve the unfavourable position in which our two air lines found themselves compared to the American air lines.
Those bilateral agreements had been made by the previous government. We had to put up with those agreements and when we were in office, we made representations time and again to the American authorities on this matter.
I remember that during the last election campaign, the Liberal party said that if they were in office, they would settle the matter quickly and to the benefit of our air lines. Of course, there were meetings between our Canadian experts and the American experts, following a report to the President of the United States by Mr. Galbraith, the economist of international reputation. But up to the present, those discussions between our two countries have been unfruitful and we do not see what happy effects they might have for Canada.
I hope that during this debate the Minister of Transport will be able to report on this matter and announce certain progress, because it is very painful to see the position of both our great air lines as compared with the American companies.
When he answers those various questions, I would like the minister to give us his viewpoint with respect to the statement of the president of Air Canada the last time he appeared before the committee of the house, which goes into the financial report of that company.
The president of Air Canada actually stated that one of the reasons why he has always been in favour of a single international air line for Canada is the fact that to have two big lines in Canada placed our country in an inferiority position each time bilateral agreements have to be discussed with other nations. He gave as an example the discussions which were under way at that time between the United States and Canada.
To my mind that was an extremely important statement, and I believe the minister should tell us if the fact that we have two air lines in Canada is endangering our position.
According to my information, which is unofficial of course, the representatives of both air lines, who are in Washington as observers.

Supply-Transport
seem to get along fine at those talks. Therefore, I think the president of Air Canada has exaggerated the facts.
I think there ought to be an agreement between the two air lines, just as there are agreements between our two national railways.
It is absolutely ridiculous to think that we are not taking advantage of our rights.
For instance, Canada has the right to carry passengers, by virtue of what is called the five freedoms, between Paris and Rome. That is a route of very heavy traffic and all large carriers in the world make tremendous profits from it. But because of the relationship between our two main air lines, neither one is using that route which we are entitled to use.
You only have to imagine, for instance, the number of people who travel between Paris and Rome on the occasion of imposing ceremonies and large meetings like the ecumenical council in Rome. On that occasion, a great number of Canadian clergy go to Rome via Paris where they have to transfer to European carriers. It is so much income lost to Canadian air lines.
There is something else which could be to the advantage of our country. For instance, at this time, one of our two air lines has a flight to Tokyo and Hong Kong. If there could be an agreement between our two large carriers concerning the route between New York and Toronto, we could advertise, in New York, that the shortest route between New York and Tokyo is the one used by Canadian air lines that can fly north through Toronto, Vancouver, Alaska and land in Japan. But we are deprived of this advantage precisely because of the failure to agree between our two large air lines.
Mr. Chairman, I do not want to labour the point too long, but I must say that I am very anxious to hear what the minister will have to say.
While we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Transport, I should like to raise a point which has already been mentioned many times in the house in the form of questions on the orders of the day.
I am thinking of the passenger service between airports and cities. In my opinion, the problem is most serious and I am not blaming the present government more than any other, but I feel that the public is now at a great disadvantage. We have reached a point where the companies which transport passengers between the airports and the cities charge so much that their fares are very often more expensive than plane fares.

I think the department should fully investigate this situation.
Since exclusive rights are involved in this matter, I feel they should not take advantage of this monopoly to increase their rates, but on the contrary, their rates should be lower than those of companies providing regular city transportation services, and I mean taxis.
At the present time, air passengers may take either a limousine or a taxi. People who ride in those limousines lose a great deal of time, because they are extremely slow and never start on time. Fares charged are rather expensive and there are only a few scheduled stops. From there, one has to take a taxi, and all this costs a lot of money. One has the choice to do that or to take taxis which are also exclusive, because they belong to the same company as the limousines and those taxis charge really prohibitive fares.
I think an investigation should be made in this field. An agreement should be concluded between provinces and municipalities, in order to abolish that monopoly and allow anyone who has a taxi permit in a province or municipality to go to the airport and freely serve the public. On the other hand, I know that it is easy to argue that there is a contract and nothing can be done, but I feel that those companies have gone too far. A few years ago it may have been necessary for those companies to have a franchise but this reason is no longer valid at the present time.
In my opinion, that system works against the passengers. I feel that the Department of Transport must intervene to protect the public whenever agreements carrying exclusive rights are prejudicial to passengers.
Mr. Chairman, I should not want to take too much of the committee's time but, before I sit down, I should like to say a few words about shipbuilding in Canada and for Canada.
I remember that, in his budget speech, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) expressed very serious doubts about the value and especially the advantages of grants to the Canadian shipbuilding industry.
I see that this government has maintained our policy. I am sure that after holding his portfolio for a few months, the Minister of Transport has decided to continue those grants which are absolutely necessary, in my opinion.
The subsidies were very useful. We owe them our merchant marine on the St. Lawrence and the great lakes, which will be entirely modernized and up to date.
Thanks to those subsidies and to this merchant marine we were able to find enough

space to ship from the lakehead to the St. Lawrence ports tremendous loads of wheat and grain to Russia and other countries behind the iron curtain, as well as to China.
Had we not followed such a policy at that time, grain shipping would certainly have been delayed, with disastrous results for our western farmers and for this country as a whole.
We had also taken action to keep or reserve the use of Canada's inland waters only for ships flying the Canadian flag. We had obtained the agreement of all other commonwealth countries signatories to the commonwealth agreement on coastal traffic, and we were about to introduce legislation to this effect when, unfortunately, an election was called and our program was interrupted. I hope that the present government will not hesitate to maintain that policy, in order to give new strength to our merchant marine. It is unfortunate for our country that our merchant marine never had that new vitality which would enable us to have a real seagoing merchant marine.
In my opinion, the government should endeavour to take further steps in order to reach this goal completely.
I believe that, in another field of concern to Canadian shipping the government should do more. And here I am talking about the trips organized each summer to ship food and equipment to our various stations in the far north.
These trips should be restricted to ships under the Canadian flag. At present, the government charters foreign ships. To my mind, this is a discrimination against our ship owners and our seamen. I really believe that this is a field where the government has full authority and for which it pays all expenditures and signs contracts with the shipowners. Consequently, it should limit its naval operations to ships under Canadian flag. It is a new step toward the building of a Canadian merchant marine of significance.
Mr. Chairman, before resuming my seat, I would like once again to draw the attention of the house on the serious problem of Canadian waters.
This afternoon, the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) directed a question to the Minister of Transport; the latter expressed his concern at the seriouness of this problem. I am convinced, as every other sincere Canadian, that the minister is really worried over this great problem threatening our main natural resource.
Supply-Transport
Today, those who have an opportunity to see the St. Lawrence river find out to what extent the waters are low and polluted all along its banks. Anyone seeing the St. Lawrence at the present time may realize the importance and the urgency of this problem, as well as the pressing need for a new system under which this problem would be no longer in the hands of bureaucracy, and when I say "bureaucracy" I do not mean the civil service. But this article, which was written by Mr. Arthur Blakeley, of the Gazette, depicts perfectly the situation prevailing in that field, and, in my opinion, it is a hair-raising problem for those really concerned.
There are at least some 30 officials in the federal government who meddle with this problem. There is no agreement between them, the reports of their discussions are lost or get shelved in some branch or other; different policies are adopted. I believe that the government should take the bull by the horns, that
is,	establish a department of water courses in Canada, or set up an agency, some administrative body which would have the necessary authority to study the problems as a whole and to make really serious decisions.
An engineer was telling me recently that in Canada we waste to such an extent these natural resources that if we keep on doing
it,	the ocean-going vessels will probably be unable to go upstream further than Quebec.
I think that one of the most serious gaps in our past is not to have developed hydraulic engineering. All the people who had to carry out projects along the St. Lawrence river were civil engineers who, though very well qualified in their field, were by no means specialized in hydraulics.
Thus, all along the St. Lawrence river, seaports and jetties were built and dikes were erected without worrying too much about the effect of those constructions on the tides, the currents and ice movements. This resulted in a complete change in the currents of the St. Lawrence, and today, the water is so low that ships cannot come up to Montreal to take on a full cargo. And there is another aspect. The water of the St. Lawrence is so polluted all along its course, that people living in those magnificent summer residences and resorts cannot swim or bathe there. Today all that is finished, everything has been wasted. No doctor will advise anybody to bathe in the St. Lawrence river.
I believe that the federal government, even if it is not the only one to blame, should convene a federal-provincial conference on this matter and tackle the problem, because

Supply-Transport
today, the Ottawa and the St. Lawrence are practically open sewers. This situation has lasted long enough, and it is imperative for the government to assume its responsibilities, forget what happened in the past, and take an entirely new attitude. There is no question of blaming this or that person or body, but the problem must be tackled if we want the St. Lawrence river to remain that magnificent waterway which was the cradle of this country.
I refer to the St. Lawrence because I know it well, having been raised in Three Rivers.
I know that the great lakes are experiencing the same difficulty. As for lake Huron, the situation is critical and the government must do something about it. That is why I was so pleased by the minister's answer to my hon. friend from Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). I hope the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) will take positive action, leaving political manoeuvring aside. Any positive step he takes to help the Canadian people in this connection will be wholeheartedly supported by the opposition.
That will conclude my remarks, Mr. Chairman, and I thank hon. members for their attention. I hope that, when all the other hon. members have made their speeches, the minister will answer the few questions I have put to him.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the minister is displaying what he considers an admirable reticence in opening the estimates of his department. He has indicated he would prefer to listen to what some other members might have to say. However I think I should say at the outset that some of us are anxious to hear something from the minister before these estimates are concluded. He has been a member of this house long enough to know that members have an understandable interest in the attitudes of a new minister with respect to various matters of policy. Certainly there are a number of matters upon which I should like to have the benefit of the thinking of the Minister of Transport as we begin the spending for a new fiscal year of this very important Department of Transport. I have some questions I should like to pose or at least some matters I should like to draw to the minister's attention at this stage upon which I should like to have a statement from him prior to the conclusion of these estimates. Actually, I would prefer that he might deal with them when we are giving consideration to the various sections of the estimates, at which time there may be a

better opportunity for questioning him on these points.
If I may I should like to take a few minutes to draw his attention to the particular areas of interest I have immediately before me, so far as the estimates of his department are concerned this year. I might tell the minister that there were a number of matters about which I had some discussion with his immediate predecessor in the portfolio. One of them had to do with the operations of the air transport board. The former minister and I had a number of discussions on this subject last year. Amongst other things, I was then urging that the air transport board should adopt a procedure of going much closer to the people than it had done in the past in respect of the holding of public hearings concerning the establishment of lines or rates. I should like to tell the minister I was very happy that, in connection with its regional hearings, the air transport board did see fit to hold sittings in some of the smaller centres along the coast of British Columbia. While I have had it reported to me that the citizens did not flock to those hearings in large numbers to make representations, nevertheless I think that whatever decision the air transport board may have arrived at in connection "with various matters in relation to the changing of existing air line routes, there will likely be a more ready acceptance of the board's decision than there was in relation to certain matters not too long ago. There was certainly a strong protest, as the minister is aware, concerning certain actions taken by the board in connection with air lines.
I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the fact that, arising out of a certain situation that developed in respect of a decision of the board last year, I came to feel there was a rather serious flaw in the existing Aeronautics Act which, as the minister will recall, provides that if an air line which has an application before the board is not satisfied with the board's decision, an appeal to the minister does lie. However in the case of another air line, if it feels its interests have been advertently affected by a decision of the board no such appeal to the minister does lie under the terms of the law at the moment. On the face of it, this seems to be a rather unfair situation. I am hoping that when the minister is able to proceed with the amendments to the Aeronautics Act, which are now on the order paper in the form of a resolution, this particular point will not be overlooked in those amendments.

I did have some discussions on this very point with his predecessor, and it was suggested to me that when the Aeronautics Act was up for amendment it might be appropriate for me to pursue my argument in this connection. I should like to suggest to the minister that if this particular point is not already covered in the amendments which he intends to introduce, this is something to which he should give serious consideration. I suppose there is a question which can arise as to whether or not there should be any appeal to the minister. If there is to be an appeal allowed to the minister under the legislation, certainly so far as I am concerned it should not be a one way street. In other words, both parties should have the right to appeal.
While I am on the question of air transport, Mr. Chairman, I should like to indicate also to the minister that I am very much concerned about the type of facilities which can and should be developed for the landing of planes on water. I think it is generally recognized in this house that a great many millions of dollars have been spent on facilities for passengers to be transferred by air in connection with planes which land on the land. Most members of the house have had some opportunity to take advantage of the facilities which are provided at some of our more modern air terminals where we have, in general terms, very complicated and expensive technical facilities provided to assure that passengers will arrive at these terminals in safety and comfort. The whole question of seaplane landing facilities is a neglected one, so far as the Department of Transport and parliament are concerned. I only hope that because of the nature of his constituency the minister may be inclined to have a greater appreciation of this matter than some of his predecessors.
I had an opportunity of pointing out a few things to the minister's immediate predecessor during a visit he made to the B.C. coast. I was able to explain to him some of the landing problems that arise due to winds and tides, because I had personal experience of the hazards that develop when landing a seaplane in places where there are protruding piles against which winds may swing aircraft wings. As compared with the provision of facilities for landing planes in other parts of the country, very little has been done to develop such facilities along our sea coasts. I have had some discussions on this matter with persons operating planes along the B.C. coast, so the minister will not
Supply-Transport
be surprised when I tell him the B.C. aviation council sent me a copy of a recent communication they forwarded to him. I would like him to tell us his reactions to the suggestions made by that council.
I believe that under former policies the department spent more money on the establishment of landing facilities than circumstances justified. All those interested in this problem on the Pacific coast are anxious that the best possible facilities be provided at the lowest possible cost. We are convinced that with proper correlation between the marine services branch of the department and the planning sections of the Department of Public Works adequate seaplane landing facilities can be provided in many areas where none presently exist, at a very modest cost-modest compared with the amount spent on the provision of landing facilities for land based aircraft.
I am particularly interested in the levying of wharfage charges and I hope the minister will deal with this matter when we reach the marine services branch estimates. As the minister may recall, I had a recent exchange of correspondence with him on this subject, and he sent me an explanatory statement outlining the basis on which these charges are currently being levied, under the regulations which came into effect last January 23.
In this statement the minister enunciated the idea that those who use these facilities should be prepared to pay something for the service provided. Not many responsible people would quarrel with that idea, but having examined his explanatory statement I do not feel we have arrived at a proper and satisfactory arrangement. As a matter of fact I think the regulations seek to impose an impossible responsibility on the administrative officers in the field, and that the policy is impossible of being equitably applied.
I have received complaints concerning these charges for use of the harbour installations at Comox, and I would point out there are a great many places which have these facilities but where there are no wharfingers to collect the wharfage charges. If I understand the regulations correctly there is a certain onus on people using these facilities to regard the district marine agent as a wharfinger, where there is no wharfinger as such, but I do not know how the minister can expect a fisherman who has tied up in port at Whaletown or Namu to send in a report later, saying he was tied up there for

Supply-Transport
10 hours and including the money for the wharfage charges.
I cite Comox as an illustration. There are several installations within a relatively few miles of Comox where no charges are being levied. An attempt is being made to apply the charges in Comox, where there is a wharfinger. I do not intend to be critical of the wharfinger, but with the situation under which he operates he cannot be regarded as a full time employee. I am informed that certain boats which the wharfinger knows will be moored there are charged wharfage, but other boats come in, in some cases yachts operated by people who can well afford to pay wharfage charges, and these boats may stay there a day or two, and then away they go and no charges are levied against them. As the minister will readily understand, this is creating an attitude of resentment against the whole idea.
In addition I should advise the minister that the local business people in Comox rely almost entirely upon the business which commercial fishermen and other boat owners bring to them, and these business people are resentful because they feel this arrangement is driving people away from Comox harbour, and that boats are going elsewhere where no charges are levied. So, while I have some sympathy with the minister in his attempt to formulate an integrated policy with respect to a difficult question, I wish nevertheless to register my own feeling that a better solution could be reached than the one now adopted. It is my view that ports in the category of Comox, which I have used as an example, should be excluded from the application of the regulations.
I had hoped for an opportunity during the summer recess of spending a good deal of time discussing this question with commercial fishermen and other boat operators in the area for which I have the greatest concern.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the hon. member will permit me to say that I, too, shared that hope.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps it would not be amiss to take this opportunity to point out that one of the most important functions of a member of parliament in my view, and apparently in the view of the minister as well, is to ascertain the views of his constituents, particularly in areas where the operations of some of the government departments are of such great importance in the daily lives of the people. One of our most important responsi-

bilities, I feel, is to talk to the people we represent and ascertain their views as to how some of these matters should be dealt with. It is a matter of great regret to me that I have not had such an opportunity during the current year and the minister would no doubt agree with me that a Christmas recess, if we get one, does not fall at the time of year when it is easiest to do a job of this kind.
Nevertheless I have had some opportunity to discuss this question with the people who are most directly involved and the general reaction, at least among the more responsible minded of those to whom I spoke, seemed to be this: They had no objection to the idea of paying some reasonable charge where adequate facilities were provided, particularly in places where light, power, water and supervision were at the disposal of people needing these services. However in cases where these services have not been available and where no charges have been made in the past, there is a natural reluctance to accept any additional cost.
One or two suggestions have been made to me as alternatives to the idea presently advanced as the basis for wharfage charges. I will put them before the committee, not because I am persuaded they are correct or that they are necessarily better than the present arrangements, but because they have been made to me and because they are worthy of consideration. One such proposal is that instead of attempting to levy a charge in accordance with the length of the vessel to be moored, a small tax might be placed on fuel, say one cent a gallon. Another suggestion made to me is that it might be possible to issue an annual mooring licence. Commercial fishermen, when they went to obtain their commercial licences, could, if they intended to use public mooring facilities, pay a mooring charge in accordance with the size of their vessels. In return they would receive licences to moor at any of the public facilities they wished to use as they voyaged up and down the coast. I have not yet reached any final conclusion as to the merits of these two suggestions, but the minister should be thinking along these lines as he tries to work out a more satisfactory policy than the present arrangement is proving to be on the coast of British Columbia. I will leave it to the hon. gentleman to make his own analysis of how these charges should apply on the coast of Newfoundland.
There are a great number of questions one can always discuss in connection with the operations of a department whose work

spreads over a spectrum as broad as that of the Department of Transport. I should like the minister, before this discussion ends, to give us the latest information about what is developing in the field of policy with regard to cable television. This is a subject which has come up on a number of occasions during the life of this parliament and it is, of course, a matter of concern to a large number of people. I have made my own position clear. As far as I am concerned I do not believe there should be any attempt to restrict artificially the right of people to view the programs of their own choice. I think any attempt to do so is neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed, it could easily become a form of censorship. If we want to encourage Canadians to watch Canadian programs, the best way of doing it is to make Canadian programs so attractive that viewers will not want to watch programs from the United States or any other country, exclusively at least.
I believe there is nothing wrong in seeing what United States television can produce. Indeed I hope the day will come when we shall have much more ready access to television programs from Britain and other European countries than we have at the present time. It is also my belief that the need does exist for programs on the air which have a basically Canadian flavour and content if we are to survive as a nation. With regard to cable television, however, I would point out that in some areas of my constituency at least, due to the geography of the coast line, the only programs available are those which originate in the United States, and even these can only be received through the use of special antennae with cable connections to individual sets. I hope the minister will make it clear that there is no intention on the part of the government to restrict artificially the right of people in situations such as these to view such programs as they are able to receive in present circumstances.
While I am on this subject, Mr. Chairman, I should like to urge upon the minister, as a member of the government, the necessity of taking steps so that parliament may provide a much more adequate budget for the provision of Canadian radio and television, so that those who represent constituencies like mine will no longer receive from the C.B.C. the answer we have had again and again, "If you people will provide us with the money, we will extend facilities to these areas", namely those areas in which Canadians cannot now satisfactorily receive C.B.C. programs. Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw from the discussion, temporarily at
Supply-Transport
least, and hope to have some comments from the minister as we get further along into the estimates.


Mr. Marcoux:: Mr. Chairman, during consideration of the Department of Transport's estimates, I think the occasion is well chosen to draw to the attention of the hon. members a few problems in which I have been personally interested for some time and which concern not only the people of the riding of Quebec-Montmorency but also the people of the province of Quebec and of Canada as a whole.
I avail myself of the fact that item 1 allows us to discuss those problems in the house. Most of those problems have been submitted by myself to various organizations coming under the Department of Transport, and the answers have always been unsatisfactory, inadequate or non-existent.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is my duty and in the interest of the citizens concerned to draw these problems to the attention of the hon. members.
I would like to speak of the Canadian National Railways Company and of Air Canada. Those two crown corporations must report yearly to the railways, canals and telegraph lines standing committee or to the sessional committee. Since I have been in parliament, I have noticed that the evidence given by the representatives of those various companies, either the president of the Canadian National Railways Company or the president of Air Canada, were not at all satisfactory. They often declined to answer questions, or else they took refuge behind a kind of immunity by saying that it was not customary to disclose certain figures, etc., so that, even under our democratic system, we are unable to scrutinize the budget and the expenditures of those two crown corporations.
I realize that, as it has already been pointed out, it would be practically impossible for those companies to operate if members of this house were to question them repeatedly, if not every day, to find out just how they are running their business. And it is also said that, inasmuch as those crown corporations have to compete with other companies, certain figures ought not to be revealed, since that would be detrimental to those crown corporations. Considering that those two companies are subsidized by the government, that taxpayers help to make up for their deficits, it would not make sense to enable private enterprises to benefit from confidential information. Of course, we have to agree with that line

Supply-Transport
of reasoning. Yet, just because of the terms imposed by the crown corporations, the Canadian taxpayer is absolutely helpless, as he has never at any time been able to obtain satisfactory answers. The taxpayer may not be exactly familiar with the procedures and ways of those two crown corporations, nor with any possible schemes with other people set up with the help of officers in those corporations.
I remember, some time ago, having asked a question when the C.N.R. president was before the committee. I asked him then-though I knew very well that he would not be able to give an immediate answer-what was the distribution of traffic, at the Palais station in Quebec city, as between the C.N.R. and the C.P.R.; furthermore in what proportion premises were occupied by the C.N.R. and by the C.P.R., and finally what costs were charged to the C.N.R. for the use of those services. Mr. Gordon told me that he could not give me an answer, but would see to it that I get one later on. And I heard absolutely nothing until, following a second letter of mine, I received on Sept. 4, from the Canadian National Railways, a letter with figures indicating that, at least to uninitiated eyes, like mine, the C.N.R., to a certain extent, helps out the C.P.R. by making much less use of tracks and premises than the latter company, although expenses are apportioned roughly on a fifty-fifty basis between the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. This means that the C.N.R. is contributing, with the taxpayers' money, to bolster the C.P.R.'s profits.
These is nothing wrong, of course, in the C.N.R. doing the C.P.R. a good turn. But when we know that the taxpayers have to make up the deficits, I think the C.N.R.'s expenditures should be looked into more closely. That is the kind of information we cannot obtain from the presidents of those companies when they come before the committee.
If I had not insisted on a reply, I think I would still be in the dark as to the conditions of the contract signed in that connection by the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. However, some lines have been abandoned following the signing of the contract.
Certain trains have stopped using the C.P.R. tracks. Others follow a new route; instead of passing through Quebec city, they take another C.N.R. track which brings them directly to St. Raymond. Those are all services for which the C.N.R. has paid for and which are no longer used. In fact, I wonder if the C.N.R. still pays the C.P.R. the same charges and rent as before.
All that to say that unless we remain on our toes, the Canadian taxpayers will practically find themselves under the domination of certain private companies.
There would still be lots of things to say in that connection. For instance, last year, I asked questions about the Canadian Prepack and the Crowley McCraken companies, which deal either directly or indirectly with the C.N.R. and with which the crown corporation has contracts which cannot be scrutinized because they are private contracts. It is impossible to know either the names of the directors of those companies because the latter are incorporated under provincial law.
Those are all factors which make it difficult to examine the budget and expenses of the C.N.R. and, occasionally also, of Air Canada.
I still have other observations to make in this regard which are even more serious inasmuch as they refer to what is apparently a matter of political patronage.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Guy Marcoux: I know the minister will be quite surprised to learn that such a thing as political patronage could exist within his department-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Guy Marcoux: -because it would just about be the only place where it could be found, since we know none exists elsewhere. Here, I wish to refer to another company called Transol Inc. I had asked the C.N.R. what agreements they had reached with that company. I was told that the C.N.R. had not sold any property to Transol. Of course, that was not what I meant and I had to give it another try, for even if I knew the answer, I wanted to get it directly from the C.N.R. So I made another attempt and asked them more specifically what transportation contracts Transol Inc. had been awarded between Levis and Riviere du Loup.
I finally succeeded in getting an answer, on September 10, from the secretary of the company, Mr. Vaughn. Now, this is a contract signed by the C.N.R. with that company, whose directors are Mr. Marius Diamant, Mr. Gaston Desjardins, a lawyer, and I think one of his associates, Mr. Ovide Laflamme, whom I have not met but who ran against me in the last election.
This company offered its services to the C.N.R. The latter investigated the credit standing of the Transol Inc. company in order to know what it was worth. According to the

report submitted to the C.N.R., that company was not solvent, it was not in operation and was only incorporated on June 13, 1963, which meant that it was quite newly formed and had no capital value. Strange enough, in spite of this unfavourable report, the C.N.R. decided to award the contract to the Transol Inc. company, so that the latter is now operating a freight transportation service between its stations located between Levis and Riviere du Loup.
Transol Inc. was authorized to operate this service by the Quebec transport board on October 30, 1963, and only started operating on that date.
As can be easily imagined, this means that when the company was awarded a contract by the C.N.R. for freight transportation, bank credits were unfrozen, so to speak, and it was very easy for this company to secure from the bank the funds necessary to set up the whole system as we know it today.
This even enabled this company to purchase a tank-truck in order to transport wine from Niagara Falls, this wine producing area we know quite well, to Quebec city, for the Quebec liquor control board. This means that this transportation company competed directly with the Canadian National Railways, which already had tank cars, and that the crown corporation consequently lost this contract to Transol Inc.
Evidently, in regard to the province of Quebec, the same thing happens. The liquor board is a crown corporation, so to say, which is entirely above politics. It then became quite easy for that corporation to send in a tender to the liquor board. However, C.N.R., which had agreed, as it were, to the creation of such a corporation, lost the contract they had with the Quebec liquor board.
To my mind it is a loathesome situation when a company such as the C.N.R. whose deficits, as I said, are made up by the people of Canada, is at the mercy of a small group like that.
Coming back to the directors of Transol Inc., lawyers Gaston Desjardins and Ovide Laflamme have their office in the same building as Mr. Gerard Levesque who used to be chairman of the Quebec Liberal federation.


An hon. Member:: He used to be.


Guy Marcoux: Yes, he used to be chairman of the federation. He did a lot of work at that time. There was another person in that office, Mr. Laurent P. Bolduc, who is not a lawyer, I think, but who owns two ships, the Sillery and the Cacouna, the building of
Supply-Transport
which was largely paid through federal grants.
Consequently, that is a fairly great concentration of power. I am sure the minister will get to the bottom of this so that there will be no repetition of such distasteful happenings.
Of course, now that Transol Inc. is a well organized company which is doing good business, I imagine it would be difficult to take away its contracts, but the minister will surely be on his guard the next time such a thing happens.
I would have other remarks to make in that connection but I will stop here. Naturally, I am not a minister but I have a rather thick file on that case.
Now I shall say a few words concerning another question, coming under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, that is the choice of a medium range aircraft by Air Canada. This is another corporation entirely independent from the government and which receives no instructions from the latter; in brief, this is a company which makes its own decisions. Then, we have nothing to say. It is nevertheless strange to find out that the decision made previously to choose the BAC-111 aircraft was changed following the unfortunate accident suffered by the prototype plane while it was flying over a British city.
I feel that Air Canada was wise to change its decision, since it realized that the plane could be dangerous.
As far as the DC-9 is concerned, that plane was never built. It never flew once and it was accepted. And the Caravelle, which has proved itself over many years, is used quite extensively in the United States by a firm which is not particularly francophile and in a country which has no particular concessions to make to France. As a matter of fact, they are very happy to use the Caravelle because it gives very good service and its safety rating is very high.
Mr. Chairman, I will not talk about this any longer, because I do not want to reopen an old sore. I just wanted to point out some odd things that might be found in the management of Air Canada.
Another field which comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport and which awakened my interest is that of radio and television. As a matter of fact, I always wondered why television and radio come under the Department of Transport, especially broadcasting stations and the issuance of licences and permits.

Supply-Transport
I know very well that permits for the operation of radio and television stations are issued by the Department of Transport, on the recommendation of the board of broadcast governors, although sometimes when the minister did not like the board of broadcast governors' decision, he changed it and went ahead with another policy that had not been recommended by the governors.
For a few years now I have been interested in a Gaspe peninsula television company, namely the "Compagnie de t.v.-transgaspe-sienne", which submitted to the board of broadcast governors rather long and detailed briefs that I have at hand. They are about four inches thick.
Following a decision that I never understood from the board of broadcast governors, that company was prevented from operating a television station in the north Gaspe area. The reasons given for this refusal were numerous and inconsistent. That company had the luck-or the bad luck-to submit briefs to the board of broadcast governors on four or five occasions.


Mr. Bechard:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Guy Marcoux: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. member is aware that there are already two other television stations in the Gaspe peninsula, one in Matane and the other in Carleton, which serve the peninsula and must also, under their operating licence, serve that area. Besides, I feel that those companies give a very good service to the areas they cover.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I was precisely coming to this point, because it is a complicated problem, in a complicated area, and a problem in which I have taken a complicated interest also.
If one studies the questions I put to the Department of Transport, both under this government and the previous one, one will realize that I did not envisage the question in a superficial way.
I know that the Matane station has moved its antenna. Instead of erecting it near the city of Matane, they went away and erected it on Logan mountain, in order to have a much wider field of action. However, this antenna was barely erected than a satellite had to be built on Climont mountain, because it was found that the city of Matane and the Matapedia valley could no longer be served adequately.

I feel that this is a very complicated question, and I think the decisions were made in favour of the existing stations.
I know that this is normal, that those stations have the right to have a monopoly, but on the other hand I know also that some areas in the Gaspe peninsula are entitled to service, and if those two stations had an exclusive contract with the C.B.C., the third station might have signed a contract with another company, with Tele-metropole, for instance.
And if people had not wanted Tele-metropole, the Trans-Gaspe t.v. company could have signed a new contract with the C.B.C. Anyway, the problem was not beyond solution.
If existing stations did not wish to make use of Jacques Cartier mountain, as did Trans-Gaspe t.v., it was hardly up to the latter to let the two existing companies benefit from the advantages offered by the highest peak in eastern Canada.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member permit another question?


Guy Marcoux: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member aware of the fact that, even if an antenna had been installed on Jacques Cartier mountain, the station established there would nevertheless have had to set up satellites to serve some villages along the north shore of the Gaspe peninsula?


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that the hon. member asked this question.
The consulting engineer of Trans-Gaspe t.v., Mr. Boisvert, made a technological study of the power of the CKBL-TV Matane station, and stated, on the sole basis of mathematical computation, that the district around Matane would have a signal several decibels weaker and that the station would have to use a satellite further away, if the people on behalf of whom an operation permit had been sought were to have a proper service.
The predictions of this engineer have been found perfectly true.
The same engineer also studied the diffusion of waves from Jacques Cartier mountain to certain remote spots of the northern part of the Gaspe peninsula such as Gros Mome and Grande Vallee, for example, which are the most inaccessible. The report prepared by that qualified engineer indicated that the new station could serve those areas. The quality of the service would be somewhat inferior,

perhaps in the B or C grade, instead of A. But this would have been sufficient to enable the inhabitants of those areas to employ television adequately.
If an engineer who was sufficiently competent to predict the coverage of the CKBL-TV antenna feels that the station which could have been operated by Trans-Gaspe t.v. would have given satisfactory results, I do not see why those results should be discussed.
On the economic level, it is clear that the two stations now in operation would be greatly handicapped, especially on the north shore, since the greater percentage of the volume of business of the Matane t.v. company comes from the north shore.
Of course, I agree that the new station which could have been operated would have been prejudicial to the existing stations. The Magdalen islands and Anticosti island would probably have been served by the new station. Moreover, the north shore of the province of Quebec, the Natashquan area and the other areas located a little farther to the east, in short all the areas which are not now served by the Matane station, would have been served by the new one. This means that, as far as the technical aspect is concerned, the station which could have been operated by Trans-Gaspe t.v. is necessary.
It is obvious that certain companies may suffer some financial prejudice. I agree that the new station may constitute a handicap. But the strangest thing is that if we examine the objecting briefs, we realize that those companies presented divergent views to the board of broadcast governors. When the application for the establishment of a new station was presented, they told the board that they were in a bad financial situation and that they did not want a third station to compete with them. However, when the question was to expand or set up a new satellite station, they would say to the board that their finances were very good and that they could afford to make the necessary expenditures, consequently, the evidence was contradictory, and so were the decisions of the board of broadcast governors.
At first it was said that Trans-Gaspe t.v. did not fulfil the technical requirements. The latter then had to change the technical specifications so as to meet the requirements of the board of governors. When the officials of Trans-Gaspe t.v. came up with these new improvements, the decision of the board of governors was that their financial organization was not adequate. And when the officials came back again to show that their financial 20220-515
Supply-Transport
organization was adequate, the decision of the board of governors was that the existing stations had to be given an opportunity to install satellites and try to serve the Gaspe population.
I have nothing against the decisions of the board of governors; nor do I have anything to gain from the case of the Trans-Gaspe t.v. Company which I have put forward.
But I suggest that if that firm had been prevented, for whatever reason, to make those changes and reappear before the board of governors, about $50,000 or more would have been saved.
That company had always been given to understand that it would be permitted to set up a television station and, consequently, it spent a great deal of money. However, it is now in a hopeless situation, as no decision has been made.
Since the board of governors comes under the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) and the issuance of a licence is the responsibility of the Department of Transport, it makes matters more difficult.
I am not in the least exercising any pressure on the government to make a decision. I am only saying it should have been regarded as a matter of justice, for they let the Trans-Gaspe company go to a great deal of expense by leading it to believe it could set up a station. Now the company's request has been turned down. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have here a situation which is at least discriminatory. I know that some chambers of commerce exerted pressure against Trans-Gaspe t.v., while, at the same time, others protested in favour of the company and this made it even more difficult for the minister to reach a decision.
However, it is a question of justice. Trans-Gaspe t.v. acted in good faith in wanting to serve that part of Gaspe which has no service. This has always interested that company which has been operating, under another name, a community antenna and, for a long time, had decided to bring television to the people of Ste Anne des Monts and St. Joachim de Tourelle. I believe three or more stations were received by means of this antenna and programs were retransmitted locally to Ste Anne des Monts and vicinity. This proves that the company has always wished to serve adequately the people of that area.
Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to take this matter into consideration. As I have said previously, I do not want to pressure him; nor do I want to force a decision on him. I

Supply-Transport
know that he is subject to very strong pressures from opposing camps. I know that financially, certain companies have made investments and, naturally, they do not like competition.
However, for the sake of justice and equity, the minister should make a decision, which would favour not only Trans-Gasp6 t.v. but the whole of the population of North Gaspe and even of other places, who could be served by this station which enjoys a very advantageous geographical location.
Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word concerning a long lasting problem-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The time allotted to the hon. member has expired. Does he have the unanimous consent of the house to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Marcoux: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize to the house for taking up so much of its valuable time.
However, I am so concerned with these matters that I would not miss the opportunity to discuss them before the house, and I will try to be as brief as possible.
This, Mr. Chairman, is a matter which has not been discussed for a long time, that is the foreshore at Beaupre.
Theoretically, the foreshore belongs to the national harbours board which has jurisdiction over the port of Quebec. The board maintains that the foreshore is necessary to the expansion of the port of Quebec. Theoretically, it cannot give up the foreshore without prejudice to the good management of the port of Quebec.
Some private companies requested from Quebec harbour authorities permission to use part of the foreshore, to build a deep-water wharf enabling them to move a certain quantity of cement produced nearby.
Riparian proprietors have been using these lands for a certain number of years and, in many cases, they claim to own them. The national harbours board challenges these claims, saying that these lands belong to the crown and that nobody can use them without the consent of the national harbours board.
These lands are not put to any use, they are in a very poor state and they cannot be profitable to anybody, not even to the port of Quebec.
During a recent meeting of the mayors of the municipalities concerned, the possibility of developing the foreshore at Beaupre was discussed.

The suggestion was made that the national harbours board would purely and simply waive its claim, subject perhaps to some conditions, to the use of the foreshore. It would hand over to the municipalities concerned all the foreshore at Beaupre with permission to develop it as they pleased.
This means that certain municipalities could start some developments, such as parks or the like. Some municipalities could even use it to extend their territory and authorize the building of houses. Others could use them for commercial or industrial purposes.
I think the minister should give special consideration to this problem.
For a number of years, the people concerned have been seeing officials of the national harbours board about this, but no decision has ever been made in this regard.


Mr. Cantin:: Would the hon. member allow me a question?
Would he favour this idea, even if it is detrimental to the development of Quebec harbour?


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Chairman, as I said a while ago, even though this land is essential, theoretically, to the development of Quebec harbour, in practice, on account of the limited budget of the national harbours board and of the very poor state of Quebec harbour, the sums of money that could be used for the development of the foreshore would be so large that we would probably have to wait another 50 years for Quebec harbour to expand along the Beaupr6 shore.
Mr. Chairman, I see the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport shaking his head, but that problem has been under consideration for the past 60 years at least.
We met several times with the Quebec harbour and the national harbours board officials in Ottawa, and no firm decision were ever made; the board officials never showed us any definite plan indicating their intention of developing that part of the coast at Beaupre. In that way and without causing any harm whatsoever to the Quebec harbour, the national harbours board could, especially if it were instructed to do so by the government, solve that problem to the advantage of everybody, including Quebec harbour, and particularly to the satisfaction of all concerned.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank you and all hon. members for being kind enough to allow me to continue.
I hope that my comments will decide the minister to act in certain fields. Of course, I do not wish to insist, but as I said a short

time ago, I hope that he will take my remarks in due consideration.


Mr. Beaule:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to take a few minutes to comment on the estimates of the Department of Transport which, as we all know, is one of the most important.
I believe that the various organizations that come under this department are much too heavy for one man alone to carry. For example, among the branches that come under the Department of Transport, we find marine services, railways and steamships, civil aviation, telecommunications, meteorological services, air transport board, Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, Canadian maritime commission, national harbours board and the St. Lawrence seaway authority. The administration of those services is funnelled into the offices of the Department of Transport, and, frankly, it represents a task that is too heavy for one man. I would suggest, therefore, to the government that the department be divided into two parts.
Under the first part the following services could be included: marine services, railways and steamships, crown corporations such as the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada, the Canadian maritime commission, the national harbours board and the St. Lawrence seaway authority.
The second part which could be called the department of air transport, would include the following: civil aviation, air transport board, telecommunications and meteorological services. This would make possible a more efficient performance by dividing the work within the department and by distributing the tasks more evenly.
Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) mentioned a while ago, as regards passenger service between air terminals and cities-be it Montreal, Toronto or Quebec-I think those companies are exercising a monopoly and I agree with the hon. member when he said that an investigation should be made in this connection, and the Department of Transport should decide on a maximum and a minimum rate for the transportation of passengers between air terminals and the cities.
I have already made a recommendation to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines respecting handling of baggage in airports. I for one asked that at Ancienne Lorette airport, near Quebec city, where baggage is handled a little too roughly, carriages drawn by a tractor should be provided, instead of a type of tractor equipped with a box, to convey baggage from the planes to the airport.
Supply-Transport
I should also ask the minister whether it would be possible to use Vanguard aircraft on passenger services between Quebec and Ottawa. We have noticed on several occasions that travellers must make reservations several days in advance and often cannot get a seat on board because there are too many passengers. I ask the minister whether it would not be possible to replace the Viscount aircraft by Vanguards on the air route Quebec-Ottawa via Montreal.
Now, I should like to turn to another problem which I already raised in this house; I know that the parliamentary secretary is in a very good position to discuss that problem of railway crossings in Quebec city. We have in Quebec city a railway company, the Canadian Pacific, which operates a passenger service. The station is located in the business centre, and I think that besides being out of date, it interferes with the traffic and business in Quebec city. Passenger trains circulating between Quebec and Montreal must pass through the city from east to west or from west to east and thus cross the streets eight times in Quebec city. Now, six of those streets are located in the business sector, which means that every time a train goes in or out, a traffic jam is the result.
I wrote to Mr. Gordon, president of the C.N.R., in this connection in June 1963. Mr. Gordon answered that he was prepared to enter into discussions with the authorities of the Canadian Pacific, of the board of transport commissioners and of the Department of Transport, in order to settle that problem. I also wrote to the president of the C.P.R., but the authorities of that company do not want to hear about it. They say it would be too expensive, that, after all, the situation is not abnormal and that everything is going fine in Quebec city.
I suggested to the high ranking officials of the Department of Transport to go to Quebec city, to visit the places in question and to see the traffic jams caused when a train enters or leaves the station or when some shunting is done in the Canadian Pacific yards.
I reported all those facts to Mayor Hamel of Quebec city, who replied to me as follows:
I have just taken cognizance of your letter dated June 28 concerning level crossings in the city of Quebec. This important question has been our concern for many years.
I might say that in all our talks, we met considerable opposition, which explains why the question has not progressed further.
We shall renew our representations, in the hope that we may find a solution to this important problem.

Supply-Transport
I would therefore ask the minister to inquire in order to know who is responsible for this opposition met by the city of Quebec. Would it be the authorities of the Department of Transport, who do not care about it, or of the Canadian Pacific Railways, who refuse to listen to reason?
I would suggest to the parliamentary secretary who advocates the restoration of older Quebec to include in his projects an improvement of railway crossings.
I would also suggest to the minister to make some arrangements with the Canadian National Railways, the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada and the Canadian Pacific Railway in order that the marshalling yard used by the C.P.R. may be demolished and transferred outside the walls of Quebec city perhaps to Ste Foy.
The C.N.R. advocates the construction of a passenger service station. They have a station at Ste Foy, since they already operate a service between Montreal and Quebec city, via the south shore, and they precisely stop at Ste Foy to leave passengers, and I think it would be more logical if that station was situated in the suburbs. Then the problem would be solved and, by the same token, the railway crossings, which are a public danger, would be eliminated. If the C.N.R. would develop outside of Quebec city a railway centre and a marshalling yard the problem would be solved.
I make that suggestion and I am convinced that the minister will make the required representations to the authorities concerned, so that we, the people in Quebec city, might also profit from downtown improvements and some day see the elimination of those notorious railway crossings which interfere with traffic.


Mr. Moreau:: I do not want to delay the committee unduly but I would like to express my surprise that the hon. member for Three Rivers criticized the monopoly situation that exists at airports across the country, because the agreements providing for this situation were concluded, I believe, while the previous government was in office, and when he was the minister responsible.
It is well known that the hon. member for York-Humber and I have raised this matter in the house, in connection with air terminal transport at Toronto international airport. It is now surprising to find an endorsement of our stand by the hon. member for Three Rivers, and I would like to thank him very
[Mr. Beaule.3
much for his support in our efforts to have this situation looked at again.
I wish to bring the minister's attention to the matter of express delivery in the suburbs of metropolitan Toronto. When I moved to Toronto a few years ago I was amazed to find that in the suburb of Scarborough prepaid express operated in the following manner. One day a truck appeared at my door and the driver demanded 75 cents a parcel for delivery of prepaid express articles. This seemed a rather strange situation so I went down to the express office to discuss it with the people there because I had not received notice that the shipment was coming to me.
I had no opportunity at all to pick it up myself, and I was quite surprised there was not free delivery by the express companies, C.N. and C.P., on this sort of service in such a large community as Scarborough which contains over 200,000 people.
Communities of much smaller size get free delivery service as part of the express service operated by the express companies. I am sure Scarborough is not the only suburb of Toronto which faces this problem, and I would ask the minister to have a look at it. I should like to relate briefly an experience I had in this connection some years ago. I had ordered some lobsters. I knew they were coming and called the express office repeatedly to find out whether this shipment had arrived. We had organized a dinner party at which we intended to serve the lobsters. We were expecting them on a certain day and I called the express office at 9.30 that morning and was informed that the lobsters had arrived. I said "Fine. I will come right down and pick them up." "Well," the fellow said to me on the telephone, "you cannot pick them up, they are already on the truck". I said "Isn't that rather strange? You fellows got a good start this morning." He assured me they were on the truck. By noon they had not arrived and he told me "Oh well, the truck takes a whole lot of these things; it goes on a circuitous route. But don't worry, it will be along". I called again at two o'clock, and finally at 6.30, by which time my wife was in a near state of panic, the lobsters arrived.
I am not suggesting there is collusion between the express officials and the local delivery service but a number of people have asked me why it is they are not informed that shipments have arrived, so that at least if they do not have an express delivery service they would have the option of picking them up on their own. I received two or

three letters recently in this connection from people pointing out that since they lived in such a populous area they should be given the same consideration as people in downtown Toronto or in other communities throughout Canada.
I find it difficult to defend the present policy, particularly since we were told that the marshalling yards which were built, despite considerable objection from people in certain parts of my constituency, would rationalize the whole railroad picture in Toronto. We were told: Just wait and see, and when these yards are in operation all the problems will be solved. Well, this is one problem which has not been solved and I hope the minister will get answers to some of the questions I have to ask on this matter. I should like to know why we are not given delivery service by the express company, a service which is given to much smaller communities as well as to other parts of metropolitan Toronto. I should like to know why under the present arrangements patrons are not informed of shipments having arrived, so that they can pick them up themselves. I have been told by the express people in the local office that this is impossible-that they cannot cope with this work. I say that if there is such a volume of business it should warrant the express company having a truck or trucks down there to take care of it. In the second place, I should like to know more about this arrangement between the railway and the local carrier-it is always the same carrier. Is this franchise -and it appears to be that-the result of tender or is it just some arrangement which is made by the railroads? If there is such an arrangement, are the railroads getting a "kick back" from this operation? These are the questions I should like the minister to inquire into. Certainly the people in my constituency would be most interested in knowing the answers.


Mr. Deachman:: In the few minutes remaining before five o'clock I want to introduce a new topic. It concerns grain handling facilities in the port of Vancouver. I had wished to make some lengthy remarks with regard to the development of the national harbours board facilities in the port of Vancouver, but perhaps I could leave these to a later occasion, perhaps later on during consideration of these estimates, or at some other time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Delighted.
Supply-Transport


Grant Deachman: I am sure the minister will be delighted, as I can see from his expression. I wish to direct my observations now to the question of grain handling facilities in the port of Vancouver. The unprecedented wheat sales over the last year has meant the passage of some 200 million bushels of wheat through the port of Vancouver-more than Vancouver has ever shipped before. All the facilities of the port have been strained and put to the test in dealing with this record shipment. Vessels have stayed in the harbour sometimes for weeks on end awaiting berths. As a result there have been considerable losses to shipping companies. We do not have sufficient facilities to handle all the wheat which was offered at the port.
I wish to refer to an article which appeared in the New York Times on August 30, 1964 which sums up the wheat shipment story in these words:
Vancouver has been shipping 20 million bushels of grain a month during the year. There are 11 grain loading berths, but if the port facilities were better, a $500 million wheat transaction with Moscow might have been more than 10 per cent higher.
Full use of the berths handling 200 million bushels of wheat a year was pledged last year and, despite a promised expenditure of millions of dollars for increased facilities, ships still wait while costs mount.
There has been considerable discussion in Vancouver as to whether or not increased facilities should include an elevator or whether there should merely be an upgrading of existing grain handling facilities. A survey was made by the previous incumbent of the office of minister of transport. This survey took place toward the end of 1963 with a view to securing advice on what would be required by way of additional facilities at Vancouver and other ports of Canada. Since that time there have been rumours and stories in the Vancouver papers that private enterprise grain handling companies or co-operatives would be willing to build an elevator in the port of Vancouver to provide additional storage. So it seems to me we are coming close to a point where additional storage and grain handling facilities, rather than just working or handling facilities, should be developed in the port.
The question arises-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member but it being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices

Motions }or Papers
of motions for the production of papers, private bills and public bills.
Progress reported.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock the house will now proceed with the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 9, consideration of the motion (Mr. Orlikow):
That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: I wonder if I may rise on a question of personal privilege. As hon. members will recall, I previously participated in the debate on this matter and on July 9 as reported on page 5259 of Hansard there is record of a question put to me by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam. At that time the hon. member inquired whether a person whose reliability was questioned would have the right to appear before the security review board, and also whether he would have the right to appear with counsel. At that time I gave it as my understanding that he would have such a right. But in the discussions that have taken place-as hon. members opposite are aware -with the responsible officers, it has come to my attention that it is the British practice which is to be followed here, and there will be no right to appear personally or with counsel. The function of the review board is merely to review the file that already exists. I make this statement, Mr. Speaker, so that hon. members opposite will not be misled in that regard.


Mr. R. W. Pritiie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I should start by saying, "As I was saying on July 9 at six o'clock". At that time I was dealing with a particular aspect of security matters and I had brought before the house the case of a young man who was working within a government department and applying for another position in the same department, but one which required a security clearance. The case was brought to my attention by the B.C. civil liberties association. The young man had refused to answer certain questions about his in-laws; he claimed
[The Chairman.]
this was information which he should not reasonably be expected to have. I should like to deal with that particular aspect of security matters for a few minutes.
It seems to me that a person should be judged upon his own character and background; that there should be sufficient opportunity from interview, from checking the records and references of a person, from speaking to his previous employers and those people who had something to do with his education and background generally, to find out what type of a person he is and whether he is a satisfactory security risk. In my opinion it is very unreasonable to check the status of a very large number of relatives and to reach any sort of conclusion about a person based upon such a check. A person from a large family might be at a very great disadvantage; he may have uncles, aunts and cousins who belong to various political parties and organizations, over whom he surely has no control. I think we presume that such people have too much influence upon an individual. I suggest that this type of question is unnecessary and there are adequate means of checking the individual without going into the case histories of all his relatives.
At the conclusion of my remarks when this matter was being debated previously, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned the case which was brought to the attention of the house last year by my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron). This was the case of a young man who had been released from the Royal Canadian Navy because a security check revealed that his uncle had once been a communist. Of course, the error was found out; there was a confusion of names. The man whom the security officers thought was the young man's uncle was not his uncle at all, and the young man was given a security release. At that time I concluded my remarks by asking: "What if his uncle had been a communist?" This is a very unfair burden for such a young man to carry. He should be judged upon his own character, his own background, his own education, his own working record. I imagine this would be a particularly hard burden for some young people in this country who may be very orthodox and conform in every way, but whose parents may not conform and may be very radical. Are they to carry that burden throughout their lives?
We are dealing here with cases involving the careers of individuals. This is most important, Mr. Speaker. They should be judged

upon their own characters, and not upon those of their relatives, no matter how close those relatives may be.
On the general subject of security procedures, just before I rose to speak on July 9 the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) had been stoutly defending the government's position on security matters, and in particular the statement the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made on October 25, 1963. At that time I said:
The millennium in security procedures was not reached on October 25, 1963.
I pointed out that the millennium had not been reached on that date in this country, and still has not been. We do not consider the board of review which was established at that time to be satisfactory at all. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) pointed out, this is not a judicial body. It is an administrative body, but it has quasi-judicial powers. It seems to me to be an altogether wrong principle for a body having judicial powers of any sort to be part of the general administrative set-up of the government. If it is to have judicial powers, it should be appointed as a judicial body. The type of persons appointed to judgeships is the sort we want, namely those appointed independently of the government.
As the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice, (Mr. Macdonald) admitted a few moments ago, the present board of review does not permit the person under investigation to appear before it; he cannot be represented by counsel. This is a most unsatisfactory situation. Again I would reiterate that the careers of persons are being affected here, and their careers may be permanently affected by the wrong sort of security information. In this connection, Mr. Speaker, events in this country in the last month should give us cause for concern about the kind of people who are involved in our security investigations. I have an idea that they are not of the best and most reliable character. They can be given a great deal of wrong information, and may be supplying to the authorities wrong information upon which the authorities act in some cases, as they did in the case of the young man from Nanaimo, British Columbia, who was in the Royal Canadian Navy.
There is one other matter in connection with security that I would like to raise. I wonder whether any review has been carried out recently of the number of positions in the
Motions for Papers
federal government service of Canada who are subject to security checks. It seems to me that if you examined all the government departments, all the crown corporations and all the various crown agencies there would be a great many positions for which security checks are required. I believe they would number many thousands. I wonder whether this situation could not be examined to see if they are not carrying out security checks for far too many positions. It is my belief that the number of people working for the government of Canada who would have access to information that would be of any real value to an enemy would really be extremely small. I would suggest to the department that this sort of review should be undertaken so that we may keep to an absolute minimum the number of positions within the government with regard to which security checks are required.
I believe it was the hon. member for Greenwood, supported by the hon. member for Peace River, who suggested that perhaps a house committee should be established, to sit in camera, so that this question of security could be more fully explored by members of the house. Any time security matters have been raised in the house, ministers of justice of this country have seemed to become awfully sanctimonious and have thrown out the suggestion that the security of the nation is involved and they cannot answer any questions. I suggest that the members of the house at least have a right to know what are the procedures that are followed by the government. If it is felt that these matters should not be made public, and perhaps there is a good case to be put forward for that contention, this type of inquiry could be carried out by a house committee sitting in camera. Surely if we can have a committee meet in camera to discuss the flag, we can go into this very important subject which deals with the civil and individual liberties of Canadians. Therefore I again put the suggestion that this should be given consideration, because for our part we will not be satisfied until we know more of what is involved in the government's security policy.
I conclude my remarks by reminding hon. members that the security of the nation is very important certainly, but the liberties of individuals, their freedom and their right to a career is also important. We must not forget that, because we have by no means yet reached a happy balance between security and civil liberty in Canada.

Motions for Papers


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to join with the last speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond (Mr. Prittie), in discussing this motion. I think there is a mystique among government circles or those in councils of state, so to speak, about secrecy and the ramifications of it. In fact, I think it is time we took a look at the whole problem. In France, as I understand it, with their system of the conseil d'etat, the citizen has such right if he is injuriously affected by a wrong ruling; we all remember the case of the young sailor which we discussed in the house last October. But there is no such right of action in this country, and I think it is time that we revamped our system and brought into our law a body of public law to protect the citizen.
I am thinking here of an article in the August 15 edition of The Economist in which the author was discussing the concept of the ombudsman and showing that really an ombudsman would not go far enough. To reinforce his argument he referred to the French system of the conseil d'etat and cited numerous examples, one of which might have been taken from our own Canadian experience as it concerned a young man in a department of government who, just because of rumour, had been dismissed. But in France this person had a right of action. He was reinstated by an order of the conseil d'etat and was also awarded damages.
I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Rich-mond-and I know others have discussed this-has a point here and that we really should have a committee consider the matter. I am not worried about any proliferation of committees in this house if the committees have something interesting and really useful to do. I think we should go into this whole system.
In a little book called the "British Government Observed", Professor Brian Chapman of Manchester University makes some very useful comments in some 64 pages of his book. I do not know how one could possibly observe the British or any government in 64 pages, but he does it in a very interesting way. He discussed what I have called this mystique of secrecy. We all bow before the altar and say that everything is all right, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has said that all the procedures have been followed through and there is really no problem. This in a land of the free just is not good enough. The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald) on a point of privilege said that everything was all right, that

there was a review board, that the person who is being charged really does not have to come and that he cannot have counsel. But I know that in his heart the parliamentary secretary deplores having to make such an admission in this house. I know him and I respect him, and I know you do not have to be a lawyer to have a conscience.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is a lot easier if you have not.


Mr. Fairwealher:: Perhaps the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has a point there.
I liked the reference in this article to the council of state for Britain, in which it was suggested that the council is really not the enemy of the administration but is its conscience. I think that an administration based on Liberal principles-we are going to be talking about this a great deal in another city in the next few days, and this will be bowing before the tenets of Liberalism-should be proud to say that this system of public law which they might bring about is their conscience and their guideline, instead of saying that the Prime Minister says everything is all right, do not butt in or bother finding out whether a man's rights are affected or not.
If the parliamentary secretary in his point of privilege had brought in a statute, then we could rejoice with him and think that this terrible problem is really being attended to. I am told that the United States state department even today, which must be ten years after the nefarious McCarthy-type inquiry was prevalent, has not recovered from the terrible damage done to it by the sort of loose, false and unsubstantiated charges which were made in those days. I am not drawing any parallel, thank heaven, on this aspect-and I want to be clear here-between the two countries, but it might happen here. It did happen in the United States. Last October we were given an example where it could happen to a small, modest person. But the fact that in Canada in 1964 a citizen has not the right to go before the board of review and has not the right to be confronted by his accuser, which seems to me to be the crux of the matter, as well as be confronted by the evidence-I hope I will be corrected if I am wrong about this- leads me to submit that it is time that the mighty Liberal party got into high gear and attended to the matter so that we could all approve of their action.
At the end of Dr. Brian Chapman's book there is a little statement which I am going

to share with the house because I think it cuts through the fog which seems to emanate from government benches whenever we get into matters affecting secrecy. He says:
This passion for secrecy has some constitutional support, but it clearly has much profounder psychological and sociological origins. Secrecy in public life panders to a craving for a sentiment of selfimportance, of belonging to an inner circle.
Here I admit that the author is discussing crown privilege and so on, but I am satisfied that there is a very clear parallel. It is all part of the same sort of mystique or fog. He goes on:
There is no doubt that this sentiment is frequently exploited in order to absorb critics and potential reformers into the system.
I think the government would do itself honour if it allowed this motion to pass and if the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) had the privilege of examining these documents. I think this precedent, which the government should readily accept, would go a long way toward clearing up a most unfortunate attitude among members of the general public to this very serious problem. The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) said that no more important subject could be considered by a committee. I am not able to put matters in order of priority in this way, but I do think it would be well for this House of Commons if we could take really effective action to improve the security measures in this country and, at the very least, give a citizen the right to be confronted, as I said, by his accusers, to see the evidence and have counsel.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in the very few minutes remaining before this debate must be interrupted, because of the regrettable absence at this point of my colleague for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), who hopes to be here later but may not arrive in time to avail himself of the opportunity the rules provide to make a five minute reply at the end of the debate.
On his behalf however, and on behalf of all of us who are associated with him, I should like to say that we feel the debate that has taken place on this motion demonstrates very clearly that the motion should be allowed to pass. The request contained therein is for the tabling of a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations. For the reasons stated today by the 20220-516
Motions jor Papers
hon. member for Bumaby-Richmond, and for the reasons just now stated so well by the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), it seems to me that all parts of this house would be true to their best traditions if they agreed to this motion.
If any statement made during the whole course of this debate clinches the argument, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is the statement made this afternoon on a matter of privilege by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald). I will not make any extended observations on the fact that he was not sure of his ground when he spoke on July 9 during this debate, but I think there is tremendous significance in what he said today, namely that despite these new procedures set up by this Liberal government, including a board of review, these procedures that are supposed to protect the liberties and the rights of the individual, an admission is now made that the suspected individual does not have the chance to appear before the board of review. That being the case, it seems to us that the least the government should be willing to do is make public these statements and directives which, for all practical purposes, are laws of the land-laws under which people may lose their positions, or have their lives seriously affected for all time. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that the government will change its mind with respect to the position stated earlier and agree to allow this motion to pass. If the government does not see fit we shall, of course, when the time comes, ask the house to vote on this issue.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hai):: Mr. Speaker, I think the debate that has taken place so far in this house in respect of this notice of motion for the production of papers has been very useful in that it has drawn into focus some of the very real problems with which most members are familiar respecting this matter of investigating what are normally called national security risks. Whether this motion passes or not, we should like to know what the government is going to do about this board of review that was promised by a former minister of justice. Several months ago he promised, under great pressure I think, that this board of review was going to be set up. As has been stated this afternoon by the parliamentary secretary, and again by the previous speaker, there is now no possibility of an accused being able to present himself before this board of review and present his case directly. It seems to me that we have

Motions for Papers
lost some of the hope we had for justice being done in cases where serious mistakes have been made.
I should also like to say, Mr. Speaker, that in most of the democratic countries of the western world there have been adopted security risk procedures, if I may refer to them as such, that are almost indefensible when you try to reconcile them with the personal freedoms and personal rights of citizens. I am led to believe that in Australia and New Zealand they also have difficulty in carrying out what they consider to be proper investigations of these matters of national security risks. In spite of some measures that have been taken, such as the establishment of an ombudsman in New Zealand, this is still not completely satisfactory in so far as doing justice where mistakes have been made is concerned.
Some cases have been brought to the attention of this house where serious mistakes have been made, and this has been admitted. I am aware of other individual cases which have not been forcibly drawn to the attention of the house, in spite of the fact they have been referred to the Department of Justice on a number of occasions for re-examination. At this date I am still convinced that mistakes have been made, mistakes in so far as the conclusions that were reached on sloppy evidence, if I may use that word, gathered by the person doing the investigating.
Whether this motion passes or not, Mr. Speaker, surely on the basis of what the government has said from time to time, and on the basis of the sentiment expressed from many corners of this house, it ought to be willing to do something so that individuals who think they have been falsely accused will have some recourse, and that in this right to recourse they will have the opportunity of appearing before a board at which, if they are not confronted directly by the accusers, they ought to be faced with some of the so-called evidence against them. This is not an unreasonable request in my view, and although this relaxation may in some cases reveal the methods that are used by the investigating officers, surely this would be a small price to pay in relation to maintaining justice for those who have been falsely accused.
I do not intend to go into this situation further, or mention a lot of names and cases with which I personally am familiar and concerning which I believe justice has not been done, because to do so would initiate

other problems. I do hope however that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Macdonald), and his minister, will give some very serious consideration to allowing some sort of recourse by means of a board of review, or otherwise, so justice can be done.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise under rule 37(1), and the exception thereto, to correct what I think was a misrepresentation of what I said at the beginning of the debate today, namely that there would not be a board of review established. I pointed out that there would 'be a board of review, but it was proposed that the British practice in this regard would be followed, under which there is no right to be personally present, or represented. I rather gathered from the remarks of the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) that he was saying there would be none, and I rise to correct that particular statement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The more often you rise, the worse it gets.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the terms of standing order 47, subsection 2, a minister of the crown may at this point speak for not more than five minutes. If no one speaks on behalf of the government, the mover of the motion has the right to speak for five minutes to close the debate.
No one speaks.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
It being six o'clock the hour for private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Guy Favreau: I am pleased to inform the house that today an arrangement was made by all parties through their respective house leaders after consultation with the members of the parties to the following effect: (1) that 20220-5161
Supply-Transport
the next supply motion to be called shall be the last supply motion this session, and (2) that as of Monday we will revert to normal hours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Guy Favreau: I am wondering, therefore,
whether the house would give unanimous consent to the following two orders: (1) that commencing Monday, September 21, 1964, the hours of sitting of the house shall be as provided for in the standing and provisional orders, and (2) that, notwithstanding standing order No. 56(5), on the next occasion when a motion for an order for supply is called the estimates of the departments then outstanding shall be forthwith entered for consideration, and that the said motion shall be deemed to be the sixth and final supply motion in the current session.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house has heard the proposal put forward by the Minister of Justice. Is it ordered accordingly?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The house will now resume the business which was interrupted at five o'clock.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. La-moureux in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration (including the former vote for the operation and maintenance of official railway cars), $3,773,800.
Lucien Lamoureux: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: Order. House again in committee of supply on the estimates of the Department of Transport. When the committee rose at five o'clock we were discussing vote No. 1.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I ask the indulgence of the committee to complete the very few remarks that I had begun when five o'clock was called, on the subject ef grain handling facilities in the harbour of Vancouver. I think after the present season consideration must surely be seriously under way

Supply-Transport
with regard to the provision of an additional elevator in the port of Vancouver. That being so I would like to conclude with a few remarks regarding its placement.
The harbour of Vancouver, on the Vancouver side, is growing and becoming well filled with general cargo handling facilities. There is however ample space on the north side of the harbour for bulk handling facilities, and I think it would be the hope of many people who are familiar with that port that additional grain handling facilities be placed on that shore rather than on the Vancouver side. In making this suggestion I would point out that there is one difficulty which faces the construction of bulk handling facilities on the north side of Vancouver harbour, and that is access to that shore, because interswitching, as members familiar with the port know, is across the old second narrows bridge. This bridge is old and is coming to the end of its real usefulness.
I would suggest to the minister that in approaching this problem he and his engineers should give serious consideration again to an old, old idea; that is, to building a causeway across the neck of the north arm, which would cut off the flow of water into the north arm, control it with a lock, which would then permit rail movement from the north shore, across the causeway, across the north arm, through a tunnel in the mountain on the west side of the entrance to the north arm, and connect with the rail which now enters at the Imperial Oil plant at Port Moody on the Indian arm.
The effect would be to provide a circuit, or a horseshoe route on the Vancouver side of the harbour to the North Vancouver side; it would provide interswitching without the use of a bridge or a lift span; it would prevent the removal eventually of the existing old second narrows railway bridge, and it would do some other rather remarkable things. The flow of water into the harbour of Vancouver at Prospect point to the first narrows at peak runs is now at something in the neighbourhood of six knots, which makes it difficult for vessels moving in and out at peak flows. This however would cut off a considerable portion of the water which must flow into the harbour at high tide and it would indeed reduce considerably the flow of water at the first narrows and also at the Second narrows, where over the years there has been considerable difficulty in navigation while the tides are moving. Such a causeway would also create, of course, a fresh water body, which is a rather interesting thing. This
[Mr. Deachman.f
body would gradually convert itself to a fresh water body-I am referring to the waters of the north arm-and that would have considerable advantage indeed for log storage and other purposes. It would enable Vancouver to have a harbour railway which would run clean around the port of Vancouver, around the Indian arm to Port Moody and along the north shore without having to resort to the interswitching charges, which raise freight rates, back and forth between the north shore and the Vancouver side of the harbour. It would provide access for mainline railways coming down the Fraser valley to the north side of the harbour, which would be of very great advantage to that side of the harbour.
The whole project, if one looks at the map, consists of putting the fill into a narrow neck of water at the entrance to the north arm, the fill being provided from the tunnel which would have to be driven for about a mile through the mountain to connect with the rail at the Imperial Oil refinery at Port Moody. This would enable the use of the whole north shore of the harbour for the development of bulk loading facilities of all kinds.
There are new bulk loading wharves going up on the north shore. There is ample space there for the development of a grain elevator. I commend this project to the minister and his engineers for their careful study, before coming to any decision regarding the building of an elevator on that side, because this long term project would be of inestimable value in the total growth of the harbour of Vancouver.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I feel obliged to say something on the Department of Transport estimates because I did not have the opportunity to do so last year. I also know something of the sensibilities and aspirations of the new minister and I know he would be annoyed if a maritimer did not say a few words about this important department. I intend only to mention general matters and two which have particular constituency application. The general subjects to which I wish to refer are winter navigation and the merchant navy, which are old favourites of mine. I am not going to go into their past history; I just want to emphasize one or two points which have come up and perhaps bring the committee up to date. I may mention from time to time in my remarks the Atlantic development board, but it will be with reference to genuine transportation matters. For proof of the importance of transport to the

maritimes one has only to consider the fact that many, if not most of the subjects with which the Atlantic development board are dealing concern transportation matters.
With regard to winter navigation hon. members will recall that the Atlantic development board made a thorough review of the effects of icebreaking in the St. Lawrence on the ports of Saint John and Halifax. They made a very good survey and a press release was published in this regard. There are also other surveys being conducted with respect to Saint John and Halifax. I remember that at the time the survey was referred to them there were some misgivings that the board might be involving themselves in activities not within their compass, but I think that this particular survey has proved to be a very good type of reference for them. In view of some of the activities in which the board are engaging I think it is worthy of note that this survey has met with the approval of everybody.
I should like to refer to two matters in the report which was published, this being my first opportunity to do so. If I may quote directly from the press release of the Atlantic development board dated May 15 of this year regarding winter navigation in the St. Lawrence river and gulf as it affects the Atlantic ports, it is significant to note that this was said:
The main weight of the loss referred to falls upon Saint John, reflecting partly the greater volume of general cargo transshipment traffic through that port.
Everyone knows that it is the loss of general cargo about which we are concerned. I will not labour that particular point because it has been already debated, but on page two of the same press release a statement appears which I should like to put on record. I do not think this is an attempt to rewrite history in which the minister may have been involved, but the board make this statement:
In the winter of 1957-58 the federal government began to provide icebreaker assistance to vessels entering the gulf.
Every schoolboy knows that this icebreaking activity was going on long before that, so I do not know why the year 1957-58 was mentioned particularly. Perhaps it was selected arbitrarily.
I recall that when I first came to the house in 1953 I made a speech, and if anyone would care to look it up they would find it dealt specifically with icebreaking activity at that particular time, about which I was complaining. This report of the board is an example
Supply-Transport
of their work and is very comprehensive, but we still have not reached a solution. I presented a brief to the board in Saint John. When I did so I think they felt that I might have been adopting a partisan approach, but the board were very cordial to me. The two points I wanted them to consider, and which I mention now because of their significance to this department, were these. I think the federal government should admit fully their responsibility to Saint John and Halifax, promises to this effect having been made ever since confederation. Second-and this is more from the point of view of the public relations of the department-the government should make public exactly what they are doing in the St. Lawrence so far as icebreaking is concerned. There is no sense in trying to hide this. If they do make their activities known I think the sort of controversies which occur each fall might be avoided.
With respect to the merchant navy, hon. members will recall that I have raised this subject for many years now. In a private member's motion this year I pointed out that there was a greater need than ever for the revival and development of a Canadian merchant marine. I showed that men would be trained for the sea and there would be a tremendous help from a defence standpoint. I also mentioned that with the increasing development of bulk cargo throughout the world it is even more important from this trade point of view that Canada have its own ships. Today the S.I.U. seem to be making moves, with elections coming up shortly, to bring about perhaps a more stable future for seamen. However, a certain matter was called to my attention which indicates the state of mind still existing in Canada, and which the minister will have to overcome if he sincerely hopes to do something about the merchant navy.
On August 6 last I asked a question in the house of the minister of external affairs with respect to the United Nations conference on trade and development which took place in March of this year in Geneva. The resolution on which I based my question was framed in this way:
All countries should co-operate in devising measures to help developing countries to build up maritime and other means of transport for their economic development to ensure the unhindered use of international transport facilities.
The surprising thing, Mr. Chairman, when this resolution was put to the meeting, was that Canada abstained. There were 92 in favour, 7 against with 17 abstentions. We stated why Canada was against the resolution,

Supply-Transport
and I suppose I should mention the reason. It was because we felt that the special principles should make it clear that the building up of maritime transport in developing countries should be based on sound economic criteria.
Although this may seem obscure, Mr. Chairman, I mention it to show the state of mind existing in Canada which the minister will have to overcome in order to make us more sea conscious. We are basically a nation of landlubbers. I just mention this to spur the minister on. Mr. Chairman, I mentioned the two general matters, winter navigation and revival of the merchant marine. I should now like to discuss two local problems in my constituency. The minister did not make a statement at the beginning of our consideration of his estimates. I do not seriously object, because I think we would really be perpetuating the bad habit we have acquired in referring to minor items on the discussion of first item. Actually such details should be referred to at a later time during our discussion of particular items. However having received the invitation to do so, I intend to mention these two local matters.
At the outset I should like to state that in discussing these items I have an opportunity to pay tribute to a distinguished marine agent in Saint John who died very suddenly last week. He was a very devoted civil servant and at all hours 'of the day could be called on to deal with the many problems which were brought to him. I refer to the late Frank A. McKinnon.
First, we have one of the few municipal airports left in Canada in Saint John. It is a good airport of which we are proud, and we are pleased that we have been able, in a private enterprise way to survive. I have heard a great deal of talk on numerous occasions about this airport being sold to the federal government, although that idea is not mine. I hope that if serious negotiations ever take place the federal government will make a very handsome offer to the municipal authorities.
We have experienced problems, and I do not say that any particular favour has been played by the federal government in respect of other airports with which we are in competition, but it seems impossible, with its importance and the growing demands for new improvements, to compete with other completely federally operated airports. Recently in Saint John v/e have had difficulty as a result of weather conditions, and a lot of flights have been cancelled. Hon. members know that there is no such thing as a fog

in Saint John, or we never admit this publicly, but many flights have been cancelled recently. I think public relations on the part of the government have fallen into a bad state.
I suggest a weather forecaster should be appointed for the Saint John airport under the Department of Transport. Our weather forecasts now originate in Halifax and are accurate for the most part, and probably serve a purpose, but I suggest to the minister that a weather forecaster be appointed for the Saint John area in order to dispel criticism that falls on the government whenever a flight is cancelled. I think such a man could be a very useful buffer between the public and the government, putting an end to the criticism that, whenever a flight is cancelled in Saint John at the same time flights are operating out of Fredericton, Moncton and Halifax, it is the fault of the government. I am not complaining because flights have been cancelled, but suggest that from a public relations standpoint, if for no other reason, the minister would be justified in seriously considering some sort of an employee with sole responsibility for deciding whether or not flights should be cancelled.
The second matter of local interest to which I should like to refer is a harbour bridge. A day or two ago, I asked the Minister of Transport a question about the Atlantic development board and its consideration in respect of assistance toward the development of a harbour bridge in Saint John. I do not intend to deal with this subject at any length, and I should have liked to include Halifax in my remarks, but there has been some criticism in this regard. I agree to a certain extent that the Atlantic development board should not be involved in this type of activity, but the field is now wide open. The board is assisting in the building of roads and other things, and I think this is about the only way we in Saint John are going to be able to afford such a bridge. Therefore, it seems the Minister of Transport is going to be responsible in some way for dealing with this problem. I hope that he will consider this idea favourably, and provide some assistance through the Atlantic development board, or the national harbours board -which would be involved if the bridge was built in a certain location in the harbour- or perhaps through the municipal loans board.
I should like to make two comments in conclusion, Mr. Chairman. I was pleased to hear the minister announce that there would be further grants in lieu of taxes in con-

nection with the national harbours board property. This will be welcomed by all the national ports affected. I also noted that St. John's, Newfoundland, is to be included as a national harbours board port, and we think this is good, and are very pleased. I suppose one could say there really is not much competition between Saint John, New Brunswick, and St. John's, Newfoundland, but by such an inclusion of the national ports, a tradition is maintained.
I should like to say in connection with the national harbours board that I have always felt it to be a very good agency. From time to time criticism has been levelled at the board but it has always done a good job and I hope plans go forward for protecting its future. Often we hear the suggestion that in this day and age serious changes might have to be made, but the board agency in Saint John has been very helpful to our port.
The previous member who spoke, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, referred to the grain elevators in Vancouver. We have two or three grain elevators in Saint John, but the grain elevator which was operated by the Canadian National Railways became little used and in bad repair, and there is now a suggestion that it should be sold. I think that the national harbours board, which has had tremendous success in the operation of grain elevators, should take over this elevator in Saint John on a permanent basis. I refer, of course, to that elevator in the centre of the city.
One other matter I wish to mention, and I am not going to do so in great detail tonight, is the Maritime Freight Rates Act and related problems. I understand the suggestion has been put forward by the hon. member for Peace River and others, that it is advisable that in respect of any piece of legislation which comes forward as a result of the MacPherson report, there should be some method of segregating the discussions. I am interested in railway legislation that affects the maritimes and am less concerned at the moment with railway abandonment, which looms so large out west. But, I think if there were special subcommittee groups to deal with each aspect of this type of legislation they would be of tremendous help to the minister and those who are going to be affected.
I have dealt with two national matters, the first being winter navigation, and I am sure that the subjects will be discussed again this fall. I hope the minister takes some of my advice in this regard. I tried to bring my
Supply-Transport
thinking in respect of the merchant navy up to date for the purposes of this debate, and I hope I have done so. I concluded my remarks by referring to two local matters which I hope the minister will consider. I deliberately did not prepare an address for this evening because I just wanted to mention these matters in a general way.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, I have two matters I should like to discuss briefly now. As the hon. member for Saint John-Albert stated, these are local problems. I may enlarge upon them and give more details when we come to the particular items, namely the grade crossing fund and air services. In case we do not reach these items tonight, I want to refer now to the two problems that are of great interest to my home city of Moose Jaw. By my referring to them now, the minister might be in a position to give answers to these questions when we come to the particular items.
Dealing with the grade crossing fund first, I want to draw to the attention of the minister the protracted negotiations with the board of transport commissioners in regard to the plans drawn up by Moose Jaw to reduce the traffic hazard on what is called the Fourth avenue bridge over the main line, and the large freight yard of the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am given to understand that officials of the board of transport commissioners have inspected the proposed renovations and changes to the overpass, and that they have agreed that these changes will greatly reduce the traffic hazard on the structure, which was designed for much slower traffic than the present flow of cars, trucks and buses, which at peak loads now form an almost continuous movement. The traffic hazard is particularly acute in winter because of snow and ice conditions.
I am sure the board of transport commissioners are impressed with the need for the proposed changes in the interest of greater safety and less traffic congestion. As a result of a telephone call home today I was informed by city officials that full inspections and inquiries have been made by the board officials. If an early and favourable decision could be given it might be possible to arrange for some winter works on the project. I bring this matter to the attention of the minister so that he may help in having an announcement by the board of transport commissioners speeded up.

Supply-Transport
My other point, Mr. Chairman, relates to a press release from the Department of Transport dated August 18, and which is headed, "D.O.T. co-sponsors community airport planning research". This press release reads in part as follows:
The federal Department of Transport, in cooperation with the social science research council of Canada (a non-government, non-profit organization), is providing technical and financial assistance for a series of studies on what constitutes a good, economic community airport to serve the needs of training, recreational, local and itinerant flying. Dr. Neil McArthur associate professor of geography at the Royal Military College, Kingston, is conducting the studies.
Farther down the press release reads:
For the past two years Dr. McArthur has been doing research in the general field of community airport development in peninsular Ontario and in the integrating of small airports with the economic and recreation areas they serve.
I am speaking in the interests of my home city, Mr. Chairman. As the minister knows, Moose Jaw has a large R.C.A.F. station for pilot training on the new Tudor jets. There is also a small civilian landing field north of the city. There is no regular air service. I know there can be no commercial air flights from the R.C.A.F. base. I am speaking with regard to the possibility of extending the civilian airfield north of the city or the possibility of constructing a new landing field.
The previous government had a program for what were called local airstrips and development airstrips. In the case of development airstrips there was a federal grant of up to $100,000 for an approved project. In a statement issued in 1958 the minister of transport in the previous government referred to these development and local airstrips. His statement reads in part as follows:
In addition, there have been a great many cases recently where local authorities would like to have an airstrip as a means of improving the status of the municipality. These are not cases where schedule service is involved or where the existence of the air strip is essential to the community because of its remote location. They are cases in which the existence of an airstrip would appear desirable and helpful, although not essential, and where the strip would primarily be of benefit to the persons engaged in flying training, private flying, charter flying with small aircraft, and private business flying.
These projects do not fall in the essential category, but if on examination we determine that there is some possibility of use for these purposes that merits assistance, we will share in the total cost of this sort of project with an appropriate local entity, up to a maximum of $100,000 on the part of the federal government, with the local interest being allowed to include cost of the land
[Mr. Pascoe.I
in its share of the project. In these cases as well, title of the land would have to be transferred to the federal government, with the local authority assuming operational responsibility for the strip after construction.
I should like the minister to tell me if this program of federal assistance is still in force. As I said, Mr. Chairman, these remarks might have been held over until we reach item 30 for air services or item 82 for the grade crossing fund. I have made these brief references now so the minister will be in a position to answer when the items are reached. I trust he will be able to give me some information concerning these matters I have raised.


Mr. Rynard:: Mr. Chairman, I shall confine myself to questions at this point and not go into a lengthy speech. Perhaps the minister will answer my questions when the particular items are under discussion.
The first question I have is, have we rules and regulations covering pilots of all craft flying? For example do we have two pilots on all licensed airplanes, or where is the cut-off point? I should like to know this, and I should like to know also how long a pilot is allowed to fly a plane continuously before someone else takes over. In other words, what is his period of duty? I should like to know how often these pilots are called in for a medical check-up. I think this is very important in view of a statement made the other day at a medical meeting by a well regarded medical man to the effect that after 40 years of age two out of three of us are prone to coronary attacks. I am wondering if we should not look a little more closely at the rules and regulations in view of the vast expansion in flying.
A further question has to do with elevators. Is it the policy of the government to give a private elevator in business in a rival company the same service from the department as is given for example a C.N.R. elevator?
Then there is a further question I would like to ask the minister, and it has to do with low water levels, and this would involve northern affairs and public works, as well as transport. Would it be possible to take a rather more generous attitude where dredging must be done, due to low water levels, until this situation is controlled, either by dams or possibly by damming up tributaries to the great lakes? I would ask the minister to take a long look at this.


Mr. Ricard:: Mr. Chairman, I shall only take a few moments of the time of the house, so

the minister can answer questions which are of particular concern to my constituency and especially to the town of St. Hyacinthe.
It is a well-known fact that, since 1957, St. Hyacinthe has been experiencing a remarkable development.
People who know something of this town located on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river are aware that it is cut in two by C.N.R. tracks.
Several years ago, there were three roads one could take to get from what is known as the southern part of town to the northern section. Around 1940, if I remember correctly, two of those level crossings of access were closed, to be replaced by a tunnel for motor and horse-drawn vehicle traffic, at La-framboise boulevard.
This sufficed for a number of years, but as I said earlier, because of a large increase in population these last few years, it has become necessary to open at least another roadway, a tunnel, if you like, so as to make it easier to cross from one part of the city to the other.
At peak hours, at noon for instance, traffic is so heavy that workers are greatly delayed, since most factories are located on the north side of the railroad tracks.
I know that the St. Hyacinthe city council intends to ask for the construction of a tunnel off Choquette boulevard. I would not be surprised if negotiations were already under way with government representatives. I should like to take this opportunity to ask the minister to give his kind attention to the requests submitted to him or to any division of his department. This matter is of capital importance.
By using his influence, not only will the minister have done a lot to gain the esteem of the member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot in the House of Commons but I know that the population of the city of St. Hyacinthe will be grateful to him. His kindness and his graciousness will have won him their affection.
I would not want to deprive him of the opportunity to make a name for himself.
That is why I urge him to give special consideration to that request when the city council gets in touch with him.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I had not intended to speak at length on the estimates of the Department of Transport, and my intention was based on two reasons which I shall explain later. However, since the minister's opening statement was reduced to an invitation to members of the
Supply-Transport
committee to make suggestions to him on what he ought to talk about, I feel compelled to take part in the discussion and to invite him to address himself to certain specified matters.
It seems to me there is a certain amount of overlapping between the discussion now taking place and the debate on Bill No. C-120. That bill is of such magnitude and complexity that it covers a large part of the activities of the department. I do not want to discuss, its provisions but I would like to make a few suggestions, which I hope the minister will support, on how the bill should be proceeded with from this point forward. We should recognize that it may be preferable: to send the bill to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines at an earlier stage than is ordinarily done. The reason I suggest this is because after second reading and agreement in principle it may be more difficult to accept amendments suggested by the committee.
I also suggest that there may be profound differences of opinion respecting certain clauses in the bill and, if they are agreed to in principle on second reading before representation is made on them in the committee, it may make matters more difficult.
Further I would ask for the minister's cooperation in reorganizing the committee structure of the house to some extent, to meet the need we will face with respect to the railways bill. The committee may find it necessary to break up into subcommittees to consider various aspects of the legislation, and there are at least three major aspects of it that should be considered separately. Also there should be an extension of the life of the committee beyond prorogation, and when I talk about prorogation I have in the back of my mind some date just before Christmas. Whether I am making a good guess or a bad one is immaterial, but if members on both sides have such a target date for prorogation it will be very difficult to finish consideration of the bill and have the committee's recommendations brought back to the house before then.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which Christmas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1964 is the one I had in mind. I would not like to see all the work of the committee die at prorogation. I know that in 1945 and other years we got around this problem by simply adjourning rather than proroguing, so that the committees could carry on. But it seems to me we could do something now to give formal status to com-

Supply-Transport
mittees between sessions, so that there will be no need to use subterfuges of one kind or another. I hope the minister will give a favourable response-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder whether the hon. member does not feel he should be addressing his appeal to his hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre who is, I understand, the chairman of a subcommittee on procedure which, as far as I can see, has proceeded at the slowest pace of any committee we have ever had.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether I could be permitted to bring the Minister of Transport up to date. The committee on organization and procedure has set up a fourth subcommittee of which the hon. member for Medicine Hat is chairman. It is really a committee on committees, and what my hon. friend is doing is putting in a commercial on behalf of the good work of that committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: At the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Medicine Hat said he would make some unorthodox remarks because I had issued an invitation for members to do so. Well, it was not an invitation; it was resignation. I do not mean that in a political sense, but in a philosophical sense. I was aware that a certain number of speeches would be made but I would not like to think that any member of this committee would be tempted to follow the hon. member for Medicine Hat. I think it would be wonderful if we could get through the general part of this discussion and turn to the detail as soon as possible. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but I hope we will not get into a discussion here on the structure of special, sessional or standing committees of the house because that would lead us far astray. Nevertheless I am much interested in what the hon. gentleman says and I would like to talk to him about it behind the curtains.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would ruin his plans.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I can assure the Minister of Transport that the work of the committee on organization and procedure and of the fourth subcommittee which deals with committee structure is proceeding as rapidly as possible. Some suggestions will be brought forward and we do need a favourable response from the Minister of Transport. I may add that they would assist him in getting his bill through parliament. It is not my purpose, however, to transgress the rules of the house

by discussing this matter any further. I have only brought it up because this is particularly applicable to the Department of Transport.
One question I should like the minister to discuss-and here again we are in the grey area where it is difficult to know whether or not one is transgressing the rules of order -concerns federal responsibility in the field of highway transport. This is a subject which has been brought up on a number of occasions. So far, it appears that the limited responsibility which the federal government has assumed has been exercised through the Department of Public Works. It seems to me that the growth in importance of highway transport in Canada indicates that it should properly belong to the Department of Transport. It is not good enough simply to transfer responsibility to the Department of Transport unless there is to be increased activity. If responsibility were transferred, we would assume the federal government would undertake a greater degree of responsibility. I believe that some of the expenditure proposed out of the railway rationalization fund, as I think it is called, could be better invested in improving highway transport than in keeping some of the uneconomic branch lines going over a long period of time when we know full well that some of them will be of diminishing value.
Another matter I invite the minister to discuss is this question of regional air line services. We have waited several months for a statement by the minister respecting a new policy on regional or feeder air line services. We have had a sad experience with what used to be called the southern prairie run. I want to tell the minister now that we do not want any repetition of what happened in connection with that service-the transferring of half a million dollars worth of equipment to TransAir under certain agreements, with the contracts left open to the point where TransAir, in this case, could renege on its responsibility to provide an air line service while keeping the $500,000 worth of equipment which was given to it.
We set up Trans-Canada Air Lines, now known as Air Canada, so as to provide air services for this country. It was not confined to providing air services from Vancouver to Toronto and Montreal, skipping over all the other cities in Canada without providing feeder or branch line services at all. If the trend which has been established continues, Air Canada will be telling us they have no aircraft smaller than the Viscount, which is a 60 passenger plane. It will then be

argued that no service can be provided to any city where traffic does not allow a reasonable load for a 60 passenger plane. It can be assumed that the Viscounts will be phased out in the course of the next three to five years and then we shall be in a position where Air Canada does not possess any aircraft smaller than the Vanguard. Where do we go from there?-to the DC-8? Would it reach a point where Air Canada has only DC-8 and DC-9 aircraft? These are not aircraft which can provide a satisfactory air service for Canada to include all our cities, and I think it is the responsibility of Air Canada to reconsider its policy in this respect. I do not accept the contention that Air Canada cannot own any aircraft smaller than a Viscount. There are all kinds of modern aircraft smaller than the Viscount which could be used to give a satisfactory and profitable air service to some of the smaller cities of Canada.
Medicine Hat, which I represent is not the only city to be affected. Swift Current, Yorkton, and other cities in Manitoba are affected. We are now without an air line service completely. Trans-Canada Air Lines withdrew over a year ago. TransAir then assumed the responsibility to provide this service but before a year had elapsed they withdrew. I am not suggesting the company should have continued the kind of air service it was providing. Representations were made time and again that its schedules were not conducive to attracting business. But instead of adjusting those schedules so as to make satisfactory connections with the transcontinental run the company simply produced figures illustrating its contention that the service was not being used to a sufficient level, and then withdrew.
I do not think it is valid to put forward the argument that profit or loss in connection with an air line service should be calculated between every point of landing. For example, the service between Calgary and Regina should not be calculated in such a way that it has to show a profit, any more than it should from Medicine Hat to Calgary, or from Toronto to Timmins, or between any other two points.
I think we have a right to expect reasonably comprehensive service for the whole country, and that the whole operation should be considered in the profit and loss statement. Certainly these feeder lines which feed into the transcontinental runs do not always pay for themselves because of their limited scale; but they do provide additional passenger and
Supply-Transport
freight loads for the long runs. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Transport to address himself to some of the questions I have raised, without asking him to duplicate the debate that is going to take place when the railway bill comes before the house. That bill may not come back to the house for several weeks, and we would like to have some direction as to its process through the committee before it comes back to the house and becomes law.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: Mr. Chairman, while we are discussing item 1 of these estimates there are two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the committee and the minister. The first concerns the general radio service, which is the name of the organization in Canada. In the United States, where the idea first originated, it is known as the citizens' band-the frequency band set aside for the use of citizens for general communications. I have here a letter I received from one of my constituents who belongs to the organization in Canada and points out the very inhospitable manner in which this government treats United States visitors when they bring this type of equipment into Canada. This letter reads in part as follows:
I am taking the liberty of enclosing our general radio service paper. (We) got two of these radios for business last spring and we have found them so helpful businesswise and pleasurewise. The Department of Transport apparently doesn't wish to recognize these radios or the clubs formed so that members are aware of all rules and regulations and realize the advantage of using our radios properly.
When their United States counterparts come to Canada-that is, the counterparts of the general radio service people in Canada-they are forced at the border point by our Canadian customs officials to shut off their transmission equipment, and I am told that in most cases this equipment is sealed so that it cannot be used while they are in Canada. These people call themselves CBers, and they have sent me their periodical in which appears an editorial headed "Let's Tear Down the Iron Curtain". I would draw the attention of the minister to the fact that the reference there is to the curtain of silence that is enforced by our laws in connection with visitors to this country. The editorial says:
Many CBers from the United States are arriving at our border expecting to travel into Canada for a vacation and visit with GRS operators in Canada on their travels. Unfortunately many of these tourists are being given a sour taste of Canadian government hospitality by having their CB sets sealed to prevent their use while in our country.

Supply-Transport
This editorial runs the length of the page and I will not burden hon. members by reading any more of it, but that is the gist of the editorial. I believe this periodical has a wide circulation. Elsewhere in this publication they give us some bad publicity in a section headed, "Welcome to Canada!" It is said, underneath a picture showing some of their radio equipment:
Here's the welcome greeting CBers from the United States get from the Canadian government when they arrive at the Canadian border. A customs seal is placed on their set in some way as to prevent any transmissions from the rig. In this case the mike was removed from the input and a seal placed on it so it could not be used without being broken. Through lack of an agreement, U.S. mobiles are not allowed to use the CB sets while in Canada. Consequently, a fortune in tourist business is lost each year from CBers who would come to visit and vacation in Canada if it was made legal for them to use their sets.
I am not raising this matter solely on behalf of United States citizens, no matter how worthy may be their motives. We know they bring a great many tourist dollars to our country, and we need this money and their business very badly. But that is not my reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister. I am speaking mainly for their Canadian counterparts who are not in such great numbers as is the case in the United States, but who form the general radio service club of Canada. I believe it is time the Canadian and United States governments entered into an agreement with regard to the common use of a radio band by these two allied organizations. Technically it could be the same band as that used in the United States. Agreement should be reached with regard to Canadian and United States communal use of this system. Our country is larger than the United States, and less populous. We could encourage the use of this facility in a manner commensurate with the encouragement it receives from our more populated neighbour country to the south.
I have been informed that this hobby, or operation-it is not completely a hobby; it is also for public use-is very popular amongst ranchers, forestry workers, lumbermen, the construction industry, missionary and social welfare workers in remote areas, and hobbyists in radio communications. I bring this matter to the attention of the committee, Mr. Chairman, hoping that some effort will be made by the minister to correct this unfair situation.
Finally, I have received a communication from the international brotherhood of teamsters, chauffeurs, warehousemen, and help-

ers. This concerns, of course, the Canadian government railway. It is a protest against the continual escalation of subsidies to the Canadian government railway. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that I did not say "Canadian National Railways"; I used the old term that was used when they were first founded, namely Canadian government railway. No matter how large an organization they have built up since then, we are responsible for the situation that exists in the railway. The letter is addressed to me and reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
There is a very persistent rumour that the federal government has ordered various transport companies to use the piggyback services provided by Canadian National and Canadian Pacific Railway companies in order to reduce the operating deficit of the railways. If there is any basis in fact for this rumour, then I strenuously object to the order, as this is unfair competition and displaces hundreds of men in the transport industry who would otherwise be moving these loads over the highways.
If the government of Canada is sincerely concerned in the displacement of men through automation, then I suggest that they consider the abolishment of piggyback orders, if they exist. The railways cannot possibly suffer by providing this service, as there is certainly not rate cutting that will be a benefit to the transport companies involved.
Further, the railways are continually buying out transport companies, or controlling shares in them, and are also cutting rates to the point where no tf-ansport company could possibly compete, and then when they experience an operating deficit they apply to the federal government for a subsidy. They are allowed to continue this rate cutting, and nothing is being done to curtail this practice. If a transport company operated in such a manner, where can they get a comparable subsidy?
There is no indication that the subsidy paid to the railways is not being applied to the transport companies they now control, and if this situation is allowed to continue, the economy of the country cannot possibly survive without additional tax burdens.
As a taxpayer of this country, I strongly resent the foregoing situation and suggest that all these points be thoroughly investigated and the populace of this country be informed of the true facts.
Submitted for the consideration and investigation of the respected house.
Yours truly,
R. Carron, President
That letter, Mr. Chairman, is from the international brotherhood of teamsters, chauffeurs, warehousemen and helpers and is sent from their local office in Kingston. In passing this letter on for the due and thorough consideration of the Minister of Transport and his department I would point out to the minister that there is a good deal of basic common sense in the letter.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Chairman, I have a very few words to say on the first item of the

estimates. I believe some months ago I made reference to the question of a national air policy and asked when the government would be bringing such a policy forward. It was stated on that occasion, I think, that the former minister, who is now President of the Privy Council, had had his officials study the question and that a new policy would be forthcoming some time in the future. I would like to impress on the minister and on the government the importance of that aspect to our economy today. Without in any way trying to detract from the good work the Minister of Transport is trying to do today, I think we can say that his department is loaded down quite heavily, particularly when one considers the fact that in the next two or three years the government will have before it the recommendations of the royal commission on transportation, and in particular the problems of railways. This will require a great deal of attention from the minister.
I believe there is a growing feeling in the country today that what we need in parliament is a minister for aircraft services and development. If we take a look at the increasing traffic on our highways, the increasing value of the civil aviation industry and the need for volume in the manufacturing of small aircraft, all of these matters indicate that this is a branch of government which needs more attention than it can possibly receive at the present time under one ministry, which has all the other transportation services under its jurisdiction. I want to leave that thought with the government, and I believe the minister has on one or two occasions voiced an opinion somewhat along the same lines.
However I do have a suggestion to offer. I am not too sure how practical it is, but it might be an indication of the increasing importance of civil aviation in this country. I would ask the minister whether some study will be given to the possibility of assisting glider clubs across the country as a means of eventually promoting an interest in smaller aircraft. I should also like to bring to the minister's attention, as I did on a former occasion, the fact that many of the people in our smaller towns are wondering whether the federal government and the Department of Transport are going to formulate a policy of assistance in the construction of local airports for smaller aircraft, the use of which no doubt in the next 40 or 50 years will become more frequent each year.
Another matter I want to raise concerns the port of Churchill. I am wondering whether
Supply-Transport
the minister can tell us whether there is any research being undertaken in order to try to stretch out the navigation season for that port.
The final matter I want to mention is with regard to the royal commission on transportation. I do not intend to go into this question in detail as we will have other occasions to discuss it, but I believe it is a very important matter which will be engaging our attention. Not only will the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines be considering it but I suggest subcommittees should also study various aspects of the matter as well, so that the whole question can be dealt with more expeditiously than would otherwise be the case. The minister's statement the other day left me a little disturbed, I must say, particularly his observations on the subsidy for passenger services. There were other matters mentioned which appeared to indicate that there might be some erosion of the Crowsnest pass rates. I know the minister will assure us that that is not the thought in mind, and I am not going to raise that particular aspect tonight.
There is one matter which, in view of the intentions of the railways to abandon some of the lines, might merit some consideration by the government, and it is the feasibility or necessity or possibility of providing some kind of bridge building incentive to the provinces in order to alleviate some of the hardships which might otherwse be caused by some of the rail line abandonments which seem, as far as the economy is concerned, to be soundly based. I do not think there is anything else with which I need deal at this particular time, Mr. Chairman.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, whether or not we get the first item of these estimates through tonight, I hope the minister will take the floor. A good many things have been put to him about which he should make a comment or two, and I should like to emphasize two subjects concerning which it would be desirable to have a statement from him tonight. One is of pretty wide general application and the other affects a particular group of people.
I notice the minister pointing to the clock and that seems to be a suggestion that I co-operate so that he can get the floor. I assure him that I shall do so.
The first subject I want to underline has been dealt with or alluded to by a number of speakers, namely the question of a clear statement on the part of the government so far as air policy is concerned. I remind the minister that once, but only once in the

Supply-Transport
history of this country has there been a clear statement of government policy with respect to civil aviation. He knows when that was made and that I was a member of the house at the time. He was something more; he was a grey eminence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I was not as grey then as I am now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Nor as eminent, either.
I refer to the civil aviation policy for the post-war period announced in this house in 1944 by Right Hon. C. D. Howe.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman is rather mistaken. The policy was originally announced by Mr. Mackenzie King some months before that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right, Mr. Chairman, the general lines were first announced by the then prime minister, but a few months later, in 1944, Mr. Howe in a very clear and detailed statement gave us the full program, and it was clear and definite. This was one of those occasions when the members of the group to which I belong gave wholehearted support to that policy. I regret to say that within two years Mr. Howe started to whittle away at his own policy.
I see the Minister of Transport shaking his head but I can give him chapter and verse if he wishes. He does not want me to take the time, and accedes to my assertion that in 1946 Mr. Howe started to whittle away at that policy by changes that were made with respect to the question as to whether or not surface transportation companies could own air lines. Perhaps that is enough to convince the minister that I know whereof I speak.
From then we have gone on to still further watering down of the air policy set out by Mr. King and Mr. Howe in 194.4. At the present time, along with all the other dilutions of policy that have taken place both under the previous Liberal government and the previous Conservative government, we are now left with considerable uncertainty. The minister tells us that statements are going to be made, but we are kept waiting for them. In the meantime we are presented with rumours and press reports about some companies like TransAir wanting more deals, such as the hon. member for Medicine Hat and others have referred to tonight. This has been very unsatisfactory. I want to support the line that was taken by the hon. member for Medicine Hat, which is the line we have taken through the years, that the main cornerstone of aviation policy in this country should be Air

Canada. That was the heart of Mr. King's and Mr. Howe's policy of 1944, and we regret very much that governments that have been in power since have moved away from that policy.
As I say, Mr. Chairman, I am ready to cooperate and make it possible for the minister to make a statement tonight, so I need not spell this out. I just hope I have drawn his attention to it sufficiently, and that I have provoked him sufficiently, that he will say something clear and definite on this question tonight.
Mr. Chairman, I now turn to the other subject that is on my mind, and if I have not been sufficiently provocative with respect to civil aviation policy I will try a little harder now. I want to say something about the position of retired C.N.R. employees whose retirement took place before recent improvements were made in the pension plan of the C.N.R. I say to the Minister of Transport, my friend of his former Winnipeg days, that he is the biggest disappointment we have had in the ministry of transport with respect to this subject. Other ministers have at least promised to look into the matter themselves, but all this minister has done is to act as a messenger boy and refer the matter to Mr. Donald Gordon, and then refer us to what Mr. Donald Gordon has said.
I submit, Mr. Chairman, that this whole question of the position of retired people on pensions which were fixed in previous years or previous decades is one of national policy, and that the government has to be concerned not only about plans like the Canada pension plan, which we hope we will get some day, but about retired civil servants, other groups such as former members of the R.C.M.P., and retired employees of the Canadian National Railways. I regret very much that all the minister has done since he became minister of this very important department is to tell me that he would refer the matter to the president of the Canadian National Railways, and that the president of the Canadian National Railways had given a certain reply. I know the matter was taken up in the presence of Mr. Donald Gordon in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, when Mr. Gordon appeared before that committee this year, but so far the government has washed its hands of this whole matter. I say to my hon. friend that there are some retired Canadian National employees in Winnipeg who still remember when the Minister of Transport was a Winnipeger, and they are surprised that he seems

to be doing no better with respect to this subject than some of his predecessors have done.
Mr. Chairman, I said I would co-operate by not taking up much time, but I hope when the minister gets the floor to make a speech he will have something important to say about these two important subjects.


Mr. Latulippe:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to make only a few remarks about grade crossings. Although there would be much to say on that matter, my observations will be brief.
The government should undertake a large program in order to eliminate grade crossings which are still numerous in Canada and especially in the province of Quebec.
Besides, grade crossings cost many lives and are the cause of quite large material damages that Canadian citizens have to pay for because, generally, the railways are never responsible for those accidents.
For instance, the C.P.R. line crosses the community where I live and the highway at six different points, over a distance of three miles. In the dead centre of the town of Lac Megantic, there is a grade crossing at the crossroad of four main streets and of the highway. Every year, we have to regret the loss of human lives and heavy material damages at that crossing.
The authorities of Lac Megantic have been making pressures and representations on that matter for some 30 years. They have a very thick file on this and it seems quite difficult to obtain anything because, to date, nothing was done concerning that grade crossing.
That is why I am suggesting to the minister, and this is quite possible, to come to an agreement with the Minister of Public Works regarding those grade crossings.
The C.P.R., the federal and provincial governments, and the municipalities should take advantage of the winter works program to remove those various grade crossings.
It seems to me that many municipalities do not know how to spend money earmarked for winter works and waste considerable amounts in unnecessary winter works. It would be much better if the money was spent to eliminate such crossings; it would serve a good cause and improve the situation considerably.
I think something should be done in that regard.
Supply-Transport
In the town of Megantic, taxpayers lose a considerable amount of time whenever a train blocks traffic.
There are three such crossings right in the centre of Megantic. Shunting operations are carried out right in the middle of the street, which thus becomes practically impassable. Very seldom can one go over the tracks without having to wait five, 10 or 15 minutes.
I believe the town of Megantic intends to insist on the elimination of that level crossing.
I call on the minister to do all in his power to carry out, not only in Megantic but throughout Canada, a vast program to remove level crossings which take a heavy toll in human lives. Human life is priceless and the government must do something, because nothing can replace such a great and noble gift.
I should now like to say a few words about radio broadcasting in my city.
The federal government has a small radio transmitter in Megantic, but reception is almost nil. In the daytime, we pick up the C.B.C. fairly well, but from 7, 8, 9, and 10 p.m., it is almost impossible to get that station. Since American stations interfere with the C.B.C. network, local citizens would be very grateful to the Minister of Transport if he could do something about it.
The small radio transmitter in our city might not be powerful enough. At any rate, reception is quite unsatisfactory, and I do not know exactly why. I was asked to report the matter to the Minister of Public Works and to ask him whether it would not be possible to effect some improvements in our small radio station.
I repeat what I have already told the minister: An agreement should be reached with the other departments so that we can get rid of railway crossings under the winter works program. In my opinion, that would be a great improvement throughout the country and that would do a great service to municipalities in the province of Quebec and throughout Canada.
If such an agreement were possible, a large number of towns in my constituency could undertake the elimination of grade crossings under the winter works program. That would be a very useful means for people generally to spend the money set aside for those works.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I realize the minister wants to get the floor and answer some of the questions that have been asked, so I shall do my best to co-operate and make my remarks very brief. I shall deal with a subject with

Supply-Transport
which I have dealt a number of times during the 12 years I have been a member of this house. It is a subject that is becoming of increasing importance every year. I refer to the search and rescue organizations on the great lakes. I confine my remarks to the great lakes because they are international waters over which the federal government has appropriate jurisdiction. The regulations that have been drawn up by the Department of Transport under the Canada Shipping Act apply to other waters as well, so I shall direct my remarks to the great lakes themselves.
I have found that every minister of transport over the years, starting with Hon. Mr. Marler and succeeding ministers, has been very helpful with this matter. They have all done something. I should like particularly to pay a compliment to the deputy minister of transport, Mr. Baldwin, who has spent a great deal of time dealing with matters such as this. At the moment there are a number of groups, governmental and non-governmental, on the great lakes which provide search and rescue organizations. In the non-governmental category, I refer to power boat squadrons and certain private fishing boats that are agreeable to assisting in connection with this matter. There are of course provincial police organizations, chiefly in the province of Ontario, municipal police and the like. There are other groups that I should like to mention as well, but time does not permit.
One of the principal jobs during the summer months on the great lakes is trying to co-ordinate these search and recue facilities. This is of course strictly a seasonal job. As I mentioned earlier, it is becoming increasingly important because of the number of small boats on the great lakes. I should not like to give a figure because I do not know, but I would estimate that the number of these boats has increased 10 or 20 times since the end of world war II. I know of one place, for instance, on lake Erie, namely Long Point, where on the opening day of the fishing season there will be approximately 3,000 or 4,000 boats going out into very dangerous and rough water. There is an increasing number of drownings on the great lakes every year.
Since this work is of a seasonal nature, chiefly during June, July, August and perhaps early September, the department would not be justified in going to the expense of employing people for this job on a year round basis. This is clearly not necessary. Perhaps during the summer months students from universities could be employed on this job as coordinators between existing search and rescue

services, from the Royal Canadian Air Force down to the power boat squadrons I mentioned. I think a great deal of good would be done. When an accident occurs many people do not know with whom they should get in touch. Time is of the essence in these situations and sometimes five or ten minutes can make the difference between life and death.
Five or ten minutes could make the difference between the saving of lives, and deaths in drowning accidents, and if these co-ordinators could be placed at the principal resort and boating points on lake Huron, Georgian bay, lake Erie and lake Ontario they would be a great help. Most university students finish their courses in May and they could undertake a three week training.
This would only be a seasonal job, but that is all that is necessary in this particular situation. It is part of the government's program to assist more students to go to universities. Hon. members know the difficulties students have in obtaining summer jobs, and the more students go to universities the more jobs they will need. The government could kill two jobs with one stone. Perhaps that is an unfortunate metaphor but I think the minister gets the general idea, that the plan I outline could be of assistance to students who require summer work and at the same time it would add to the safety factor on the great lakes.
In addition to training, these students might also be given certain law enforcement authority because we all know that a number of people of all ages, and they are not confined to teenagers-sometimes they are old teenagers of 40 and 50 years-get hold of power boats and rip in among people swimming near the shore, thus creating a great hazard. While regulations do exist providing for action to be taken against these people, their enforcement has been difficult, and it would be helpful if the co-ordinators were given power to enforce the regulations and deal with people who are reckless and careless of human life and limb when other people are swimming.


Mr. Clancy:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question I would like to bring up again with the minister. It is about four and a half months since I raised it first and at that time he said he would take it into consideration, but since then I have heard nothing about it. It is a purely local problem. Why is the same rent charged by the D.O.T. for Yorkton footage as is charged at Regina, when you consider the facilities at both airports?

I have written to the minister's department three times and I have never had an acknowledgement of my letters. Most of the other departments at least acknowledge my letters-they may tell me to jump over the moon, but at least they acknowledge them.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the hon. member for Winnipeg North speaks perhaps I may be allowed to apologize to the hon. member for Yorkton. To the best of my knowledge his letters have not been brought to my attention and I have no intention of being discourteous. I am very sorry he has not had an answer.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I hope the minister will take this under immediate consideration as the problem still exists and the people of Yorkton are incensed.


Mr. Orlikow:: The first matter I want to refer to is the T.C.A. repair base in Winnipeg. I do not intend to put the history of that base on the record again, nor the changes which have been made at that base. This matter has been discussed on a number of occasions and the minister must know that the citizens of Manitoba, regardless of what economic group they come from, regardless of the party they represent, are unanimous in their feeling that Winnipeg has been treated shabbily by the management of T.C.A.
I want to put on the record just one illustration of why Manitoba feels the way it does. In February 1949, when T.C.A. announced that it was moving its operations administration staff from Winnipeg to Montreal-some 155 people-the president of T.C.A., Mr. Gordon McGregor, issued a statement in which he said in part:
There is no conceivable reason, nor any grounds for suspicion, that this move marks the beginning of a mass transfer of T.C.A. activities from Winnipeg to Montreal.
But of course since that time there have been mass transfers of various T.C.A. departments from Winnipeg to Montreal. However, it is not my intention to go into them in detail.
Hon. members will recall that big delegations came to Ottawa to make representations about this matter, that they saw the Prime Minister, that the Prime Minister and the former minister of transport made statements, and that both statements were interpreted in Winnipeg by everyone, including that old friend of the minister, the Winnipeg Free Press, as a commitment that no more changes would be made until further studies were undertaken. Finally the government agreed to the appointment of a one man commission
Supply-Transport
to investigate the whole question of T.C.A. operations in Winnipeg.
At present the various organizations in Manitoba which made representations previously wish to make representations to this one man commission. It was understood that the Manitoba government would get a copy of the Dixon-Speas report-not the edited version but the original report with all the information contained in it-so that it could put its experts to work in order that it could make the fullest and fairest representations to the one man commission.
It was understood this commission would begin its hearings in October, but according to a report which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on September 4, Arthur Mauro, the Manitoba government's transportation counsel, said that as of that date the Manitoba government had not yet received a copy of the report. I shall read a sentence of an exact quote from Mr. Mauro:
We are concerned about the delay because we were promised a copy of the report when the commission was established more than two months ago. Mr. Thompson, the commissioner, is doing everything possible to get us a copy of the report so we don't expect the holdup to last much longer.
There may be a reasonable explanation for this, but I want to warn the minister that the people of Manitoba have had so many explanations from T.C.A. that they have lost practically all their faith in the president of T.C.A., and I would urge the minister to make inquiries, if he has not already done so, to see that that report is turned over to the Manitoba government as quickly as possible.
The other matter I would like to raise is one which I expected the minister to deal with when he introduced the resolution preceding the bill to implement some of the recommendations of the MacPherson commission report. I refer to the fact that last year the house had before it a bill introduced by my hon. friend from Port Arthur, Bill No. C-15 to amend the Railway Act. The purpose of that measure was to provide that railway employees who lost their employment as a result of changes beneficial to a railway should be compensated by that railway for the cost of rehabilitating themselves with new skills saleable on the labour market. This bill must have had a lot of appeal because instead of being talked out, as are 99 per cent of the bills brought in by private members, it was sent to a special committee-*


Mr.   Marlin@Timmins: To be talked out there.

Supply-Transport


David Orlikow: The hon. member for Timmins says "to be talked out there". The fact is that the committee held a large number of meetings, heard evidence from the railway companies, from the railway unions and from other interested parties and then made a report which was virtually unanimous recommending in essence that sympathetic consideration should be given to the bill. I do not wish to enter now into the arguments which were presented. Hon. members are aware of the background of this measure. I might point out that the number of railway workers covered by non-operating labour unions in 1962 was 152,000. This year the unions are negotiating for 102,000 workers, the figure having been reduced by almost one third. This is what has happened, and nobody questions the right of the companies to reduce staff in accordance with changing methods so that the operation may be as efficient as possible. Nobody questions the need to do this. But we have now reached a position where, because of new methods of operation, the dieselization program, the use of steel freight cars, automatic hump yards, computing equipment which has eliminated a great deal of paper work, and, I would add, because of the kind of legislation we are to be asked to consider in detail to implement the recommendations of the MacPherson commission, these reductions in staff will probably continue for a considerable time.
I do not wish at this time to discuss the provisions of this bill brought in by my hon. friend from Port Arthur, because we shall have an opportunity of doing so on another occasion. But it does seem strange to me that neither today when we are discussing the estimates of his department nor the other day when he introduced a resolution preceding another railway measure, did the minister take the opportunity to indicate the government's view on the important principle contained in the measure which the hon. member for Port Arthur put forward last year, namely that railway workers, particularly those who have put in long years of service, should not be displaced from employment in consequence of technological changes or because of branch line abandonment programs at an age when it is virtually impossible for them to find other jobs. I maintain that the companies have an obligation both moral and legal to look after people who have worked for them and who have given their best years to the service of the railways. I should like the minister to give us some indication of the

government's view on this question. I do not expect the hon. gentleman to say: This is a very good bill which the hon. member for Port Arthur has introduced and we intend to bring it along. I do not expect any government to process a bill proposed by a member of another party. But it seems to me the minister should at least indicate the general policy the government has in mind with respect to this question, a question which affects the well-being and the livelihood of tens of thousands of workers in this country.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I see I have only the time left which is allotted to a private member. If therefore my remarks in reference to some of the points which have been raised are brief, I hope hon. members will not mind. In order to avoid turning the pages of my notes back and starting again, perhaps the hon. member for Three Rivers will forgive me if I leave his observations to the last; he will remember what was said in the gospel about that-and I do not mean to apply the same precept to the hon. member who has just spoken.
I should like to deal with the points he raised. I read the same piece in the Winnipeg Free Press as he did and I am making inquiries to find out why the Manitoba government has not yet received the Dixon-Speas report. As soon as I have the information I will let the hon. gentleman know why it was.


David Orlikow: Let the Manitoba government know, not me.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The Manitoba government will probably find out as soon as I do. I am sure they are grateful to the hon. gentleman for acting as their porte parole in this house. As for the introduction last year of the bill by the hon. member for Port Arthur, I am not sure whether the hon. member for Winnipeg North was a member of the railway committee or not, but I indicated very clearly, I thought, the position which I took, and which the government took, on this matter. The questions involved in the hon. member's bill are of such far-reaching importance, affecting automation not merely in the railways but in the whole of the economy, that we felt they required a good deal more study than the committee had been able to give to the matter during the last session of parliament. The Department of Labour is studying this whole question and I am hopeful that as a result of these studies some constructive suggestions will be made to deal with this problem, which is primarily the responsibility of the

Department of Labour rather than of the Department of Transport. I may say in passing that in the bill which I was privileged to introduce the other day I recommended that parliament should restore what most people believed to be the law until the supreme court decided otherwise. This action would go some distance in the direction the hon. gentleman recommends. But we do not feel at the present time, having in mind the implications in relation to other occupations, that without additional study we could recommend going further at this particular time. But I would not like anyone to think we do not realize that this problem is, in many ways, the biggest which faces an industrial society.
The hon. member for Yorkton asked a question about an attempt to charge a relatively small place such as Yorkton the same amount as was charged in Regina. That is something I feel very regretful about neglecting and I will try to get an answer as soon as possible.
I was much interested by the suggestion of the hon. member for Oxford, and the fact that he related it to my ancestral home was perhaps not entirely accidental. I will certainly see that his suggestion is considered.
The hon. member for Compton-Frontenac and several other hon. members talked about the desirability of eliminating grade crossings. I think anyone who reads the newspapers or listens to the radio at any week end will realize how important is this subject. I do hope we can continue to make as much progress as possible in this connection. As for the problem of radio reception to which the hon. member referred, I will see that it is looked into.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised two subjects, one of which I do not intend to deal with until I come to the hon. member for Three Rivers, who raised it first. It will be the last topic with which I shall deal, and I hope to leave most of my time to deal with it. On the question of the retired C.N.R. employees, the hon. member described me as a messenger boy. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have nothing against messenger boys; I have carried many messages in my time. But the hon. gentleman does raise a question on which I suspect he and I would never be able to see eye to eye, no matter how long we lived; because I have never been able to convince myself that because someone had spent most of his working life on the public payroll and had then retired, he was entitled to consideration above that given by the general policies of the government to other
Supply-Transport
citizens who had retired, but in some cases were not even fortunate enough to have as
good a situation as those people who, though their pensions admittedly are very inadequate, were on the public payroll. It has always seemed to me that our social security policies should apply in similar circumstances to all sections of the population.
This may be because I have never represented a constituency in which there was a considerable number of these employees, and I do represent a constituency where the incomes are not very high and where there are very few people who receive pensions at all except the old age pension, which everyone gets uniformly. However, Mr. Chairman, I have always felt it was better to try to raise the level of social security for older people equally, for all kinds of older people, regardless of who their previous employer might be, and that it was rather difficult to find an equitable justification for singling out certain people because at one time they happened to be employed directly or indirectly by the state. I know the hon. member does not agree with that view. I do not think either of us would convince the other. He is perhaps right in saying that I have not been very zealous about the matter; but I am at least being honest about it.
The hon. member for Rosthern wants to stretch out navigation at Churchill. I would tell the hon. member that long before he was born I belonged to the "On to the Bay" association, and if there is one thing that stirs my imagination from my boyhood days it is navigation through Hudson bay. Whatever else I may be as Minister of Transport I am bound always to be an enthusiast for that particular route; even after visiting the place, as I did during the Easter holidays. My visit was short, I might add.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You must have been in short pants, too.


John Whitney Pickersgill: During the Easter holidays? No, it was in short breath. I am not sure that the best way of extending the season at Churchill is not perhaps to handle a greater volume in the season when the ships now operate, rather than trying to extend the number of months in the season. It might add up to the same thing. But there are very difficult technical problems. That does not mean we are not going to try to keep on solving them, because we solve new technical problems all the time.

Supply-Transport
The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox talked about the citizens' radio band and the seals that are put on the radios of United States tourists. I am happy to say this matter was brought to my attention some weeks ago, and this policy has been changed, notwithstanding the fact that the United States will not reciprocate and still puts seals on our radios. As for the hon. gentleman's references to the competition between the railways and trucking, I think we are going to have many other opportunities of discussing this subject.
That brings me to the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his interesting suggestions about how to deal with the railway bill. I am going to make one suggestion myself. Since everyone else has been transgressing the rules, perhaps you will let me do the same, Mn Chairman, unless someone objects very strongly. I am going to suggest that it probably will not be feasible, having regard to the other matters that are coming before this house, to have the railway bill come back for second reading in the month of September. It might therefore be very desirable if we could have a totally informal series of meetings which would not be meetings of the oommittee as such, but of members of the railway committee or such hon. members as may wish to attend. Any hon. member who is not a member of the committee could attend these meetings if he wished to do so. Perhaps these meetings could be held in private, so that a lot of positions would not be taken up. In this event, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to make available certain of the officials of my department to be asked questions about the bill. I think if that were done in an entirely informal way-perhaps you might call it a sort of seminar or study group: I know I sometimes made fun of these things when on the other side of the house, but they have their purpose-something useful might be achieved in this respect. This is a highly complex piece of legislation, and no one is more anxious to get it dealt with expeditiously and at the same time properly by the house than I am. If a number of hon. members who are members of the railway committee would like to indicate to me, to my parliamentary secretary or-though I have not had a chance to speak to him yet -the hon. member for Ottawa East that they would be interested in this kind of project, I would be very glad to see if we could organize it.

I think it would be much better to have a debate about what the bill really means than to have misapprehensions in the minds of hon. members in trying to decipher its legal language. I confess quite frankly that when I read the bill the first time, before I had a little instruction, I was rather confused by a great part of it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You had a head start.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, necessarily. I will be very happy if anyone can catch up; and I will not be very surprised. I am going to beg off any attempt to make a speech tonight about highway transport, having been warned by the hon. member for Rosthem that I am trying to do far too much and am spreading myself far too thinly over too many things. I think I should leave alone a subject that is not part of my responsibilities at all.
I will come to the subject of regional air services again at the close of my remarks. The hon. member for St. Hyacinthe-Bagot, after paying a tribute to the amazing growth of that city which is apparently growing faster than any other in Canada, or at least in the province of Quebec, asked for a few tunnels, and one in particular. I will tell the C.N.R. about this and I will endeavour to earn his gratitude. I hope he will be as forthcoming about the flag as I am about his tunnel.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order.


Mr. Fane:: Bribery and corruption.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for Sim-coe East asked one or two questions about pilots. I do not pretend to carry this information in my head; a messenger boy has brought me this little note. I am advised that we do have rules for medical examinations applicable to all pilots, and they vary depending on the category of the pilot. Permissible flying hours also vary according to the individual company but they are reviewed from time to time by the air transport board as a part of the company's operating certificate, and pilots must be examined medically once a year. If the hon. member wishes more details we will be very glad to let him have them.
The hon. member asked about grain elevators and whether the same service is provided to elevators owned by private companies as elevators owned by the C.N.R. I am not sure whether the C.N.R. does own any elevators, but I think the hon. gentleman means elevators owned one way or another by some public agency. I should have thought

that so far as any general services of the Department of Transport are concerned they would be quite the same, but the main services he would probably be interested in would be dredging and that sort of thing, which is not my responsibility, of course, but the responsibility of the Minister of Public Works. That would apply also to dredging generally. I will have to put a little pressure on the Minister of Public Works to do a little dredging this year in the great lakes because of the water levels.
The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre had some things to say about the grade crossing fund in so far as it affected Moose Jaw, and I will see that the board of transport commissioners have their attention directed to his observations. I will also have details given to him about this problem to which he referred, and they will be sent to him in writing.
The hon. member for Saint John-Albert made one or two suggestions about how to deal with railway legislation along the lines which were elaborated a little more by the hon. member for Medicine Hat. He said that the national harbours board was a good thing and I think that was gratifying to me as well as to the board. The hon. member mentioned the harbour bridge in Saint John. I do not think anything will contribute more to the economy of Saint John than the building of the harbour bridge, and I can tell him that I personally am very sympathetic toward doing everything I can so that that project is proceeded with as quickly as possible.
Whether or not having a Department of Transport weather forecaster at the Saint John airport would make people happier when planes did not come in I am not absolutely sure, but at any rate we will give the matter careful consideration. I know the hon. member's interest in the merchant navy. I share it, but perhaps not quite with the same degree of enthusiasm as he, as I am sure he is the most enthusiastic member in the house, at least on that side of the house, on this matter. I also know his views about winter navigation. There is a problem there of balancing one part of the country with another and balancing the interests of both, which is not easy to do.
As for the constructive suggestions made by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra concerning Vancouver harbour, and particularly the grain handling facilities there, I may say I am very anxious to see the expansion of the grain handling facilities and the
Supply-Transport
facilities for handling bulk cargo generally in Vancouver harbour. Anything I can reasonably do to push that ahead will be done.
I feel very sad about those lobsters to which the hon. member for York-Scarborough referred; I hope they were not dead before the party. We are looking into his problem about the delivery of express, and we are trying to solve all of the problems of Scarborough, including redistribution. The hon. member also referred to the monopoly of taxi and other services at the airports, as did several other hon. members. I think I dealt with this subject at some length in reply to an intervention by the hon. member for Burnaby-Co-quitlam when we were considering interim supply some time ago, and I do not think I can usefully add anything to what I said on that occasion. I forget the page in Hansard in this regard, but I am sure hon. members can look it up. It is an awkward problem, and I certainly agree with what everyone has said about it-that as long as people have any kind of monopoly they have to be watched.
The hon. member for Quebec East said he thought the job of Minister of Transport was too big for any one man. I am not sure that I entirely disagree with that, but notwithstanding the excellent schemes which have been put forward for dividing up the department, if you are going to try, as we are trying in the legislation we are now putting forward, to look at the transportation problems with which parliament has to deal as a whole and try to get some co-ordination, it is frightfully difficult to separate the department. Perhaps when we get some of these policies better worked out it might be possible. Personally I should like to carve off some of the peripheral parts of the department and get rid of them if I could; but it is really a problem for the Prime Minister, not for me, as I have enough of my own, as I have been told.
The situation in the railways in Quebec city to which the hon. member for Quebec East referred is being pursued assiduously by my hon. friend the hon. member for Quebec South, my parliamentary secretary. He is very zealous about these matters and I am sure they can safely be left in his hands. I think that applies to most of the questions, except the one about the television in Gaspe which was raised by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency. However, I think I should say that my hon. friend for Quebec South and I have more faith in the growth of the harbour at Quebec than the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency showed. We

Supply-Transport
believe there is going to be a very great expansion of that harbour in the next 20 years and we want to be very careful not to inhibit our capacity to expand. At the same time the problem of the Beaupre shore to which the hon. member referred is being considered very actively indeed at the present time. I will try to get together as quickly as I can such statistics as are available to us which the hon. gentleman wanted, and furnish him with them.
With regard to the problem about the television, I really think this is outside the scope of my responsibilities in any event. This being the case I am not going to say anything more about it tonight.
I come now to the observations of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, who had some complimentary things to say about the air transport board and its operations. I have no doubt that it was partly as a result of his urging that they did have a hearing in British Columbia, and I am sure that it is a very good thing for these governmental agencies to see on the spot what are the conditions which prevail whenever it is possible to do so. I must say that the question of the flaw in the Aeronautics Act, or what the hon. gentleman thought was a flaw, is something I will have looked at, and perhaps if we ever get to that bill something might be done about it. With regard to the matter of facilities for water landings for planes, the hon. gentleman is not wrong in thinking that this matter is a matter of real interest to me. I have landed in planes in some of the most unlikely places along a coast that is almost as difficult as the hon. gentleman's coast. This is one of the matters which we have to tackle more earnestly than we have up to the present.
The submission of the British Columbia aviation council, which was given to me when I was performing another function as commodore of the Kelowna regatta, is being studied at the present time by the department.
In respect of many of the things about these wharf charges, to which the hon. member referred, I at any rate have a feeling of sympathy, if I do not agree in total with them. It was perhaps not the most auspicious part of my beginning as Minister of Transport, that just before I began there was a complete overhaul of these wharfage charges. This did create the impression in my own constituency that my first act as Minister of Transport was to charge more for the use of wharves, which, perhaps if I had control of the timing,

might have been done a little differently. However, I think the hon. gentleman can be pretty sure that on this subject I will tend to be on the side of the users of the wharves, just as far as one can and still have some regard for the public interest. At any rate, the regulations with regard to wharves are not, in my view, as the laws of the Medes and Persians, but are subject to change almost without notice if I can think of any good reason for changing them.
I do not think I will attempt to add anything to what I said about community antenna television on July 22, which the hon. member can reread at page 5799 of Hansard. I have no new views on the subject since I gave those on that date. In view of what the hon. gentleman said about television reception in certain parts of his constituency he ought to get together with the hon. member for Kootenay East. I suggest that they make a joint attack on the C.B.C. in respect of this matter and, at any rate, they will carry my sympathy with them.
I come at last to the remarks of the hon. member for Three Rivers, and I intend to take in opposite order the items to which he referred, dealing first with the problem in respect of the use of our waters and the conservation of our waters. I do not think I should really attempt at this stage to add anything to what I said in reply to the hon. member for Grey-Bruce on orders of the day. I should very much like to see the agreement of the house leaders, who seem to be very agreeable these days, to put through the motion to have this reference to the committee, so that we can have a good look at what is now being done in the country and at what some of these problems are during this session. I think that would help a great deal to understand this better and to enlist greater support from the house generally for what needs to be done.
The hon. member referred to a reserving of the business of northern supply for ships on Canadian registry. I think the hon. gentleman is perhaps not unaware of the fact that I got my fingers slightly burned in this particular traffic and I will probably be a little more careful next time.
About cabotage, the Senate has given its blessings to the policy suggested by the hon. gentleman, when he was minister, in a bill that is now on the order paper, and that, God willing, we will reach some time before Christmas.
I hope in the near future to be able to make a rather detailed statement about ship-

building and this whole matter. There has been a great deal of shipbuilding done because of the subsidy policy introduced by the hon. member for Three Rivers. I think the time has come to make a thorough appraisal of the results of that policy. Certainly one of the results has been a vast increase in employment in shipyards, for which we are all very grateful.
I do not think I will say anything more about bus and taxi services at airports.
I now come to the general question of air policy. I think I ought to start by recalling to the hon. gentleman that I have not got much more than three minutes left at this time. The last time I attempted to do this these three minutes were taken up by others and I had to accept an invitation from the C.B.C., and that is the only time I have ever been on, so the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam does not need to feel that he is the only one who is left out. Perhaps this evening the committee will be more inclined to listen to me even, though this is only repetition.
The principles recommended as a basis for civil aviation policy are:
(1)	In the international field, air services provided by Canadian air lines should serve the Canadian interest as a whole; these services should not be competitive or conflicting, but should represent a single integrated plan, which could be achieved by amalgamation, by partnership or by a clear division of fields of operations.
(2)	In the domestic main line field, while the principle of competition is not rejected, any development of competition should not compromise or seriously injure the economic viability of T.C.A.'s main line domestic operations which represent the essential framework of its network of domestic services. In other words, there must not be the kind of competition which would put T.C.A. into the red; and, in the event that competition continues, the air transport board should ensure an opportunity for growth to both lines above this basic minimum.
(3)	In formulation of policy based upon the foregoing point, a reasonable role for regional air carriers providing scheduled and regular air service must be established; this role must provide for a relationship between the regional air carriers and T.C.A. (and any other licensed main line transcontinental carrier) which will give the regional air carriers a reasonable chance to operate without government subsidies.
Supply-Transport
If I could have three minutes more and the committee saw fit to listen to me I think I could conclude these observations.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I asked the two air lines to hold discussions to see within this framework whether they could come up with some agreed recommendations. I hope that they will have, at any rate, reached agreement on a great many points by the end of September. On some points they have already reached full agreement. I believe that a lot of the conflicting difficulty outside Canada has already been solved. However, I do feel that the greater the measure of consent and agreement we can get in these matters, rather than the imposition of policy from above, the more likely it is to work smoothly and effectively.
I am also very much impressed with the fact that it took, to my personal knowledge, a year and a half at least, and maybe longer,, before the policy that was formulated in those general lines by Mr. Mackenzie King, and extended in 1944 by Mr. C. D. Howe, was-worked out. My own view is that that policy, even with some erosion of which I did not approve, I might add, has served this country pretty well for 20 years. I am more anxious to see that any policies I recommend to my colleagues, and that my colleagues join in recommending to this house, will work for 20 years, than in trying to meet some deadline of September 30 or October 31. What we want to do is to get a policy that is right for this country. If it takes two or three extra months to do it, so far as I am concerned I think I would be wiser to take the two or three extra months. I do believe that this framework which was announced on May 1, and with which I found very little quarrel in any part of the country, is on the whole the right framework within which to work out this policy.
I do agree, too, that there has to be a proper balance between the one or two main line carriers, whichever there are going to be -I am talking about the domestic field at the moment-and the regional carriers. I do not believe that one great, single carrier can perform all the scheduled air service for this country satisfactorily. I think the headquarters would be too far from the field. For a regional scheduled carrier to operate effectively, his headquarters have got to be in the area of his operation. I say this not from any theoretical standpoint. Anybody who has been a politician in Newfoundland in the period I have been, when at the start you

Supply-Transport
did not have very many roads, who has seen now dependant a region can be on air services for the essential services, knows that a regional service could not be effectively provided from Montreal. I think that would be even truer of British Columbia, which is still farther away.
I think we have to get a proper balance. It is very important to get that balance in such a way that, so far as possible, the users and not the taxpayers pay for the service. This does not mean that there may not be air services so essential to the national interest that they have to be provided even if they will not pay. However we do have to get this balance. We are going to get it, but it is not going to be easy and it is not going to be achieved next week. I am going to keep right on pushing just as hard as I can for the achievement of this, which I think is every bit as important as the railway legislation. The government, as all hon. members know, has made firm recommendations to parliament in this railway legislation. These firm recommendations do not mean that every comma in that bill has got to stay as it is. There would be no sense in sending it to a committee, there would be no sense in studying it in advance or having subcommittees, if that were our attitude. We do believe, however, that along broad lines we have made good recommendations. I hope before the end of this year I will be able to make good recommendations, too, about air policy.
Now, I was just wondering, since we have had a broad ranging discussion, if the committee might feel inclined to carry the first
item of my estimates. Then, all specific questions could be dealt with on specific items.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall the item carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stanley Howard Knowles: That is enough.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am grateful to the committee. I am glad no one minded too much my not making a speech at the beginning.
Progress reported.
Resolutions adopted in committee of supply this day reported and concurred in.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the acting house leader if he will just record in Hansard the business for tomorrow, for the convenience of members?


Mr. MacNaughl:: Tomorrow we will consider the main estimates of the department of northern affairs, followed by the Department of Public Works and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
At 10.35 p.m., the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[The following items were passed in committee of supply this day:]



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
A-Department-
X. Departmental administration (including the former vote for the operation and maintenance of official railway cars, $3,773,800. la. Departmental administration, $78,400.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 18, 1964