[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING. (Prime Minister) : Mr. Speaker, in reference to the congratulatory messages of which I made mention in the house yesterday, I should like to add that the following message was received during the day from the President of the United States:
On this national anniversary of Canada it gives me great pleasure to send to you ansi to the people of Canada the hearty congratulations and renewed good wishes of the people of the United States. I should like to take this occasion again to thank you and the many other Canadians who did so much to give me a most enjoyable visit last month. I cannot express too warmly my sincere friendship for you and for the people of Canada.
Harry S. Truman.
Congratulatory messages were also received from the Acting Minister of Foreign Affairs of Chile, from the Ambassador of Belgium in Ottawa, and from the Consul General of Haiti.

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Cleaver.
Questions


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs, for Mr. Claxton) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 410, to establish a benevolent fund from army canteen and other service funds.
He said: May I say on behalf of the Minister of National Defence that I should like this bill to be proceeded with. The Minister of National Defence will pilot the bill through the house, along with the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Tucker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Mutch), who was chairman of the committee.
Mr. W. A. TUCKER (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The purpose of this bill is to set up an army benevolent fund from the various canteen funds and to provide for a board to administer it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 397, for the relief of Edward Charles Barron-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 398, for the relief of Violet Eileen Lepine Tiekner-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 399, for the relief of Jean Lawrence Ritchie-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 400, for the relief of Livio Quintino Fantacci-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 401. for the relief of Bertha Bercovici Hamer-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 402, for the relief of Ann Bogdanof Millichamp-Mr. Mayibank.
Bill No. 403, for the relief of Beatrice Elman Perlman-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 404, for the relief of Grace Emily Dawes Matheson-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 405, foythe relief of Gabriel Burszan -Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 406. for the relief of Doris Phoebe (Potter Potts-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 407. for the relief of Richard Andrew Frame-Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 408, for the relief of William Page- .Mr. Maybank.
Bill No. 409, for the relief of Louis Gertsman -Mr. Maybank.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

Mr. LOCKHART:: 1.	How many persons in Lincoln county (a) on May 31., 1947; (b) on June 26, 1947, were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments, and how many job vacancies were listed in that county on each of these dates?
2.	How many persons in Welland county (a) on May 31, 1947; (b) on June 26, 1947, were in receipt of unemployment insurance payments, and how many job vacancies were listed in the said county on each of the above dates?


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have discussed this question with the hon. member for Lincoln. The figures are not taken by counties. We have offices in St. Catharines, Welland, Fort Erie, Niagara Falls, Port Colborne, and he will be satisfied if the return is made on that basis.


AMMONIUM PHOSPHATE AND SUPERPHOSPHATES
Mr. McCULLOUGH (Assiniboia):: (1. From what countries and in what quantities has phosphate rock been imported into Canada for each of the years 1939 to 1946 inclusive?
2. How many companies have produced ammonium phosphate and superphosphates in Canada for the years .1939 to 1946, inclusive, and in what quantities for each year?


Mr. MacKINNON:: 1. Imports by countries of phosphate rock during the calendar years 1939 to 1946:
	French Africa	Morocco
Year	Cwt.	Cwt.
1939 			
1940 			
1941 			
1942 			
1943 			
1944 		.... 38.116	
1945 	.... 11,781	260,0491946 	Netherlands West Indies	United StatesYear	Cwt.	Cwt.1939 	2,498.0061940 	3,317,1601941 	4,740.5771942 	5,427,4551943 	5.216,9281944 	.... 33.600	7,693.2151945 	.... 33,600	6,048,4781946 	.... 134,400	7,339,148
Questions
2. Ammonium phosphate in Canada is produced by one company. Superphosphate in Canada is produced by two companies.
Production of ammonium phosphate and
superphosphate	in Canada	during the
years	1939 to 1946	
	Ammonium	Super-
Year ended	phosphate	phosphateJune 30	Tons	Tons1939 	32,845	87,7381940 	44,440	104,5201941 	59,300	127,6721942 	52.730	176,6341943 	76,181	193,4221944 	133,610	199,7961945 	174,761	236,0921946 	195,593	253,397


IMPORTS OF MURIATE OF POTASH
Edward George McCullough: From what countries, in what quantities and at how much per unit in each case has muriate of potash been imported to Canada for the years 1939 to 1946 inclusive?


Mr. MacKINNGN:: Imports by countries, of muriate of potash during the calendar years 1939 to 1946
Year	Country	Cwt.	Value1939	Belgium 	30,025	$ 31,454France 	140,760	143,074Germany 	51,238	57,349United States....	685.799	903,2741940	France 	271,893	336,063United States	811,439	1.049.2151941	United States....	610,957	835.0421942	United States....	824,726	1,071,5241943	United States....	1.040,175	1,336,1441944	Soviet Union....	4.936	9.178United States....	1,316,973	1,648,5801945	Soviet Union....	91,639	170,654United States....	1,312,683	1,595.3091946	France 	100,104	200.208Soviet Union....	127,657	236,390United States	1.337.177	1,571,909UNITED NATIONS-	LUCIEN PARIZEAU


Mr. LACOMBE:: 1.	Is Lueien Parizeau a member of the staff of the united nations?
2.	If so, by whom was he recommended for such position?
Mr. ST. LAURENT:
1.	According to the "United Nations Handbook" dated October 1946, Mr. Parizeau is a senior editor in the editorial division of the department of conference and general services.
2.	No information on the files of the Department of External Affairs.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. CASTLEDEN:: Were any applications for priorities for care granted by any officials of the government to the veterans taxi owners' association of Montreal?


ST. LAWRENCE SHIP CHANNEL-DREDGING AND IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. BLACK (Cumberland):: What have been the total expenditures for dredging and improving the shipping channels and berths on the St. Lawrence river (a) to Montreal: (b) the port of Montreal; (c) Montreal to lake Ontario, before 1900 and from 1900 to 1947?


CUSTOMS PORTS-AIRPORTS AND AIRFIELDS
Mr. WINKLER:: 1.	How many customs and excise ports are in each Canadian province?
2.	How many customs airports and airfields of entry and exit are in each of the Canadian provinces?
3.	At what point is each of the latter located?
4.	Which in each class have been established since the outbreak of the last war?
5.	What is the difference for customs purposes between the terms "airports" and "airfields?"


PRAIRIE FARM REHABILITATION-SOUTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER PROJECT
Walter Adam Tucker: For a copy of the P.F.R.A. report on the South Saskatchewan river project.


WESTERN PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that, the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a bill to make provision for the refunding and adjustment of the liability of the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia to the government of Canada, in respect of loans made to them by the government of Canada to finance expenditures on direct and agricultural relief and other purposes during the nineteen-thirties: and for the final settlement in full of claims of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan against the government of Canada in respect of the administration and control by the said government of natural resources in those provinces before the transfer thereof to the provinces.
[Stage Direction]
Inquiries of the Ministry
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GORDON GRAYDON (Peel):: I
should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Canadian Press today carries news from London that the Daily Express there published yesterday information that the term "dominion" in relation to Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa will be dropped and the term "commonwealth" will be used in its place. The Express is reported also to have said that this was done at the request of the dominion governments. My question to the Prime Minister is this: Did this government make such a request, and if such a request was made, when was it made?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: In reply to my hon. friend I would say that the government made no such request. I think myself that what the Express may have got hold of and wished to report upon was a change that has been made in the title of the office of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs in London. I understand that this morning Prime Minister Attlee announced in the British House of Commons that the title of Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs would hereafter be changed to Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations. That of course is a matter which is entirely within the jurisdiction of the British government itself. It may well be that some rumour has got abroad, which is inaccurate so far as it relates to any of the dominions.


Gordon Graydon: May I a3k whether
Canada was consulted in reference to the change of name of the department in the British government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We were informed that the British government intended to make such a change and were asked whether any exception would likely be taken, the reply given was in language similar to that which I have expressed, namely that any change in title of one of its departments of government was a matter for the British
{*Mr. Abbott.]
government itself to decide. I might add that the change in title is not one to which any objection could be taken here.


Mr. CRUICKSHANK:: I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Is there any truth in the rumour that the riding of Peel is to be dropped from the Dominion of
Canada?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whom did my hon. friend say?


Gordon Graydon: He says no.


SOUL PIPE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HAROLD W. TIMMINS (Parkdale): May I ask a question of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply or of the parliamentary assistant? Having regard to the serious shortage of soil pipe in the Toronto area, has the department taken any recent steps to increase production of soil pipe? Has the matter been brought to its attention?
Mr. G. J. McILRAITH (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply):: The matter has been receiving active consideration for some time. I would prefer to let the other part of the question stand as notice and answer tomorrow.


EMIGRATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Secretary of State for External Affairs): One day last week the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) asked the following question to which I promised to obtain a reply. He said that the newspapers of June 26, 1947, contained stories that between 3,500 and 5,000 Mennoaites are leaving for Paraguay. He added that:
. . . the foreshadowed emigration of a large number, some thousands, of Hutterites to the same country . . .
was also foreshadowed. He asked whether I could make a statement regarding these departures, and I promised to get such information as was available in the various departments of government. I have been supplied with the following statement:
In February last an inquiry was made of the passport office by a law firm as to whether group certificates would be available covering the proposed departure from Canada of some 3,000 Mennonites, 1.500 of whom were said to

Inquiries of the Ministry
be adults. It indicated that these persons were intending to proceed to Paraguay for permanent residence. Group certificates not being available, individual applications for passports will be necessary. The individual application for at least one family has been brought to the attention of the passport officer.
We have no information concerning the departure from Canada of a large number of Hutterites.
On May 23, 1947, I made a statement to the house concerning the emigration to Yugoslavia of certain residents of Canada. Statements which I made at that time concerning loss of domicile and citizenship apply to any other persons who propose to leave Canada either singly or in groups. There is no compulsion upon anyone to remain in Canada if he desires to take up permanent residence in another country.
'It is regrettable that persons who have for some years lived in Canada should prefer to leave our country, but we find that there are many persons in other countries anxious to come and live in Canada. Furthermore, there may be particular factors inducing people to move elsewhere. Such factors may be an economy more suited to their particular way of life, climate more in accord with their desires, the presence of kinfolk and so forth.
It may be of some interest to mention that there was recently received, through the embassy in Buenos Aires, advice that over 2,300 Mennonites from the Black sea area had arrived in Paraguay, and that the director of Mennonites in that country had approached the British authorities on behalf of a number of the group who, having close relatives here, were desirous of joining them in Canada. The inquiry is being dealt with through the regular immigration channels.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Public Works. Has the minister received a report from his engineers with regard to the damage on Toronto centre island from high water and floods? Three weeks ago a copy of it was ordered as a return.


Hon. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I did receive a report from our engineer at Toronto, which reads in part as follows:
The only damage which I was able to observe in any of the structures was a small gap forty feet wide near the west end of the rubble-mound breakwater. Because of the abnormally high water, it is difficult to determine what amount of stone would be necessary to repair this break and it is possible that only the crest of the breakwater has been damaged.


Thomas Langton Church: What about the government breakwater?


MOUNTED POLICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, last night the hon.
member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) asked me to lay on the table a copy of a general order referred to in the discussion last night of the estimates for the Department of Justice. It is general order 1073 for the week ended September 30, 1939.
I am now laying on the table the Royal Canadian Mounted Police general orders, part I, issued by the commissioner for the week ended September 30, 1939. The two relevant orders are Nos. 1073 and 1074.
No. 1073 sets out a letter from the then minister of justice to the commissioner, of which the relevant parts are I believe the following:
I fully realize that young men in particular will have a great desire to enlist for overseas service, and while this patriotic spirit is entirely commendable, nevertheless the important duties which I have outlined, when energetically and faithfully carried out, are of no less importance than those which might be performed on active service.
Furthermore it must be obvious to all members of the force that these important duties can only be efficiently performed by a trained personnel, and for these reasons I shall not be able to consent to granting any leave of absence to officers, non-commissioned officers or constables of the force for the purpose of serving in any expeditionary force which may leave Canada on active service, with the possible exception of a representative unit to be recruited from the R.C.JI. police. Neither will it be possible to grant discharges from the force to enable non-commissioned officers or men to enlist for overseas service. No discharges by purchase will be authorized until further orders.
In conclusion, I further desire to express my sincere appreciation of the services which have been rendered by the force to the country and the empire in the past, and to ask you to see that my views on this important subject are communicated to all officers, non-commissioned officers and constables.
Ernest Lapointe.
The commissioner in his letter says:
I now enclose copy of general order number 1073 for the week ended September 30, 1939, which is the actual general order in question and which is distributed throughout the length
Inquiries oj the Ministry

and breadth of the force for the perusal of every member of the R.C.M. police. Furthermore, it is the duty of each member of the force to be conversant with these instructions.
The other general order to which I referred is number 1074, providing for recruitment and the organization of a unit to be known as 1 Provost Company (R.C.M.P.) Canadian Active Service Force. I am laying this on the table.


Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: Is it correct that there is no order or promulgated direction on the part of the commissioner advising the mounted police during the period of the war that if on the termination of their police service they did not re-enlist with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police but went into the armed services, they would be penalized for so doing?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The only order of which I have knowledge is the general order I laid on the table. That was the order we were discussing last night, and it is in the terms which 1 represented it to be.


John George Diefenbaker: Those were not the terms to which objections were taken.


NEWSPRINT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, a matter arose during the course of the discussion of the estimates last night of the Department of Justice, which has to do with newsprint. The Montreal Gazette of today carries the following heading in reference to the statement I made in the house last night:
Report secret on newsprint-Ilsley says no proceedings taken after combines inquiry.
I am afraid my reference to a "report" from the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act may have given the erroneous impression that the commissioner had submitted a formal report following an investigation into the newsprint industry. As a matter of fact the comment of the commissioner was contained in a brief memorandum made to me shortly after Mr. Bengough's letter was referred to him in March last. It was pointed out in the memorandum that the shortage of newsprint was worldwide in extent, and that the statements in Mr. Bengough's letter regarding the limited supply of newsprint available to certain Canadian newspapers did not appear sufficient to justify an inquiry being started under the Combines Investigation Act.
JMr. Ilsley.]


ROYAL CANADIAN NAVY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. N. J. M. LOCKHART (Lincoln) Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of National Defence which arises from two or three letters I have received from young men. Is there still a demand for young men to enter the naval service, or is the complement pretty well filled)? They are anxious to get in, and the only quick way I could get an answer was to ask the minister.
Hon. BROOKE CLAXTON (Minister of National Defence):: There are places for young men having the required educational and physical qualifications in all three services. But *whether or not they would be in the particular classification the hon. member has in mind, I do not know. I shall be glad if he would let me have particulars to make inquiry and let him know.


POSTAL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Alexander Cruickshank: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Postmaster General. I under-standi there will be a raise in pay for all rural carriers; is that correct?


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: I shall take the hon. member's question into consideration.


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. MaeKINNON (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 134, to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act.
He said: I should like to make a brief statement before Mr. Speaker leaves the chair. As the house is aware, an order in council was passed on February 1 last, under the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, transferring from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply to myself, as Minister of Trade and Commerce, the responsibility for procurement of the requirements of the armed services. The government, in deciding to continue a single civilian purchasing agency for the services, was anxious to take advantage of the efficient organization that haxl already

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
been built up and was functioning under the Department of Reconstruction and Supply. Many of the key personnel involved in these activities during the war are now carrying out duties as employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and: handling procurement problems for foreign governments and UNRRA.
In older to take advantage of this experienced personnel, it was desirable that the act establishing the Canadian Commercial Corporation should authorize that corporation to act as agent for the minister in procurement for the services. Accordingly it is proposed to extend the powers of the corporation as provided in the bill now before the house.
I might say that the bill now before the house was originally proposed as a simple amendment to section 4 of the act assented to last year. Amendments made in the senate, however, provide that the new provisions should form a separate part of the original act. I see no objection to this change, and in feet there may be some improvement made thereby. I wish to explain however that in adopting the bill as now drafted it becomes necessary to make certain further minor technical amendments which have been recommended by the law clerks of the House of Commons. I propose to suggest these amendments while the bill is in committee.
Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, when the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act was passed in 1946 the objects as set out in section 4 were, briefly, to assist in the development of external trade, to assist Canada in getting goods from outside the country and to dispose of Canadian products abroad. In other words, the original intention in setting up the Canadian Commercial Corporation was to form a crown company to deal with exports and imports as between Canada and manufacturers or exporters or importers in other countries.
The amendment now before the house in effect asks the government to give to that company the power to produce goods, to manufacture goods, to procure goods and to construct articles in Canada or elsewhere. By this amendment the scope of the activities of the Canadian Commercial Corporation are widened beyond anything comprehended in the original act. The amendment gives this crown company the power to do almost everything possible in the industrial, the economic and even the financial life of our country. These activities are restricted largely to the Department of National Defence. When this act was first passed it was considered as a temporary measure to take us through, the 83166-316
post-war years. The last section limited the life of the company to 1949. In other words, under the act as it now stands, and the amendment does not seem to change that, the company will cease to exist sixty days after the commencement of the 1949 session.
The provisions of this amendment are foreign to the original intention of the act. It is evidently the intention of the government to set up a purchasing, procuring and manufacturing crown company to act for the Department of National Defence. What is the intention behind the amendments? Is it the intention of the government to continue the Canadian Commercial Corporation into the future, to manufacture, purchase, procure and import various articles which may be required by the government? Is it the intention to extend this procuring, manufacturing, constructing and purchasing to other departments of government besides the Department of National Defence?
I cannot conceive of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner) wanting the Canadian Commercial Corporation, under the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Mackinnon), to carry out its multitudinous functions for his department. I cannot see the Postmaster General (Mr. Bertrand) wanting the Canadian Commercial Corporation under the Minister of Trade and Commerce to do the purchasing, producing, manufacturing, procuring and constructing for the Poet Office Department. And the same for the Department of Public Works. I cannot see anything in this amendment which would lead me to believe that it is intended to retain these services only for the reconstruction days.
The amendment goes much further than the original act and it has within its intent a much longer life. We notice that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is to hire, fire and provide for its employees, irrespective of the Civil Service Act. The corporation has power under the original act to arrange for superannuation benefits apart from those provided by the Civil Service Superannuation Act. It does not seem possible that in this year 1947 we are to have a procurement branch of the Department of National Defence transferred to the Department of Trade and Commerce and then have delegated by that department to the Canadian Commercial Corporation the power to appoint officers and officials, to fix their salaries and to provide retirement allowances and superannuation benefits.
The minister says he has had the benefit of the services of a number of employees from the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, formerly munitions and supply. I presume he means employees who were with the war sup-
NOiiiaa aasiAas
4950	COMMONS [DOT]
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
plies board., which did the purchasing for the Department of National Defence during the war, and which, may I say, did a very good job in that regard. I understand a great many former employees of the procurement, branch, Department of National Defence, went into the war supplies board on loan from that department. Approximately 100 permanent civil servants who before the war were in the Department of National Defence, who were doing all the procuring and purchasing for that department, who were skilled and trained in that work, who had made a career job of it, who were under the Civil Service Act and were to receive civil service superannuation benefits, were on loan during the war. As a result of government policy these civil servants now find themselves unable to go back to the Department of National Defence because their functions or their duties are no longer being carried out by that department. Some of them, and I believe only some, are being invited to join the Canadian Commercial Corporation. These permanent civil servants who are under the Civil Service Act and who are subject to civil service superannuation benefits are in effect being asked to leave the civil service of Canada to join a crown company where their employment and promotion and superannuation benefits will be apart from the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act. They are faced with a loss of the protection which many years ago the parliment of Canada in its discretion gave to career civil servants by the Civil Service Act. I do not think that is fair to those ;mployees.
I believe that orders in council were passed subsequently covering the transfer of these personnel from Reconstruction and Supply to Trade and Commerce to go into the Canadian Commercial Corporation on loan. I do not just understand' what "on loan" means. Here we have the fallacy, or the hypocrisy, whichever it is, of some 100 permanent civil servants going to a crown company and stated to be "on loan." They are to work under entirely different working and employment conditions. Many of them have paid into the civil service superannuation fund, which contribution is met in part by a contribution from the government related to the salary they receive.
May I ask the minister to tell the house before the Speaker leaves the chair whether he has arranged that the superannuation of a permanent civil servant who goes to the Canadian Commercial Corporation will remain as it was, or will his superannuation benefits be increased commensurately with any increase in salary he may receive while an
IMr. Boucher.]
employee of the crown company. Will his superannuation increase as his salary increases? I think it is most important, to the personnel who are being transferred that they should know that. It would be unfortunate if we were to have a number of civil servants without the protection that they should have.
I believe civil servants appreciate the protection they receive, and when they are transferred' to a crown company there should be no interference with or impairment of their rights of superannuation. It is not sufficient to allow their superannuation to remain at what it was when they were transferred from the Department of National Defence to the crown company. Nor do I think it fair to the permanent civil servant under the Civil Service Act and undter the control set up by that act to have another class of civil servant set up by a crown company and subject to the favouritism or favourable consideration or possibly the disparaging treatment of officials of crown companies acting with almost arbitrary powers in the matter of giving their employees salaries, promotions and transfers. This is apt to injure seriously the whole morale of our civil service. We in parliament should look askance at any attempt to set up a different class of employees from those who comprise our career civil servants.
Why is this function being transferred to a crown company, an incorporated company? Nearly every department has its own procurement branch, its own personnel skilled in the procuring of supplies, who are directly responsible to the minister and the department. Their functions and finances are governed in the ordinary way by parliament. Their expenditures are before the house in the form of estimates as well as by way of the public accounts. But that is not so with crown companies, because if we turn to the crown companies acts we find that the original act setting up the Canadian Commercial Corporation provides by section 8:
8. (.1) The Minister of Finance shall, on the request of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, from time to time deposit to the credit of the corporation in the Bank of Canada or in a chartered bank designated by the minister:
(a)	an amount or amounts not exceeding in the aggregate ten million dollars to be paid out of unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund at any time while this act is in force;
May I point out that that means up to sixty days after the commencement of the 1949 session only. It goes on:
(b)	any other advances or grants to the corporation that are otherwise authorized to be made by parliament from the consolidated revenue fund.

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
(2) The corporation shall retain, for the purposes of this act, all moneys received by it in the course of its business.
In other words this company is going to perform, besides its other functions, the function of puchasing for the Department of National Defence within an appropriation of 810,000,000, plus such further moneys as it may accumulate, and plus such further moneys as it may make in the course of its business. In my humble opinion that is a denial of the right of parliament to scrutinize the expenditure of public moneys. It has been of great benefit to democratic institutions that ministers have been under the necessity of producing before parliament estimates to be passed in one year and spent in the current year and to be examined after being spent, as appears from the auditor general's report.
But what happens in this case? In the first place the crown company is financed as I have just quoted from the act. Secondly, the act itself requires that the company's annual report shall be placed in the hands of the minister for tabling in the house sixty days after the close of the fiscal year, that is sixty days after March 31 of each year. If parliament is not then sitting the minister has until fifteen days after the opening of the next session of parliament to table that report, and until that is done the members of the house have no chance of scrutinizing the moneys that have already been spent. I repeat, they have not had an estimate before them for examination, and they get no chance to analyse the expenditures of moneys until perhaps two years after the money has been spent. It will be realized that a company could intentionally, or perhaps otherwise, defer payment of accounts until after the first of April in the year 1945. The company did not have to make its annual report for tabling in parliament until sixty days after March 31, 1946, and it may not table it until fifteen days after the opening of the 1947 session. There you have the money spent by a crown corporation in effect out of unappropriated moneys, or out of money granted to them from the consolidated revenue fund before the members elected by the people of Canada have the slightest opportunity to scrutinize those expenditures. I do not think that that lends itself to the spirit of responsible government. I do not think it lends itself to the spirit of democratic institutions.
I do feel that in setting up an agent for the Minister of National Defence who must ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to ask the office of the Canadian Commercial Corporation to procure supplies or commodities for him, we are denying to parliament the right to make a careful and critical analysis 83166-3164
of public expenditures. I do not think that the statement which the Minister of Trade and Commerce gave us this afternoon-the mere fact that we have some experienced men who did a good job during the war, and whom we may want to retain in the employment of the government-is sufficient to break an old and long-established custom of parliament. We should pause and consider before we pass this act, because if we do pass it today to apply only to the Department of National Defence, tomorrow the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Public Works may not be any more anxious than the Minister of National Defence appears to be to keep purchasing under his regime.
I do not think we are going in the right direction in this legislation, because it concerns not only the matter of purchasing but also procuring and constructing and manufacturing. If the amendment is passed we shall be authorizing the government to go into a broad and extensive sphere in competition with private enterprise.
May I read from an article which reached my desk recently, put out by the Canadian chamber of commerce, and dated June 16, 1947. I shall quote two or three paragraphs:
Release No. 16 Dominion Crown Companies
The large number of crown companies established during the last war has drawn attention to a device by which governments may invade the field of private enterprise. It has been estimated that during the war the dominion government set up over thirty corporations to engage in such varied activities as building houses, working mines, constructing and operating merchant shipping and producing synthetic rubber. Many of these government corporations have since been wound up; some still remain.
No governmental activity is so important in its implications to the business men of Canada and about none is so little known. Believing that it merits further attention and study, the research department has prepared the attached list of the existing crown companies established by the dominion before, during and after the war, with a brief statement of the functions of each. The preparation of the list has not been a simple matter but every precaution has been taken to make it complete.
The attached list will show that the device of the crown company is not a recent discovery in Canada: it was during the war. however, that it had its most rapid development and came most noticeably into competition with privately owned business.
The next paragraph is a very important one:	*
Many of the crown companies now in existence are engaged in activities which traditionally have been considered the province of private enterprise. All of them are subject in varying degrees to control by the government of the day. yet they are not departments of state directly responsible to parliament. They
4952	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
enjoy special privileges not extended to private corporations, such as exemption from taxation and, in some eases, from industrial legislation.
This quotation is the considered opinion of the research department of the Canadian chamber of commerce and it is my considered opinion and, I believe, that of a great number of Canadian people. Canadian industrialists and other Canadians who believe in private enterprise are looking with grave apprehension upon the government's apparent policy of edging its way further and further into the realm of manufacturing, procuring and constructing, and into the realm of private enterprise. I believe that in this measure we are going farther than we have ever gone before, and with less justification. There may be some justification for crown companies even in the manufacturing business, if we take as an example the atomic energy plant at Chalk River. There can be some justification for the manufacture of military material which must be produced on an ever-expanding scale during war time, and in other noncompetitive fields. That will probably include Polymer, the synthetic rubber plant at Sarnia. But for the government to take unto itself the role of manufacturing, ordinary everyday requirements of life, with special privileges over and above that of private enterprise, without the responsibility of having to pay municipal, educational, excess profits or corporation taxes, means that we are being unfair to private enterprise in which so many of us believe. I know that some of my friends of the C.C.F. party are strong believers in government enterprise. It is their privilege to have that opinion; but we must face the issue and decide whether or not we believe in government enterprise.
There are many things in this bill that we [DOT]should consider. I do not believe that the Companies Act, either of the dominion or of the provinces, was passed with the intention of permitting a government to create a company and obtain possession of all the shares through the medium of the legal farce-that is about all I can call it-of issuing shares to four or five men, whom we call directors, upon condition that they endorse the shares and hand them back to a minister of the crown so that he can act on them if, as, and when he sees fit. The purpose of an incorporation is to put the responsibility upon the shareholders of the company and through them upon the directors to manage the corporate enterprise. I do not believe it was ever meant to issue certificates and have them endorsed and not put on the books of the company but held in escrow so that an
[Mr. Boucher. I
officer's resignation could be accepted if and when desired, without his having any financial responsibility either as a share holder or as a director to the company he is managing. Nor do I think that any officers or directors of any company should have the say as to whom they shall hire or fire or whether or not they shall provide the employees with superannuation or retirement allowances at the expense of the people of Canada. I do not think the people who believe in the Civil Service Act see in this proposal any advantage other than that of political preference in a partial way being exercised against the servants of the dominion.
The Civil Service Act has to a great extent been responsible for giving security to civil servants and for the high standard of service which the Canadian people have received from them. If we are to continue, as this government appears to desire, to have employees to all intents and purposes working for the government but not under the Civil Service Act or under the Civil Service Superannuation Act, and with the privilege that the officials of a crown company can deal in their own peculiar way with their employees so far as superannuation is concerned, it will be injurious to the welfare of the civil servants of Canada, if not to the employees of the company. In other words, so far as this company is concerned under this bill it can make any arrangement it likes by way of superannuation for its employees, probably different from any other superannuation arrangement we know of.
Personally I am anxious to see the doctrine of superannuation or retirement allowances spread throughout the country. The great need of the people of Canada is the establishment of superannuation or retirement allowances for the employees of industry. There are many Canadians who have not the benefit of superannuation and retirement allowances. The Canadian people are not going to welcome the fact that parliament is allowing the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which expires sixty days after the 1949 session, to set up superannuation benefits for its officers and employees until that time, irrespective of the Civil Service Act. Under the Civil Service Act civil servants must over many years contribute to the superannuation fund before they can get any value out of it. Today we are discarding the whole principle of the contributions; because how can the employees of a crown company, subject to the whim and fancy of its officials, get any greater benefit under the superannuation scheme than they would get under, the Civil Service Superannuation Act.

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
I think we are treading on dangerous ground. The civil servants of Canada will be discontented and aroused by the fact that we are setting up special groups of government employees and giving them special privileges, whether they be temporary civil servants, career civil servants, permanent civil servants or crown company civil servants. We are laying ourselves open to a lot of difficulty. It is not so important for the government to keep on the payroll a few officials who have joined the staff of the procurement branch of the Department of National Defence to buy war supplies for the dominion government as it is to make a breach of the established, time-tried custom of the Civil Service Act and civil service superannuation. The main purpose of this bill, as was evidenced by the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce today, is to create a crown company to buy supplies, construct, procure and manufacture for the Department of National Defence and to blanket these employees into the civil service along with our career civil servants. Those who have been on loan from private enterprise to the war supply board have done a meritorious job. They will continue on loan from private enterprise. Yet they are being blanketed into government appointments at salaries largely set by themselves. We know instances of salaries or remuneration greatly in excess of the salary or remuneration of civil servants who were in the service of the national defence department for a long time.
Before we embark upon a policy of this kind I should like the minister to explain whether or not it is the government's intention to extend the life of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, and if they intend to do it permanently or whether they want this company to do the purchasing for the Department of National Defence for a few short-months and then send the employees back to the Department of National Defence or to other departments to do the work they were doing before war broke out.


Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the minister two or three principles in connection with this corporation. I remember that last session by chapter 40 of the 1946 statutes this Canadian Commercial Corporation was created for certain specific purposes. I believe these corporations are becoming a menace to parliamentary control and are not in the interests of responsible government. They have been created 'for specific purposes. Are we to remove this corporation from the control of parliament? It is going to assume all the powers and functions of the minister. All of
the officers of the old corporation are under the direct control of the minister for the specific purpose of making purchases of munitions of war or supplies and so forth. By this act are we going to remove from control by parliament and the auditor general the purchase of supplies by this ministry on land, sea and in the air, spending money running into hundreds of millions of dollars.
I wish to point out that is one of the principles on which United States seceded from Britain, namely, taxation without representation, lack of responsibility. We shall not always get a minister who is as strong a supporter of responsible government as the present minister is. Is this Department of National Defence the only department which can be selected by the minister? Because every officer and suboffioer of the Canadian Commercial Corporation from the top to the bottom is an officer directly under the minister and is under the control of the minister. The functions and powers are set out in chapter 40 of the statutes of last year. We are now amending part II to empower the corporation to act directly for the minister and assume all his powers, duties and functions regarding the purchase of supplies for the whole defence department. By that the functions of the auditor general will be removed. We are encroaching on his powers now. I know of another corporation for which S300.000 was voted. The other day I asked as to the way this grant was spent, as the Minister of Public Works said it was a statutory one. We could not get any information. I wanted them to give the house the particulars of this expenditure. The responsible minister of the crown, the Minister of Public Works, told me that it is statutory now, that they have no control over that, and:' he would not give any details. Has the-auditor general any control over this corporation? If the minister is going to purchase for-other departments? I should like to see himi include another department, because as I read the functions of the act, chapter 40 of the statutes of last session, I do not believe the minister needs a bill like this at all to enable him to act for the defence minister in purchases. The corporation now has sufficient powers, without this bill, to buy supplies for these united defence departments. Consequently, if he is going to buy supplies and all that kind of thing, or otherwise produce them, and construct or carry out projects, I should like to see him act for another department. The minister has a valuable group of officials listed in his trade and commerce booklet every month. You can see the good
Canadian

Commercial Corporation Act
work they are doing all over the world on the seven seas. I should like to see him act for another department. When coal and houses are bought and transported all over the seven .seas for certain officials of another department, external affairs, there is duplication. If this corporation is to be successful, it must not duplicate the work of another department. The minister in charge of the Department of Trade and Commerce now has commercial agents on the seven seas as foreign agents. You ought to see the list of them in the minister's monthly booklet; they are doing the very work which these useless ambassadors are doing in another department, all over the seven seas, there is duplication and waste. They are not necessary at all. If the minister would include them as well, I would not mind supporting him. But under the present principle parliament, by passing this amendment, will be absolutely removing purchases from the control of this parliament. The minister will not be responsible now, because he has divested himself of his ministry and is moving his responsibilities over to a crown corporation which can snap its fingers at parliament and say: we are statutory now; we 4o not need to have your consent or advice at all. One department which should be abolished is the department I referred to, external affairs, when we already have commercial and many other agents in these foreign countries who do most or all of the work overseas; yet houses and supplies, including coal, are being sent over to them by the Department of (External Affairs.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, the explanatory note to this bill states that the purpose of it is to enable the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) to utilize the services of the corporation-that is, the Canadian Commercial Corporation-in making purchases for the Department of National Defence. The members of the official opposition are firmly convinced that this is an unwise step. This afternoon I intend to try to convince hon. members in all of the other parties in this house that such is the case, and to ask that the government withdraw this bill and give further consideration to the whole question. I notice that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) shakes his head.


Mr. ABBOTT:: I am anxious to save money.


Howard Charles Green: I hope that he is not yet the whole government. If he cannot be convinced, I will work on the others. I shall try to convince hon. members who have more open minds.
JMr. Church.]


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is a pretty easy gibe.


Howard Charles Green: In order to see just what this bill means, we must first consider what the Canadian Commercial Corporation itself is. It was set up last year as a crown company for definite purposes. Those purposes will be found in section 4 of the act, chapter 40 of last year's statutes, and read as follows:
4. (1) The corporation is established for the following purposes:
(a)	to assist-
And I emphasize that word "assist".
-in the development of trade between Canada and other nations, and
(b)	to assist-
Again that word is used.
-persons in Canada
(i) to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada; and
([DOT]ii) to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.
In other words, the primary purpose for which that corporation was set up was to assist private firms to develop import and export trade. The Minister of Trade and Commerce himself explained that last year on July 5. I am now quoting from page 3192 of Hansard, where he said:
In general, the corporation acts only as an agent and does not of itself initiate purchases in Canada.
By the way, if I am incorrect in any of my statements as I proceed, I shall be glad to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce correct me. Then, as the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher) clearly pointed out in his speech, the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act provided that the corporation was to continue in existence for only a limited period of time. It is a temporary corporation. It expires in 1949.
Now for the first time this crown company is given the job of buying, manufacturing, producing and constructing goods and projects for the Department of National Defence. The section reads:
The corporation may, as directed by the minister, exercise and perform on behalf of the minister, the power, duty and function vested in the minister to buy or otherwise acquire and manufacture or otherwise produce munitions of war or supplies for, and to construct or carry out projects required by, the Department of National Defence.
The latter power would of course include the construction of forts and other defence projects.
I would point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that these new functions are of the utmost importance. Many members of this house were here

Canadian, Commercial Corporation Act
before the war and they will remember, and the. Minister of Veterans Affairs I am sure will remember, that we had a great deal of discussion both in this house and in the public accounts committee concerning the manufacture of weapons in Canada, particularly the manufacture of the Bren gun. During the session of 1939 there was no subject of greater importance than this question of producing weapons of war. One of the main points stressed then was that there must be the closest cooperation between the defence department and industry if we were to be able to manufacture in Canada up-to-date weapons of war.
As a result of all this controversy, action was taken by the present government, in that in 1939 they brought in a statute, chapter 42 of that year, setting up what was known as the defence purchasing board. That act is described as an act to establish a defence purchasing board to control the awarding of contracts for the manufacture of defence equipment and the construction of defence projects, to limit costs-my hon. friends of the C.C.F. will remember the stand they took on the question of limiting costs-and control profits in respect of such contracts, and to authorize the raising by way of loans of certain sums of money for such purposes.
By the way, this defence purchasing board was not a crown company; it was merely a board set up under two departments, the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance. As I read the act, and as I recall the discussion, the underlying plan was that there should be a joint control by the Department of National Defence and the Department of Finance. The first mentioned department had the responsibility of getting modern equipment, and the Department of Finance had the responsibility of seeing that that equipment was purchased at a proper price, and checking on the expenditures. It was called the Defence Purchases Profits Control and Financing Act. That act should be carefully considered, and I am going to mention some of its provisions.
For example, the chairman of the board was made ex-officio a member of the defence council of the Department of National Defence, and of course there is no provision in the bill now before us that even remotely resembles that provision. Then the board was given various powers, and it is interesting to' read some of them. For example, this defence purchasing board was given the power to inquire into the requirements, whether actual or anticipated, of the Department of National Defence for defence equipment or for defence projects, the specifications thereof and the
reasons therefor; also to inquire into the quantities of defence equipment already in the possession of the government or contracted for but not yet delivered.
There was power, further, to cooperate with the Minister of National Defence in surveying industrial plants which might have facilities for providing defence equipment required by the department, and that was the most important function because it enabled this board to keep in touch with industry and to make certain that there were industries in a position to manufacture weapons of war. Further, there was the power to prepare and keep up to date lists of sources of supply for defence equipment. They were given free access at all times to all relevant records, documents and papers of the Department of National Defence. They were given the power to require any officer or employee of the Department of National Defence to furnish the board any information he might have with regard to any of the matters falling within the scope of the duties of the board.
This defence purchasing board was given very wide powers, and provision was made in the act to limit profits. As I remember, there was a limitation of five per cent on profits. All these details were carefully placed in this act which set up the defence purchasing board. That was in 1939 and the act was proclaimed on July 14, 1939. A few weeks after that the Germans struck and Canada went to war. In the fall of 1939, at the short session, an act was brought in, chapter 3 of that session, setting, up the Department of Munitions and Supply, which took over the powers of the defence purchasing board. There were further amendments from time to time giving the Department of Munitions and Supply additional powers. For example, in 1940, chapter 31 of that session, we find this provision in section 7:
The minister,-
That is, the Minister of Munitions and Supply.
The minister, exclusively,-
That, is a very strong word to use in an act of this kind.
-may buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce, munitions of war or supplies and construct or carry out defence projects required by the Department of National Defence.
There are exceptions, but very wide power was given the Department of Munitions and Supply, and I would point out that this was the main job of the Department of Munitions and Supply throughout the war. It was set up for that very purpose, to procure weapons and
4956	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
supplies needed by the forces. Then in 1944 am act was passed setting up the Department of Reconstruction, and in 1945 another act was passedi, chapter 16 of that year, setting up the Department of Reconstruction and Supply and providing for that new department to take all powers of the Department of Munitions and Supply.
Now we have come to the time apparently where the Department of Reconstruction and Supply is folding up. The minister is shedding powers right and left.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Shedding staff too.


Howard Charles Green: That is a very good thing.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Very good purchasing staffs, too.


Howard Charles Green: He should have done it long since. He is shedding powers, although he is not shedding some powers that really do not belong to him', such as control of aviation in Canada. However, he is, as I say, shedding powers, and one of those powers is the power to purchase defence supplies.


Douglas Charles Abbott: He has transferred the staff to another department.


Howard Charles Green: He has given up the power, turned it over to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I repeat, that power is being transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and only indirectly at that. It is going to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, more or less remotely under the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We find that provision made in this bill by one broad, sweeping section. I would remind hon. members that when the defence purchasing board was set up full details of its powers were given, and the whole plan was carefully worked out. Now we have this one sweeping section which says, in effect, to the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon): "Here is your baby; look after it". I doubt very much whether he is happy about having that baby, but in any event there it is, on his lap.
In effect these powers are given to one man, to Mr. W. D. Low, who may be the finest business man in the country; but in effect all those powers which were fought over and discussed in the house in 1939 for so long are now given to the managing director of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. This is a corporation composed of deputy ministers and senior civil servants, who have dozens of other jobs to do-and also Mr. Low who, in effect, is the whole corporation. So that really this is to be a one-man show. We think that is not proper. We think the job of equipping
[Mr. Green.1
the Canadian forces and of building defence projects in Canada is far too important to be turned over to one man.
There are many reasons why this method is questionable. First of all, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Canadian Commercial Corporation have other work to do. This work is not in their line. As I said, the corporation is of a temporary nature; it is to go out of existence in another two years. The Department of Trade and Commerce is not a defence-minded department, and the minister of that department has a full-time job as it is. His job is to promote the import and export trade of Canada. He has done a great deal of work on that job, and deserves credit for his efforts. That is his job, and this new job he is now given is entirely out of line with the work of the department. On the other hand the Department of Munitions and Supply was a wartime department, and their chief job was to buy munitions of war.
We are afraid the new plan will be ineffective in keeping the Canadian forces equipped. The Department of National Defence has, or should have, the direct responsibility for equipping our forces; that is probably its main function at the present time, namely to see that the forces of Canada have the best equipment and to see that across Canada there are factories available which could turn quickly to the manufacture of weapons of war, should they be required.
The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) has emphasized repeatedly, both in the house and outside, the importance of keeping up to date and of having the best equipment. It is his department's responsibility to set up and to control that machinery. It cannot get out of that responsibility by passing the job along to the Department of Trade and Commerce.
I would ask the Minister of National Defence to explain why he is not using the defence purchasing board. Why is he not making use of the statute enacted in 1939? No doubt it would need amendments, but surely it could be used for this purpose. Then we would have the Department of National Defence directly responsible for the country's getting equipment and the Department of Finance would have the responsibility of seeing that there was no waste in connection with the purchases. If the government will not do that, why not have this crown company under the Department of National Defence rather than under the Department of Trade and Commerce?

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
Then, where does Canadian Arsenals Limited fit into this picture? There we have a government company manufacturing certain weapons of war; where does it fit in? Is it to be under the Department of Trade and Commerce too, or is it to be under National Defence?
I asked this question of the Minister of National Defence on February 17, and his reply is found at page 524 of Hansard as follows:
Possibly Canadian Arsenals will come to defence and some of the other activities such as purchasing will go to trade and cornmerae as well as some part of the inspection.
We would like to know who is to be responsible for Canadian Arsenals.
Another objection is that this new set-up will be ineffective for the construction of military projects. I shall not go into that further because the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) will deal with that phrase of the matter.
The fourth objection is that this is one more instance of using a crown company instead of placing the responsibility directly on the department. The hon. member for Carleton has already dealt with the question of the wisdom of using a crown company. We are much concerned over the trend of the.govern-ment towards the use of crown companies. It looks like such a simple scheme, just to set up a company and let it do your work. All the time the company -will get farther and farther away from the control of parliament, farther and farther away from control by the Canadian people.


Gordon Graydon: Let George do it.


Howard Charles Green: Some day this practice must be stopped, and We believe it should be stopped right away. We say this procedure of setting up crown companies should be stopped immediately.
These are the reasons I place before the house for asking that the government withdraw the bill and give further consideration to the whole policy. The necessity for equipping our forces, keeping them equipped and establishing proper controls over the manufacture of that equipment is one of the most vital matters facing not only the Canadian parliament but also the people at large.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the advantage of having a central agency for the purchasing of supplies and equipment for the three armed services, provided those purchases are made according to the specifications laid down by the responsible officers of those services, and
provided there is speed in procurement and delivery of these special articles.
It seems to me those essential requirements were met when there was a procurement branch within the Department of National Defence. But the farther that procurement branch is removed from the actual department concerned, the greater is the danger of specifications not being adhered to and of substitutions being made; and inevitable delays must result when instructions are passed from one department to another. If the responsible officers of the department have to make known their requirements to the Minister of National Defence, and if the Minister of National Defence must pass them on to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who in turn would pass them on to this corporation, it is obvious that there must be a considerable period of delay before production can begin of the article required. The farther the central agency is removed from the actual department, the greater the danger of delay, and of specifications not being adhered to.
I am particularly anxious to refer to that part of the bill which deals with the authority granted to the corporation to carry out projects. For a great many years it has been the custom of the various armed services to deal with the Department of Public Works when they require any construction work to be done. If there was a gun emplacement to be built, if barracks were to be constructed or a runway laid down for some R.C.A.F. station, that was turned over to the Department of Public Works and the work was then let out by that department under the proper supervision of the engineers of the department. The engineers of the services were accustomed to working with the engineers of the Department of Public Works, and they had confidence in their decisions.
Sometimes it was not always possible for the Department of Public Works to carry out the project which had been turned over to it, and then opportunities arose where the construction work would be carried out by day labour under the supervision of the engineers of the services. Occasionally the work would be carried out by service personnel under the supervision of their own engineering officers. Opportunities were thus given to the service engineers to gain experience in carrying out various construction work. That might be described as useful training, but in the main this construction work was carried out by the Department of Public Works.
What is intended to be done under this bill? Is this corporation to set up a little public works department to carry out the work required by the Department of National
4958	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
Defence? Is it to undertake all works required by national defence, or is the Department of National Defence to go first of all to public works to see whether they will undertake the construction and, if not, then go to the corporation to see whether they will? Do they intend, as it were, to call for tenders to see whether public works or the corporation can do it more cheaply, more quickly and more efficiently? Are they going to try to hawk the job they want to have done between the Department of Public Works and the corporation? To use the term frequently used in the services, it seems to me that they will be given a merry run-around in trying to get done the work they want done.
If this corporation is going to set up a special engineering department of its own, then I suggest that the Minister of Finance will not achieve his object of saving money. It is inevitable that there will be duplication in setting up a new branch to carry on construction work for the Department of National Defence only instead of taking full advantage of the facilities of the Department of Public Works. It is beyond my comprehension to see the advantages of having construction work done by this corporation.
There is just one other point I should like to refer to. Are men who have been overseas to have the advantages of veterans' preference? Are the veterans of this war to receive the same preference from this corporation that they receive from the civil service? How many of the personnel now on the strength of the corporation are returned men, have had actual experience in any of the three services? As I say, I cannot see any advantage at all in placing construction work under this corporation.


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, as one
charged with the responsibility for defence I think I should say something in reply to the observations made by hon. members of the official opposition. My only interest in this bill is that it helps in the defence of Canada. Were I to feel otherwise, I would certainly not support it. The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the procurement of supplies and equipment for the armed forces.
I would point out to my hon. friends that the bill follows directly along the lines of our wartime experience. It does not seek to set up a new technique or method for dealing with procurement. It results from the fact that during the war we developed, in the Department of Munitions and Supply, one of the best methods of procurement of any country fighting on our side. Rather than go back to what we had before the war, and [Mr. Pearkea.l
which had to be replaced, we thought we would try to keep the principle of the Department of Munitions and Supply and see if we could not secure in peace time something of the great efficiency and economy of effort and concentration of purpose that that department was able to secure in war time.
With that end in view it was felt that it would be exceedingly unwise and improvident for the government of Canada to dissipate the purchasing apparatus of the Department of Munitions and Supply once the war was over. With the creation of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply the purchasing personnel, the "know-how", to use their term, which they had acquired during the war and all their records and files were transferred to that department. As the period of reconstruction ends we have sought to create an agency which would do just that job and which would continue to have in close association with the government and with the services of Canada the same people who had done the work so well.
The Canadian Commercial Corporation was created, not only for the purposes of purchasing for the Department of National Defence, but for the other purposes that parliament or the government might provide for it.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a question?


Brooke Claxton: I think I ought to be allowed to finish. We are not in committee at the moment.


Howard Charles Green: I just wish to ask a short question. The minister said that Canadian Commercial Corporation was created for the purpose of purchasing defence supplies.


Brooke Claxton: If the hon. member was listening he must have heard that I went on and said as well it was created with that intention as well as to do other work for which it was created. It may not have been made known when the corporation was set up by statute that that purpose was envisaged, because we had not reached that stage in the process of reconstruction; but that purpose was in mind at the time the corporation was set up.


Mr. FRASER:: Why was not parliament told?


Brooke Claxton: Because the time had not come for parliament to be told.


George Russell Boucher: Why was it to expire in 1949?


Brooke Claxton: The hon. member will appreciate that during the period since 1946 there have been a great number of develop-

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
ments and changes, and I think it must have been apparent to any hon. member that either defence purchasing would return to the Department of National Defence or else it would be handled by some continuing agency of the government. The government's view throughout was that it should be handled by a separate agency, and the Canadian Commercial Corporation was envisaged as such an agency. That is what I meant when I said it was created having that in mind', though the immediate object for which it was set up was different.
Let me take up some of the points made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green). He said that this would be a one-man show and objected to it on that score. Well, if defence purchasing were put under a branch of the Department of National Defence, as has been suggested by speakers opposite, I suggest it would still be a one-man show, and the one man would be either the head of the branch or the minister concerned. There is no escaping from the fact that ultimately responsibility under our parliamentary system must be taken by one man.
The hon. member suggested a board. I think it has been found by experience that a board is frequently not the most efficient, economic and speedy means of doing administrative and executive work. Our experience is that it is often better to do it either directly in a government department or to have it done by a crown company.
The hon. member says this is not a wartime show. It is not a wartime show because it is not war time, but this carries into peace time in the person of Mr. W. D. Low and] other senior officials the experience and the knowledge and the files and the contacts with industry throughout the country which the Department of Munitions and Supply built up over six years.
The hon. member said that this was not a defence-minded department and that it was not responsible for defence, and the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) made somewhat similar observations. The Canadian Commercial Corporation is intended to be a purchasing agency. Jt does not design munitions of war or equipment. Those designs are worked out in the department of defence, or under its authority, but, the design having been arrived at, the Canadian Commercial Corporation is to be asked to obtain tenders and place a contract. The corporation is a purchasing agency and the matter would be handled in that way because it is considered to be desirable that there should be a civilian agency of government having
continuous contact with civilian suppliers and manufacturers of munitions of war. As I pointed out, these are exactly the same people who had this continuous association through the Department of Munitions and Supply with the suppliers of munitions during the war.


John George Diefenbaker: If the minister will allow a question just for the purpose of getting information, is this new plan as covered by the amendment, section 17, to be a continuing one, and has it been determined by the government that, this is the proper way of performing in the future the functions covered by the section?


Brooke Claxton: Of course. That is the very purpose of the bill, for two years, and then the whole matter will be reviewed.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh!


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Two years is just the thin end of the wedge.


Brooke Claxton: My hon. friend seems to regard it as curious that it should be put before parliament again after a period of two years, but that is done expressly for the purpose of ensuring that there shall be a review of the situation at the end of two years. I think my hon. friend is one of those who rather likes to have parliament have a say in these matters.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, and I do not like boards.


Brooke Claxton: As far as we can see, this is the most desirable way of doing this purchasing in the light of our wartime experience. If two years from now it is found that it is not the most desirable way, we shall K: quite prepared to change it.
As I was saying, the function of the corporation is not to design equipment, it is not to fix specifications; it is to place orders, and it is considered desirable that that should be done outside the Department of National Defence, because our belief is that the Department of National Defence should be primarily engaged with defence matters and not directly charged with questions of purchase and in some respects, inspection, industrial organization and the like, although I shall have a word to say further on that point.
The hon. member asked what was the position of Canadian Arsenals Limited. Canadian Arsenals Limited is at present under the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, and the minister through whom the company will report to parliament has not yet been finally decided upon, though obviously it will be either the Minister of Trade and Commerce
4860	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
or the Minister of National Defence. The company is in active life and it will carry on in the production and development of various types of munitions.
The hon. member for Nanaimo asked what this corporation had to do with construction, and why that should not be handled by the Department of Public Works. It happens that the greatest amount of construction being undertaken by the Department of National Defence at the present time is that of married quarters and the conversion of married quarters. When a job has to be done, the plans and specifications for it and the orders for it will be given to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which, if it can get a contractor to undertake the job on suitable terms, places the contract. In a great number of cases it is not possible to get contractors and the work has been done directly by the Department of National Defence itself. These are major projects involving hundreds of dwelling units, and they are similar in magnitude to the kind of work that was done in that respect by the Department of Munitions and Supply during the war.


George Randolph Pearkes: This is to be another housing project?


Brooke Claxton: This is a very large housing project involving the conversion or construction of some hundreds of dwelling units this year. At the present time the defence forces are endeavouring to convert every surplus barrack or hut that can be converted into married quarters.
I should point out that in consequence of the developments that have been referred to, the contracts branch of the Department of National Defence has ceased to have anything whatever to do with purchasing. If the plan proposed by the present bill were not given effect to, it would be necessary to reconstitute in the Department of National Defence an identical structure for the same purposes.


George Russell Boucher: Take back what you had before.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And employ hundreds more civil servants.


Brooke Claxton: Audi employ a great many more people. The Canadian Commercial Corporation has exactly nine people on its staff who are the last survivors of those who were transferred from the contracts branch of the Department of National Defence, so that if the Canadian Commercial Corporation were not used, for the purpose it would be necessary for the Department of National Defence to recreate that, branch, to employ some hundreds

of employees at the very moment when my hon. friends opposite are pressing for deductions in the civil service.


Howard Charles Green: Why don 't you take the nine into your own department?


Douglas Charles Abbott: That would make ninety or
so.


George Russell Boucher: What did the minister do with the others who were there?


Gordon Knapman Fraser: There were 120 in the corporation in April.


Brooke Claxton: There would be presumably about that number in the Department of National Defence if we were not getting the Canadian Commercial Corporation to dio that job, with a straight duplication of functions and of personnel, the kind of thing that this government has been trying to avoid.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Oh, oh.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Hear, hear. All we get opposite are suggestions for increasing.


Brooke Claxton: The kind of thing, which I may say, the Department of National Defence has been rather successful in doing. Because of the reduction-


Gordon Graydon: Who says that?


Brooke Claxton: I say it, and 1 am proud of it.


Gordon Graydon: You are proud of almost anything.


Brooke Claxton: We reduced the number of personnel in December 1946 from some 33..000 to -something in the neighbourhood, of 19,000 by the end of the fiscal year, a reduction of some 37 per cent, which is a substantial one. That kind of reduction cannot, be made-


George Russell Boucher: Will the minister permit a question?


Brooke Claxton: Mr. Speaker, we are not in committee. I ask my hon. friends to allow me to finish. I do not often interrupt them.
Hon. members opposite ask, why not do this in the Department of National Defence? I think the answer it that in this eountiy, as in the United Kingdom, we found it desirable, from our wartime experience, to concentrate the functions of the Department of National Defence as far as we could to those related primarily to the planning, training and operations for defence purposes, and that as far as possible the civilian functions associated with defence or resulting from defence activities should be done by some other agency of the government. In our belief this

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
is the desirable course so as to secure the benefit of specialization of function, and of ensuring that as far as possible the men in the defence department have to do with defence. I might point out that in the United Kingdom they are continuing the handling of all defence purchasing for all three services by the department of supply which is being continued. That is not considered desirable here because the volume of defence purchasing for our country of twelve million people is ordinarily not sufficiently great in peace time to warrant a separate department; but it is considered desirable that it should be handled by a department of the government , separate from that of defence.
I should like to point out that in connection with the whole matter of procurement of all defence equipment there are a number of different things to be considered. First of all is standardization; second, industrial organization; third, inspection; and fourth, purchasing. All these matters are closely associated; all these matters are of concern to industry and to those who supply materials of defence as well as to the defence department.
Standardization, for example, is very much more a matter of keen concern to industry in its civilian capacity than in its capacity to make munitions of war; but we as a defence department are interested in it from both points of view. Our view is that these four aspects of the whole process of procurement can be handled far more effectively if they are under a civilian department and if they are handled in conjunction one with another. Consequently plans are being examined to see if these activities cannot largely be concentrated in the Department of Trade and Commerce as the successor to the Department of Reconstruction and Supply.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is this to be said. Canadian industry itself has become accustomed to dealing with the Department of Reconstruction and Supply, successor to the Department of Munitions and Supply, and our view was that industry would be more accustomed to dealing with the people with which it had been dealing throughout the war if these people were put in close association together, and that was accomplished in the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I think it is fair to say that my hon. friends opposite have not and cannot point to any single respect in which this practice, which has already been in effect for some time, has failed to work effectively. They are expressing fears and apprehensions, but we have now almost half a year's experience of the way in which it is working, and we find that
it is working satisfactorily. We have had that experience, and based on that have put forward this measure with the thought that it represents a substantial advance on the methods of procurement followed before the war, and it is a logical and natural consequence of our war experience.


George Randolph Pearkes: Will the minister permit one question? Can he explain whether this corporation is going to do all the construction work in the future, or whether some will be done through the Department of Public Works and some through this corporation? He did not make it clear to me just the relationship between this corporation and the Department of Public Works and the Department of National Defence.


Brooke Claxton: If an outside contract is to be placed for construction to be done for the Department of National Defence, it would be placed through the Canadian Commercial Corporation.


George Randolph Pearkes: Not through public works?


Brooke Claxton: That is right.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: Will this be a new department altogether, the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What else will it be?


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Order. May
I remind hon. members that, we are not in committee.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We shall be shortly, I hope.


John George Diefenbaker: I listened with interest to the remarks of the minister in his defence of this extraordinary proceeding of placing in a corporation set up for an entirely different purpose the power, duty and function to buy or otherwise acquire and manufacture munitions of war or supplies for, and to construct or carry out projects required by, the Department of National Defence. As a matter of fact in the concluding words of his speech the minister indicated that he found inefficiency in his own department in the doing of this work, and that the experience of the last few months had convinced him that the work would be done much more efficiently by a corporation such as the Canadian Commercial Corporation.
I would point, out that the purposes for which the corporation was established in no way comprised any of the functions now being allotted to it. I presume that section 4 will have to be amended before section 17 can
4962	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
be added, because section 4 states that the corporation is established for the following purposes:
(a)	to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations, and
(b)	to assist persons in Canada
(1)	to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada; and
(ii) to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.
As far as powers are concerned, they in no way comprise within their ambit the powers asked. There is a subsection regarding directions which reads as follows;
(2)	The corporation shall comply with any general or special direction given by the governor in council or the minister with reference to carrying out its purposes.
I suggest to the minister first that until section 4. dealing with purposes, is amended, section 17 has no application whatever to this particular act; for certainly none of the purposes set. out in section 17 have to do with the development of trade between Canada and other nations, or with the assisting of persons in Canada to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada or to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That power is vested in the minister.


Brooke Claxton: May I clear up that point? Perhaps I did not make myself clear, because I was not expecting this debate to come on at this time; I was actually before the Newfoundland conference. My recollection is that the powers with regard to purchasing and the like for the defence department, which were exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, were transferred by order in council under the Transfer of Duties Act-which was put before parliament and dealt with in a previous debate-to the Minister of Trade and Commerce; and he has used the facilities, the employees, of the corporation to do this job as his agent. It has not involved any activities as a corporation. It has been carried on in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, Mr. Speaker, if it has been carried on in that way, it has been carried on unlawfully.


Brooke Claxton: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Because the corporation can only receive a general or special direction from the governor in council or the minister with reference to the carrying out of its purposes, to quote section 4, subsection (2). This procedure indicates once more, sir, what we have so often said, namely, that this government still has the power complex

which it had during the days of the war and the tendency by order in council to do things which are contrary to the law.


Brooke Claxton: It could have been left with reconstruction and supply. 1
Mr. DIEFENBAKER; My hon. friend is now wanting to make a third speech. I allowed him to make a second one. But I suggest that section 4 be submitted to the law officers, and I have no doubt what the opinion of the law officers will be. They will say it will have to be amended if the present amendment is to be accepted by this house.
There is one other matter with which I wish to deal, and it was dealt with generally by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Boucher)!; I refer to the result which will follow should this power be granted as requested by the minister. Section 6 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act sets out as follows;
(1)	The corporation may, notwithstanding the Civil Service Act or any other statute or law, employ such officers or servants as it deems necessary to carry out this act and may determine their conditions of employment and their remuneration which shall be paid by the corporation.
(2)	The corporation has, under the minister, the control and supervision of the officers and servants employed under this act.
I suggest that to make such a provision as this, using the corporation for purposes which were never anticipated, is just another means on the part of this government to circumvent the civil service commission. That has been going on. The minister pointed out the reductions in staff, of the Department of National Defence during the past two years. With the end of the war there would naturally be a reduction in staff. He ascribes that reduction, however, not to the ending of the war but to direct action on the part of his department. Actually there is direct action on the part of this government to get around the operation of the civil service commission. The minister speaks of reduction in staff. I wish to point out that during the past two years- between May 9, 1945 and April 30, 1947- 72,500 have been appointed to civil service positions in this country, outside of crown corporations, a large number of these being replacements.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Has the hon. member the figures as to how many have left the service?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, the figures are here.


Douglas Charles Abbott: What are they?


John George Diefenbaker: They give the picture.

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act


Douglas Charles Abbott: How many have left the service?


John George Diefenbaker: My hon. friend will be able to give that.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I thought the hon. member might give the whole story while he was at it.


John George Diefenbaker: I am telling the story; it reveals that in the past two years, by means such as are being applied-by placing the purchase of munitions and the building of housing and the like under the Canadian Commercial Corporation-a deliberate effort is being made to get around the provisions of the Civil Service Act.


Douglas Charles Abbott: That is nonsense.


John George Diefenbaker: Recently I asked how many appointments had been made to the civil service during the two years I have mentioned-May, 1945, to April, 1947. I have given the approximate figure. I asked also how many such appointees had passed a civil service examination prior to having been taken in or appointed. The answer given was, not how many had passed, but that all those appointed by the civil service commission were subject to an examination, by the civil service commission. I would point out that under a provision such as this, in setting up corporations, the veterans' preference can be evaded. It can be circumvented. Of the 72,500 appointments, many of them replacements, as I have stated, made during the past two years, in 31.063 cases there was no entitlement under the veterans' preference for service in either war. I also point out that of the 31,063, only 11,094 were male.
The minister, when asked a question as to what degree of permanence this amendment was designed to cover, indicated that it is merely temporary.


Douglas Charles Abbott: It is purely enabling.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that
answer?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I said, it is purely enabling.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, enablingenabling the government to do one of the things I have pointed out, to get around the civil service commission for a period of two years in so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned. I suggest to the minister that the amendment indicates that very little thought was given to the subject. The matter of the purchase of munitions and the like had to be put somewhere, and they had a corporation that had the power to spend up to $10,000,000 out of the unappropriated moneys of Canada. They had a corporation,
I say. It was never expected to be used for this purpose, and it was decided, "Oh, here is an opportunity to place it under an act totally unfitted to administer it, without the qualifications, so far as powers are concerned, placed in the act because of the fact that the government did not wish to set up the same men, if you will, with that power, who today constitute the Canadian Commercial Corporation."
I submit, sir, that the house is entitled to fuller information than it has received up to the present time. When somebody asked the minister a question as to when this had been decided upon, whether it was decided when the act was originally passed, the answer was to the effect that it was not the occasion then to tell parliament. In other words, when the Canadian Commercial Corporation was set up, apparently it was intended to bring under it the purchase of munitions. But, to use the words of the Minister of National Defence- words to this effect-it was not considered appropriate at that time to inform the house as to the position of affairs.


Douglas Charles Abbott: I was Minister of National Defence at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: There has been such a continual shuffling over there that it shows a high degree of memory on the part of the minister-


Douglas Charles Abbott: A high degree of efficiency.


John George Diefenbaker: -that, after shifting around so much, he can recall that fact. After so much shifting around, it is a tribute to the abilities in that direction of hon. gentlemen opposite that they can recall what office they held at a particular time. I would like to have the Minister of Trade and Commerce comment upon this matter when he speaks. Why is it necessary to have appointments made which are not within the ambit of the civil service commission?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong the debate, but I do want to say a word because the matter of defence purchasing arose during my tenure of office as Minister of National Defence. While I was in that portfolio the permanent officers pointed out to me that unless some means were found of perpetuating the system which had been followed during the war it would be necessary to recreate a complete purchasing section of the Department of National Defence. In the meantime the personnel had been dissipated, a good many of them had been dispersed, a good many in the Department' of Munitions and Supply, and it would be a very difficult task to reconstitute that department. I came to the

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
conclusion that it would not only be difficult but would, be extremely inefficient, and it seemed to me that if it were possible, the system followed during the war should be continued, of a separate government agency to handle defence purchasing.
No one can tell me that the purchasing of supplies, food, screenings, textiles and the thousand and one things that go into the supplying of the armed forces, has to be done in the Department of National Defence. It is essentially a commercial business operation. That organization existed under munitions and supply.


John George Diefenbaker: What about the building of projects?


Douglas Charles Abbott: As regards the building of projects, as the Minister of National Defence pointed out, if the contract was to be left to an outside contractor during the period of the war, that contract was let through the contracts branch of the Department of Munitions and Supply. We had no contracts branch in the Department of National Defence. If it was to be done by the defence department then its own engineers would do the work. It was felt that some central agency of government other than the Department of National Defence could do defence purchasing. When the Canadian Commercial Corporation was created- a large portion of the personnel of the purchasing branch of munitions and supply was transferred to that department.
So far as I am concerned, I am not now debating the merits or demerits of forming the corporation. That was debated in this house before. But the defence department, faced with the necessity of creating another purchasing branch, of reconstituting a purchasing branch, looked about for an agency of government which could do that purchasing for it. The Canadian Commercial Corporation, under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, had a ready-made agency to do the work, and in my view that was the place to turn to. If the Canadian Commercial Corporation is wound up at the end of another two years, when its charter powers lapse, it may be that a purchasing branch will have to be created under the Minister of Trade and Commerce or some other minister to handle purchasing. But in the meantime we have an efficient existing agency which can do this defence purchasing, and it seemed to me that it was very much the course of common sense to allow it. to do the work. That was the purpose of this bill.


Howard Charles Green: May I ask the minister a
question?


Douglas Charles Abbott: Yes.


Howard Charles Green: Does the Canadian Commercial Corporation do any purchasing other than defence purchasing?


Douglas Charles Abbott: I am afraid I cannot answer that. May I add that as Minister of National Defence I did not care what agency did the purchasing so long as it was done efficiently. I looked around my colleagues and this agency was in existence under the direction of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and there was no other available agency. The alternative was to allow that agency, which was there in existence and efficient, to do the purchasing, or to create a completely duplicating agency in the national defence department. To me that was rubbish, sheer rubbish.


Mr. C. C. I. MERRITT (Vaneouver-Bur-rard):: The minister has put his finger on what is wrong with this bill. He said he looked around and did not care who did it so long as it was done efficiently.


Douglas Charles Abbott: Right.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: I think the government has treated this whole matter in that light. They did not care who did it as long as, in their opinion, it was done efficiently. In this debate already -we have had discussed the temporary character of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the effect of this practice upon the continuation of our civil service as we know it, and we have had the suitability of this corporation to conduct building as well as purchasing operations thoroughly discussed. I am not going to detain the house except to make one quite short point.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) has just said that he had to look around for some department of government to take over the duties in this connection performed during the war by the Department of Munitions and Supply. One of the chief troubles here is that he had not found another department of government, but rather a crown company, the Canadian Commercial Corporation, to do what was done heretofore by the department, and to do building which heretofore had been done by the Department of Public Works, and more recently by Wartime Housing Limited, and other agencies of the kind.
I find that most striking results flow from the use of this corporation. I hold in my hand the debates of the last session of parliament, particularly those of August 5, 1946, where the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon) was being asked questions with respect to section 11 of this act. At

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
page 4335 of Hansard, when explaining why he required certain powers set out in the section, he said:
I shall endeavour to give a layman's explanation, from information given to me. I believe this additional authority is required to enable the officers of the company to engage and to dismiss staff; and further, they are given the power to purchase other than by tender, which may not be according to legislation governing government purchases.
Later, at page 4336 he said:
One of the things that comes to mind is the procedure in connection with tendering and entering into of contracts.
At that time he was referring to changes from normal procedure of government. I suggest this is a good example of lack of care taken by the government in devising this legislation and in making a decision as to what was to be done. If a principle like that is to continue, we may be going some way not only toward the breaking down of the civil service, with respect to which much has been said, but also toward the breaking down of a very important principle in the letting of government contracts, namely, the calling of public tenders.
I have looked into the record of the debate which took place in 1939 when 'the defence purchasing board was set up. At page 1764 of the debates for 1939 I find that the then Minister of National Defence, the present Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) was at some pains to praise the government, himself and his bill for the care which had been taken to insist upon the calling of tenders in connection with purchasing. I read this from his speech, as it is reported at the top of the second column on the page to which I have referred:
The bill lays down as a cardinal principle that where competitive bidding is practicable there shall be competitive bidding by advertisement in the public press. The bill also lays down that as far as possible the purchases shall be made in the dominion of Canada. If it is considered necessary to purchase outside of Canada the board must report to the government, giving its reason therefor. If, after competitive bidding, the board deems it not in the public interest to award the contract to the lowest bidder, the act requires that it shall report to council giving its reason therefor.
Several pages were taken up giving statistics as to the number of contracts let by the minister by public tender in the years before the war.
When one puts alongside each other the policies of the government in 1939 and those in 1947 with respect to the letting of contracts for defence purchases and for building, he can see the direction in which we are travelling;
and that direction apparently' is not limited alone to the setting up of a new civil service procedure, but also relates to other equally important ways of conducting public business.
When I now hear that this corporation is going to build or reconvert barracks for the housing of families in the service, and when I remember that one of the express purposes of the act is to get away from the necessity of calling for tenders, I cannot help thinking of the experience we have had under the Veterans Land Act and the excessive costs which have been occasioned in the conduct of that scheme by the government. I cannot help thinking that it would be sound practice to get back to the system of public tenders, which the government liked so very much in 1939, and that we ought to adhere to that system.


William Ross Macdonald: When the minister speaks he will close the debate.


James Angus MacKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I have
listened carefully to comments respecting this legislation from all parts of the house, but possibly more carefully to the criticism from the official opposition.
As Minister of Trade and Commerce I have been administering this act for about six months, and if I have understood correctly the criticism offered this afternoon against this legislation I must say it describes an act which I could not recognize.
I can assure the house that the Canadian Commercial Corporation has been functioning actively, not under the remote control, but under the direct control of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and that it has been operating efficiently; indeed so much so that I believe there is no one in the house who can say there has been one scintilla of criticism against anv -f *he actions of the corporation, due largely to its capable personnel headed by Mr. Low. and the close contact which the deputy minister of trade and commerce and I have kept with the work of the organization.
I can assure the house that the corporation is not operating as a loose end of government, but rather in a businesslike way and under the direct supervision of the department. My colleagues, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Claxton) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Abbott) have dealt with most of the criticism offered. However I should like briefly to refer to some observations made by hon. members.
The hon. member for Carleten (Mr. Boucher) spoke about the legislation being effective for only two years. I have a distinct recollection of being complimented, when the
4966	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
legislation was placed before the house, upon the fact that we were asking authority for only two years-


Howard Charles Green: That was for a different
purpose.


James Angus MacKinnon: -so that we would
then have to come back to parliament for any extension.


George Russell Boucher: A different company
and a different purpose.


James Angus MacKinnon: This bill provides
for a minor amendment for the purpose of enabling the Minister of Trade and Commerce to use the Canadian Commercial Corporation as an agency for the purchasing of supplies and the execution of works on behalf of the Department of National Defence. This legislation will make possible the efficient and economical purchase of goods and materials and the carrying out of projects required by the Department of National Defence.
Various hon. members expressed concern over the treatment that civil servants would get from the Canadian Commercial Corporation, but I can assure hon. members that in the engagement of staff the veterans preference is observed to the full.


George Russell Boucher: How many veterans are
in the employ of the Canadian Commercial Corporation?


James Angus MacKinnon: Including the staff
taken over from the Minister of Reconstruction, thirty-two per cent of the staff have war service records. The organization wras largely taken over as an effective working branch of the Department of Reconstruction.


Howard Charles Green: What is the total staff?


James Angus MacKinnon: I cannot give those
figures now; I think they could be given more readily when the officials are before me. It was suggested that the Canadian Manufacturers' Association was critical of this legislation, but if it was I have not heard one word of criticism from them-


George Russell Boucher: Not a word was said about them.


James Angus MacKinnon: -or from any other organization having to do with commerce and production. As my colleagues have pointed out, the alternative to this legislation would be a more expensive and cumbersome purchasing organization. This is not a one-man corporation. It is true that Mr. Low, who was employed in a purchasing capacity for one of our great national projects, the Canadian National Railways, has been willing to

head this organization and, because of his public spirit, we are to have the benefit of his great experience. He has in this department built up a staff of experts without any consideration for political patronage or political complexion.


Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt: The minister wants to take everything on trust.


James Angus MacKinnon: The hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) referred to the legislation, and I can assure him that it has received the close attention of the law clerks of the Senate and the House of Commons and has been approved by the Department of Justice.


John George Diefenbaker: Was the point which I raised indicated to them?


James Angus MacKinnon: I did not have the point raised by the hon. member at the time, but the whole legislation was before the department. The statement was made that this legislation constituted a deliberate effort to circumvent the civil service commission. AH I can say is that there is no truth in that. I do not think there would be any objection on the part of the employees or of the department to having the whole organization come under the control of. the civil service commission.


John George Diefenbaker: Repeal that section then.


George Russell Boucher: Why that section in the bill?


James Angus MacKinnon: It was necessary to secure expert employees to do specific work. Even if the whole matter were under the civil service commission, I think the commission would be glad to cooperate in having certain key men selected by those qualified to select such men.


George Russell Boucher: Will the minister delete that section in the bill?


James Angus MacKinnon: No. In his opening remarks the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) said that he considered part of this legislation a means of making possible centralized buying in an economical way. That is to be the effort of the corporation and1 the department.


George Randolph Pearkes: I did not give the same approval to the matter of construction projects that I did to the general purchasing. I understood the Minister of National Defence to say that when work was to be done outside by contract the corporation would let the contract. When the Department of Public Works did that they had a supervisory staff

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
which saw that the work was carried out according to specifications. Is it the intention of the corporation to establish a supervisory staff to supervise work let out by tender in order to see that it is carried out according to specifications, or will they turn that supervisory work over to the Department of Public Works?
Mr. MaoKINNON: That question could better be asked while the officials are before me, but I would think the Canadian Commercial Corporation would have the benefit of the necessary supervisory staff from the Department of National Defence. I believe the corporation could either let a contract through or arrange with the Department of Public Works to do certain projects, or let it to a private company or corporation.


John George Diefenbaker: I again raise for the minister's attention the question as to whether or not it is not necessary that section 4 be amended in order to permit of the powers being tacked on that are provided for in the new section 17. I do not desire to repeat the argument that I advanced before, but I do want the minister to give consideration to the lack of powers contained in section 4, in which are set out the purposes of the Canadian Commercial Corporation. At the expense of reiteration I point out this, and I am just reading the pertinent portions:
The corporation is established for the following purposes:
(a) to assist in the development of trade between Canada and other nations-
4968	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
By no stretch of the imagination does section 17 come within the purview of those words.
-and (b) to assist persons in Canada
(i)	to obtain goods and commodities from outside Canada; and
(ii)	to dispose of goods and commodities that are available for export from Canada.
I point out that section 17 again does not come within those provisions. Someone might suggest that subsection 2 gives that power. Subsection 2 reads:
The corporation shall comply with any general or special direction given by the governor in council or the minister with reference to the carrying out of its purposes.
The only power which the minister has is a direction to the corporation to do those things which come within the limitations set out under the side note of "purposes". Section 5 also might be read:
(1) The corporation may do such things as it deems expedient for, or conducive to, the attainment of the purposes set forth in section four of this act.
Therefore I suggest that that section will have to be amended before the new section 17 can be brought into being, because in no way are the purposes alike, analogous to or cognate with the purposes as set forth originally in the act. I suggest that this matter has not been considered by the law officers. It looks very much as though, having no place at all to go, they decided to do certain things under the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, and sections were added which cannot be read as being within the purview of the purposes for which the act was set up. I suggest once more that the law officers be consulted, not those who are trying to get the powers and not those who might be willing to exercise powers they may have been granted by parliament without parliament having the power to grant them.


James Angus MacKinnon: The powers under which the Minister of Trade and Commerce is acting in connection with- this legislation are those which were given to the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply and transferred from him to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Up to and at the present time the employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation have been acting as agents for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. As I have already said, this legislation has been before the law clerks of both the Senate and the House of Commons, and has been considered by the Department of Justice. I have no doubt they took into account the point to Which reference has been made.


John George Diefenbaker: That still does not meet the point. No doubt they did. But there have been other occasions when the same answer has been given, and when it was later found not to be the fact. I am trying to be helpful, andi I want to find out if we are not being placed in a position of passing an amendment which is inapplicable. As a matter of fact, the minister says he is acting under powers which the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply had and which had been transferred to him; yes, transferred under an order in council, whether the minister hadi power to transfer or not.


James Angus MacKinnon: Under the Transfer of Duties Act.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes, under the Transfer of Duties Act, but that still does not cover this situation. The order in council no doubt covers the situation exactly. Has the minister the order in council? If so, will he read it?	.


James Angus MacKinnon: Does the hon. member wish the whole order in council read? It is not very long.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: I shall leave out the heading. It reads as follows:
Whereas by virtue of the provisions of the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act, 1945, and the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, the power, duty and function to buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce munitions of war or supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence is vested in the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply;
And whereas it is expedient and in the public interest that such power, duty and function should be transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on February 1, 1947;
Therefore His Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, and under and toy virtue of the provisions of the Public Service Rearrangement and Transfer of Duties Act, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that the power, duty and function vested in the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply under the Department of Reconstruction Act, 1945 and the Department of Munitions and Supply Act, to buy or otherwise acquire, manufacture or otherwise produce munitions of war or supplies and construct or carry out projects required by the Department of National Defence be transferred to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on the first day of February, 1947.
His Excellency in Council is further pleased, hereby, to authorize the Minister of Trade and Commerce, for the purpose of carrying out such power, duty and function to make use of the services of the officers and servants of the Canadian Commercial Corporation and to authorize such of the officers of the corporation as he may select to sign documents on his behalf.

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act


Mr. STIRLIXG:: It is quite clear that the order in council empowers the Minister of Trade and Commerce to dio certain things as covered by this bill, but it does not seem, to me that it empowers the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which was set up under an act of 1946, to do certain things; that is, purchase the requirements for the Department of National Defence, when it has not the power under the act to make those purchases. Under the act of 1946 the Canadian Commercial Corporation was not empowered to buy a cedar pencil for any department of government, but this amending bill is purporting to hand to the Canadian Commercial Corporation the duty of purchasing for a specified department.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; as agent or on behalf of the Minister of Trade and
Commerce.


Grote Stirling: Then surely it should be in the purposes of the act setting up the corporation that this is one of the duties the corporation can carry out.


James Angus MacKinnon: Why?


Grote Stirling: Because the act sets out the powers that will devolve upon the Cana.-dian Commercial Corporation.


Brooke Claxton: May I point out that the Canadian Commercial Corporation is not making contracts at all. The contracts are made in the name of the crown acting through the Minister of Trade and Commerce. The Canadian Commercial Corporation includes employees of a crown company who are asked by the minister to call for tenders, and then that machinery is followed. The actual contracts are made by the minister in virtue of the transfer of duties from the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply. Everything is completely, technically and accurately legal, as well as being good sense.


Howard Charles Green: Surely the Transfer of Duties Act does not go so far as to override an express statute. This statute establishing the Canadian Commercial Corporation gave that corporation certain powers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: This adds to them.


Howard Charles Green: But I submit that no order in council can then be passed under the Transfer of Duties Act which gives this corporation, as distinct from the minister, any additional powers.


Brooke Claxton: Not at all.


Howard Charles Green: And I cannot see why the ministers are so determined not to amend this act to give the corporation the power they want it to exercise.


Douglas Charles Abbott: We are really getting
involved in a legal argument here. The position is that the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply, with the approval of the governor in council, has transferred the purchasing functions he formerly had to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. That is something completely separate from this bill, something having nothing to do with this bill. The Minister of Trade and Commerce, as a minister of the crown, has asked that the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act be amended to give the corporation the power to act in his behalf in these purchases. As I say, here is where we get into the legal argument. The hon. member for Lake Centre takes the stand that the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which is an existing statutory company-and I emphasize the iwords "statutory company"- has not the general powers which every statutory company has. This is set up as a separate part of the statute creating the Canadian Commercial Corporation. I am now expressing a legal opinion which may or may not be right, but I believe part II, if enacted, and section 17, which will form part of part II, confers upon the Canadian Commercial Corporation the power to act in the capacity described in the section, no matter what is said in any other section of the act, as long as it does not contradict it. That is a legal opinion, it is true, and it may be wrong; but I think there is a fair presumption that the deputy minister and the officials of the Department of Justice took that into account when they passed upon the bill. As the Minister of Trade and Commerce has said, they do pass upon all these bills. I do not believe my hon. friend's legal point is well taken; but, of course, lawyers are bound to differ. We always do; that is why there are lawsuits, but that is the view I take of the proposed legislation. I think this company has all the powers a statutory company has; in effect pretty nearly all the powers of an actual person, as my hon. friend knows from the long list of cases, from the Bonanza Creek case on down.


Howard Charles Green: I would point out that not only does section 4 set out carefully and in detail the purposes for which the Canadian Commercial Corporation is set up, but that section 5 sets out the powers.


Douglas Charles Abbott: And this adds to the powers.
4970	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act


Howard Charles Green: In subsection 1 you find powers having to do only with export and import trade; nothing there goes any farther than that. Then subsection 2 provides:
The generality of subsection one of this section is not restricted by any provision of this act other than section four thereof.
That throws you back to section 4, which sets out the purposes. What is the objection to putting in a few words, at the end of either section 4 or section 5, making it perfectly clear that the corporation has the power it is now sought to give it? Then the legislation would be clear.


Mr. McMASTER:: I should like one of the ministers to tell the committee who does the buying for the Minister of National Defence at the present time.


Brooke Claxton: The Minister of Trade and Commerce.


William Alexander McMaster: Under what power; and what is the extent of that power?


Brooke Claxton: Under the order in council the Minister of Trade and Commerce just read, under the Transfer of Duties Act.


William Alexander McMaster: Is that the only way they can get that power?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: When the Minister of
National Defence was speaking he said they had under way a very large project in connection with the construction of houses for married men in the service. Will the cost of that project be charged to the defence department?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Or will it be absorbed by the Department of Public Works?


Brooke Claxton: No; defence department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then those costs will appear in the estimates of the defence department, and will come before parliament?


Brooke Claxton: Certainly. Every defence expenditure will be included in the defence estimates and will come before parliament. Every expenditure made through the Canadian Commercial Corporation in behalf of the defence department will come before parliament in the estimates of my department.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That was not the case when the buying was done by the minister of supply; the estimates remained in that department.


Brooke Claxton: There is this difference, which I think my hon. friend will have in

mind, that at that time the war expenditures were not included in the estimates but were covered by a war appropriation bill.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Then I should like to ask where these houses are being built; are they at the different barracks across the country?


Brooke Claxton: I am afraid that is not a question which arises in connection with this bill. I shall be very glad to deal with it later.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: It does to this extent, that we want to find out whether these buildings are being put up by tender, or on a cost-plus basis, or how it is being done.


Brooke Claxton: The purpose of this bill is to enable the Canadian Commercial Corporation to do something which is now being done by the Minister of Trade and Commerce; it is not to vote money for the construction of houses. However I can tell my hon. friend that a great many different projects are under way in the three branches of the armed forces, designed to add to the number of quarters for married personnel. The need of married quarters is probably the greatest single need of the armed forces today. Over the last two years we have been doing a great deal of work, which falls into three categories. The first is the conversion of existing hutments into emergency dwelling units, and that is going on from end to end of the country wherever possible. The second is the conversion of existing buildings into temporary apartments, which cost a great deal more money and last a good deal longer. The third is the construction of newT dwellings. The only place that is being done at the present time, as I remember it, is at Borden, where it is being done by the army itself, not by contract. But we have in course of preparation a considerable number of projects calling for new construction, and just as soon as those are processed a little further we shall ask the Canadian Commercial Corporation to obtain tenders from contractors for the construction of those houses. If they can get contractors to send in tenders on suitable terms, then the contracts will be entered into by the Minister of Trade and Commerce acting for the crown. The money will be provided out of the estimates of the Department of National Defence. The work of inspection, and the like, will be arranged for between the Canadian Commercial Corporation and the Department of National Defence.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The minister said this was not the place to ask it; but this is the only

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
place we can get the information, because it will not be in the estimates of the Department of National Defence this year.


Brooke Claxton: It will be covered by the defence estimates. I shall be ready to give full particulars to the committee when the defence estimates come up, and when I shall have the information available.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But they will not be in the estimates, so far as that goes. And if they are, when we come to them there is a chance they might be passed over.


Brooke Claxton: They will be passed over only if some member of the opposition does not raise the question, because the defence estimates are couched in a form which permits any member to raise any question.


Howard Charles Green: We will remember that.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: But they might be passed over, and I still say they are not included in the estimates.


Brooke Claxton: They are provided for in the estimates. I assure my hon. friend they are provided for in the estimates; and I have said this three times.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I say they are not mentioned in the estimates.


Brooke Claxton: In the form in which the estimates are made up, if my hon. friend will look at item 275.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: They are not in the details.


Brooke Claxton: That item covers everything.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Has the minister given any contracts so far on this?


Brooke Claxton: No.


George Alexander Cruickshank: They cannot get the nails yet.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: If the government cannot get them, nobody else can. Certainly we cannot get them in our district. Will Central Housing be asked to consider building these places?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


Mr. MACDONNELL (Muskoka-Ontario):: I rise not for the purpose of offering a legal opinion, but for the purpose of offering a comment with respect to lawyers. My observation is that the best lawyers are the most ready, if there is a weakness in draftsmanship, to make a correction. I am going back to what was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South, because I suggest earnestly that nobody, however strongly he feels that
the present situation is valid, will suggest that it is the natural way of dealing with this situation. Surely the natural way is to put the powers clearly in section 4.
If I understood correctly the Minister of National Defence, he gave a quite different explanation of the way this was to act from the explanation given by the Minister of Finance; because, if I understood the Minister of National Defence correctly, he suggested that really it was individuals of the Canadian Commercial Corporation as such who were operating under the act.


Brooke Claxton: No, I never suggested that; I am sorry to make this correction. What I did say was that, pending the adoption of this bill, the Minister of Trade and Commerce had exercised functions previously exercised by the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply with regard to purchasing for the defence department, and that he had got officers and employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, acting in their individual and not in their corporate capacity, to do the job of calling for tenders for him.


James MacKerras Macdonnell: However that may be, I still suggest that the involved explanation as to how these powers find themselves entering by the back door in the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act could be entirely avoided if as was suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver South, an additional purpose were inserted in section 4. I think it would save a great deal of trouble in the future and would be the wise thing to do now.


Brooke Claxton: 
John George Diefenbaker: Who considered
that? When was that considered? Is the minister offering that as a serious answer?


Brooke Claxton: Of course, why should I not? It is a most sensible answer. There is nothing whatever in the suggestion that the powers of a corporation should all be gathered in a single section, whether it be section 4 or some other number. It happens, time afteT time, that powers of a corporation are put in
4972	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
various places in a statute. I am sure if we had done it in any other way there would have been far more serious and more far-reaching objections than are being made at the present time. There would have been wide objections.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to know what those wide objections would be. Can the minister suggest what objection could be taken to empowering the corporation under section 4, the section which sets out the powers, to do these things for which he now asks?


Brooke Claxton: I should like to ask my
hon. friend or any other member in the committee what possible advantage' there is in putting the powers in section 4 rather than in section 17. Let me tell him the reason why it is preferable to put them in section 17 rather than in section 4.


John George Diefenbaker: Yes?


Brooke Claxton: In the first place, that
would require the re'enactment, following our practice, of all of section 4. It would require the replacement of the whole article. That is the way it is done. When any word in a paragraph of an article is amended, the whole article is replaced. That would then mean that should this section have to be changed later, and should our experience not be such as it is expected it will be, the whole section would have to be replaced again. Instead of that, because purchasing is a major function of the Canadian Commercial Corporation though by no means the only function, it was considered desirable to put it in a separate part, so that the two main functions of the Canadian Commercial Corporation would each be dealt with in separate parts, could stand on their own feet and could be amended or repealed later as developments might suggest.


William Alexander McMaster: It seems to me that
the draftsmanship leaves something to be desired. I should like to read the section, always bearing in mind that the minister spoken of is the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It states:
The corporation may, as directed by the minister, exercise and perform on behalf of the minister, the power, duty and function vested in the minister to buy or otherwise acquire and manufacture or otherwise produce munitions of war or supplies for, and to construct or carry out projects required by, the Department of National Defence.
The powers given in this act are given to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should think that if supply were voted for any of the projects mentioned, that supply must be voted to the Minister of Trade and
| Mr. C1. ax ton.]
Commerce, not to the Minister of National Defence. The Minister of Trade and Commerce gets his power to do this upon being required so to do by the Minister of National Defence. I agree with what the minister has said about this corporation acting only as an agent, rather than in its own capacity. But surely the Minister of Trade and Commerce must be given power somewhere to do the things he asks his agent to do.


Brooke Claxton: He is given it under
the Department of Reconstruction and Supply Act.


William Alexander McMaster: I understand it is under an order in council?


Brooke Claxton: It is under that act, and still is.


William Alexander McMaster: What is the number of it?


James Angus MacKinnon: It is chapter 16 of
the Statutes of Canada for 1945.


John George Diefenbaker: Now we are getting down to the position where an explanation has been given as to why section 17 has been appended, instead of the powers being set forth in section 4. If I understood correctly, the reason given by the minister is that certain powers are granted to the Minister of Trade and Commerce under orders in council, and those powers the- minister says he will not exercise, but that he will direct that they be exercised by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which has not the power to do that which the minister purports the act empowers it to do. Supposing tomorrow another order in council is passed-


Ernest Bertrand: But the
power is given by this special amendment.


John George Diefenbaker: The Postmaster
General has the section before him and he will note that it reads:
The corporation may, as directed by the minister, exercise and perform on behalf of the minister, the power, duty and function vested in the minister . . .
And so on. If tomorrow the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply has another order in council passed giving further powers to the minister, will he be permitted to exercise those powers through the agency of this corporation?


Ernest Bertrand: If it falls within one of the sections of this act.


John George Diefenbaker: Exactly; the Postmaster General has caught the point which his two colleagues were not able to get. I thank the Postmaster General for his cogent answer, because I have not been able to bring that home to his two colleagues.

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act


Brooke Claxton: Have not been able to-


John George Diefenbaker: I have not-I beg your pardon?


Brooke Claxton: Go ahead.


John George Diefenbaker: I hope the minister is not endeavouring to place himself ahead of the Postmaster General as an outstanding counsel.


Ernest Bertrand: I wish the hon. member would state his point, because from the way he has started he is not going to land anywhere.


John George Diefenbaker: I can see that the ministers themselves do not agree. The Postmaster General has been most clear; he has stated that this corporation can discharge as agent only such powers as it has within the act.


Brooke Claxton: And so says the Minister of Finance; so says the Minister of Trade and Commerce, and so says the Minister of National Defence.


John George Diefenbaker: The Minister of National Defence is trying to exculpate himself from the difficult position he is in. It is clear to me now, but it took all this time to find out that there was some reason for doing this in this indirect way, doing something that has never been done before by the addition of another section. There is something hidden here and the minister is endeavouring to put it through in this indirect manner.


James Angus MacKinnon: No; nonsense.


Ernest Bertrand: How can the hon. member link what he has just said with the remark I made a few minutes ago?


John George Diefenbaker: I specifically
absolved the Postmaster General, because apparently he does not know anything about the argument that took place earlier and the defence by the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance. I have placed this matter before the committee, and apparently the minister is adamant. It now comes back to what I stated originally, that the reason the government is going about this in this indirect manner is to circumvent the provisions of the Civil Service Act in so far as defence purposes are concerned.


James Angus MacKinnon: Surely that is incorrect.


George Russell Boucher: Now that the minister has his officials before him, I wonder if he could answer some questions. How many employees are there in the Canadian Commercial Corporation at the present time?
How many of those employees have overseas service preference? How many of them have permanent status under the Civil Service Act and the Civil Service Superannuation Act? How many are on loan to the corporation from private industry? How many are on loan from the Department of National Defence?


James Angus MacKinnon: The total number of employees in the corporation at the moment is 332. The number of employees enjoying overseas preference is fifty-six out of 184 male personnel. There are nine permanent civil servants on loan from the Department of National Defence, and there are four on loan from private industry, in this case the Canadian National Railways.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That is an increase of 212 over May, 1946, is it not?


James Angus MacKinnon: I am told that is about right.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: How many have been transferred from the Department of Reconstruction and Supply to the corporation?


James Angus MacKinnon: A total of 188 were transferred.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: What else will they do besides purchasing for the Department of National Defence?


James Angus MacKinnon: By merging those
transferred from the Department of Munitions and Supply and those who were in the employ of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, the [DOT] corporation has been able to make a twenty-five per cent cut in the staff.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Why were they able to make a cut in the staff?


James Angus MacKinnon: By merging and
reorganizing the two staffs.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Would the people who were transferred do other jobs besides purchasing for the Department of National Defence?


Brooke Claxton: Yes.


James Angus MacKinnon: As I am sure the hon. member knows, the corporation has been doing very considerable purchasing for the Department of National Defence. For instance, during the last couple of years it has been purchasing for foreign governments, and these transactions have run into hundreds of millions of dollars and have entailed a great deal of work.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: You will not need as many people now to do purchasing for foreign governments and so on. Either there

4974	COMMONS
Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
were too many people in the corporation before, or there were too many people in the Department of Reconstruction and Supply who were purchasing for defence, or something else is wrong. I do not see how you could cut the staff twenty-five per cent.


George Russell Boucher: Are there any employees of the Canadian Commercial Corporation, other than the nine on loan from national defence, who are entitled1 to benefits under the Civil Service Superannuation Act or the Retirement Act? If not, has any other superannuation scheme been set up for the employees?


James Angus MacKinnon: There is one other employee only from another department who is in the permanent civil service. No superannuation policy has been set up, nor can there be except by approval of the governor in council, but I believe that some consideration has been given to the whole question and there is still the possibility of the organization being taken under the civil service commission.


George Russell Boucher: That being the case, since the salaries of those employees who are under the Civil Service Superannuation Act may be increased by the Canadian Commercial Corporation, will their contributions to superannuation and their benefits increase accordingly?


James Angus MacKinnon: These men are paid superannuation on the basis of their salaries in the department.


George Russell Boucher: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. When these employees left the Department of National Defence I take it they were paying into the superannuation fund, a percentage of their salaries; now, since they have gone to the Canadian Commercial Corporation, it is probable their salaries will be increased, and their contributions and benefits under the act will increase accordingly as civil servants. Will the same situation apply when they are working for a crown company and not for the government?


James Angus MacKinnon: All I can say is that the superannuation payments are based on the salaries they received in their old department.


George Russell Boucher: That does not make the situation clear.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. I do not think I should endeavour to limit the discussion on this bill, but it does seem to me that we are now going beyond the limits of the bill in discussing the civil service. The principle of the bill has been adopted on the second reading and now all discussion must be directly

pertinent to the clause under consideration. I cannot see anything in clause 7 which would allow a discussion of the civil service.


George Russell Boucher: While I can see your viewpoint, Mr. Chairman, I do not think you exactly appreciate the fact that here we have certain personnel of one department of the government being taken over by the corporation. Provision was made by order in council and announced in the house some few months ago that the status of these employees under the Civil Service Superannuation Act would be maintained, and I was asking whether, since their salaries may be increased with the corporation, provision has been made for their contributions and benefits to be increased accordingly.


James Angus MacKinnon: I have nothing to add to what I have already said.


Howard Charles Green: I would ask the two ministers a question as to the present situation in regard to industry. It has always been of vital importance that there should be close liaison between the government and the industries that are to manufacture weapons. During the war that contact was maintained by the Department of Reconstruction, I presume, and before the war by the Department of National Defence. What is to be the arrangement under this change? Is the Canadian Commercial Corporation to keep in touch with those industries, or is there any responsibility on the Department of National Defence? I understood from the Minister of National Defence this afternoon that all his officers would do would be to decide what kind of equipment they wanted. But somebody must act as a liaison with industry. Is that responsibility to rest on the Canadian. Commercial Corporation or on the Department of National Defence, and how is the responsibility to be met?


Brooke Claxton: That is still being
developed along the lines I described when this matter came before the house in February and also this afternoon. Under this bill the Canadian Commercial Corporation will be primarily responsible for obtaining tenders for contracts. In addition, there are other functions in connection with the procurement of munitions, which are just as important and which, together with procurement, form part of the whole complex of industrial organization for war. There are four main aspects of that: standardization, industrial organization, inspection and procurement, and all must work very closely with research. We are setting up a series of agencies whereby the Department of National Defence, Canadian

Canadian Commercial Corporation Act
Arsenals Limited, the Department of Trade and Commerce through one agency or another, the defence research board, and industry, probably represented in part through such agencies as the Canadian Standards Association and the Royal Canadian Ordnance Corps Association, will all be linked into cooperating groups which will enable industry to know what is likely to be expected both in peace time and in the event of an emergency, and which will enable the Canadian Commercial Corporation to know where it can get the materials, and which will enable the Department of National Defence to know that it can get the equipment and materials which are needed either in peace time or in war.
It is also intended that this organization or network of organizations will be susceptible of rapid and very great expansion and that the personnel necessary to do it will be planned and kept in touch with, so that there will be no time lag in getting the whole thing going should an emergency arise or in anticipation of an emergency. Our aim is that machinery will be ready to be used to meet the needs as they are anticipated from time to time. I can tell my hon. friend, because he is interested in this, that we are about to initiate discussions with representatives of industry having definite relationship to the kind of organization I have been describing here in general terms. It is not possible yet to go farther than that, because we want to consult with industry very frankly and to get their views before laying down lines. If that is done we hope to create an organization to enable the whole job to be done rapidly and efficiently.


Howard Charles Green: Would it not be more efficient if there were only one body doing that work rather than having it divided up between the Department of Trade and Commerce and Department of National Defence as the minister has outlined?


Brooke Claxton: It was not done by the defence department in war, and our thought is that it is of fundamental importance that we should maintain in peace time an independent civilian organization which is capable of being expanded to meet the needs of an emergency in war. Therefore we shall keep in existence in peace time the nucleus, for the future department, of a department of munitions and supply, should that be needed in war time.


Howard Charles Green: Why are sections 9 and 10 of the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act not made applicable to part II? These are the sections that give the right to sue the corporation.


Brooke Claxton: The corporation does not act under part II in its own behalf; it acts only as an agent for the crown.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: The Canadian Commercial Corporation had a S4 million operating fund. Is any of that left, or have you had to call on the consolidated revenue fund for more money?


James Angus MacKinnon: The only amount that we have had is a working capital of $2,500,000, which is still on hand.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: That fund will be used to operate this?


Brooke Claxton: No, not at all.


Grote Stirling: I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether the final inspection of the requirements of his department will rest in his hands before he accepts the results of the contract.


Brooke Claxton: Yes. The inspection board machinery has been transferred to the Department of National Defence. We are in process of reorganizing that on a post-war basis. I cannot make a categorical answer to my hon. friend yet. With regard to ships, aeroplanes, major weapons, projectiles, ammunition, I think the answer will be that the final inspection will be by the officials of the Department of National Defence just as it has always been. With regard to matters of a more routine nature, barrack room stores, supplies and clothing which really require the application largely of civilian standards and practice, the matter has not yet been determined whether it will be under defence or under some agency of trade and commerce.


William Ross Macdonald: The following amendment has been handed to me. Moved by Mr. Claxton:
That "An act to amend the Canadian Commercial Corporation Act" be amended as follows:
(1)	Insert the following as clause one of the bill-
"1. The Canadian Commercial Corporation Act, chapter forty of the statutes of 1946, is amended by inserting the following heading immediately preceding section three thereof: Part I"
(2)	Delete lines four, five and six and substitute the following:
"2. The said Act is further amended by adding the following Part thereto:"
(3)	Insert the following as clause three of the bill:
"3. The said Act is further amended by renumbering clause seventeen as clause nineteen."
(4)	For "2" substitute "4" in line sixteen.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Sections as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Supply-Transport

[Stage Direction]
Hon. DOUGLAS ABBOTT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That jt is expedient to present a bill to authorize,
(a)	The Minister of Finance, on behalf of the government of Canada, to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces to provide, subject to terms and conditions to be agreed upon, that in consideration of the said governments agreeing not to levy income tax, corporation income tax, corporation tax or succession duties for a period of five years ending on December 31, 1951. or any lesser period ending upon the said day, the government of Canada will pay compensation to the said governments; and
(b)	The Minister of Finance to pay to the government of each province one half of the income tax collected from corporations whose main business is the distribution to or generation for distribution to the public, of electrical energy, gas or steam in respect of income of the corporations derived from the said distribution or generation in that province during the period commencing on January 1, 1947, and ending on December 3il, 1951.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
Douglas Charles Abbott: This resolution is pretty
well self-explanatory. With the permission of the committee I shall furnish such detailed information as I have to give on second reading of the bill when the house will have the terms of the bill before it.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Abbott thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 411, to authorize the government to enter into agreements with the governments of the provinces pursuant to which, in return for compensation, the provinces agree to refrain from levying certain taxes for a limited period.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at seven o'clock. SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Golding in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT *'i02. Departmental administration, $544,000. Mr. BENTLEY: Before we go on to the itemized parts, I wish to say that I have been looking through these items and do not see [The Chairman.]
a particular place for any railway construction at all in Saskatchewan. So I shall have to take advantage of the first item to deal with the matter that I wish to bring to the minister's attention. It has to do with that unoperating section of the branch line which runs from Gravelbourg to Swift Current, but ends for operational purposes at Neidpath, a hamlet about thirty miles east of Swift Current. While most of the track, or all of it is laid, it is still called "under construction", and no service is given to the people in that thirty-mile gap. Most of that gap lies within the rural municipality of Coulee, No. 136.


Hon. LIONEL CHEVRIER (Minister of Transport):: What is the name of the line?


Mr. BENTLEY:: It is the Canadian
National branch line from Moose Jaw, down through Gravelbourg, Neidpath and that section. I do not think it has any particular name. If it has I do not know of it. It is just part of the Canadian National system. The people in there are quite concerned about getting a railway service, because, while trucking services are fairly general, all the roads and highways do not lend themselves to some of the rapid movement which is required for larger bulk shipments. The secretary of the municipality has written a letter to the president of the Canadian National Railways, embodying a resolution which was passed by the municipal council, and a copy of which was sent to me. The letter was written on May 5, so that the Canadian National Railways have had quite a bit of time to consider this matter. I think I will put the resolution on the record. It reads:
That some action be taken by the executive of the Canadian National Railways to do away with the term "under construction" when referring to the portion of the Gravelbourg-Xeidpath (extension) subdivision-
That is the name of it, I expect.
-being approximately 29-75 miles located between the hamlet of Neidpath and the city of Swift Current, and that a regular train service be instituted on this portion of this line. A copy of this resolution be forwarded to the federal member for Swift Current constituency.
I want to give the minister a little bit of statistical information about that part of the country so far as it relates to the rural municipality of Coulee. There are approximately 158 farmers in that- area, which has a total acreage of 93,652 acres, 55,378 acres of which are cultivated. The assessed value is

Supply-Transport
$747,218. The cars loaded in the last four years are as follows, and1 they would be mostly of grain and live stock:
Cars
Year	'	loaded
1943		 181
1944		 188
4945	 116
1946	 68
During the same years the number of cars of fuel shipped in were as follows:
Cars of fuel
Year	shipped in
1943		 17
1944		 10
1945		 14
1946		 8
I wish to point out that those amounts simply represent what had to be done by the railroads. More would have been done if the railroads could have been depended upon. Of course, for fast movement of some of these things, trucks have to be used even though they may not be as economical as the railroad would be.
I should also like to point out that quite a large area in the rural municipality of Excelsior, No. 166, is also tributary to this line, but the secretary of the municipality who sent this resolution did not have the exact figures on that and I have not been able to get them. But for that portion of Excelsior which is in the area, the same kind of figures would be applicable as those I have mentioned. I know that the minister and the management of the Canadian National Railways have plenty of difficulties on their hands, but this piece of line has been under construction for a long time; and I believe these people are entitled to a measure of consideration just as soon as possible. There was a time when there was quite an extensive plan being contemplated with regard to railroad building. This line would have connected at Swift Current and gone north to Stewart Valley, and they hoped it would go across the river and up toward Elrose and that country, joining with other branches crossing the country east and west. Those plans have not as yet been carried out, and I do not know whether they ever will be, but certainly this piece of line should be given some considerable priority on the list of new operation.
Possibly the minister will find that one of the difficulties in the way of putting this line into operation, even though the line itself is finished, is the trouble the Canadian National have had in getting yard space from the Canadian Pacific, which has a terminal point, a roundhouse and extensive yards at Swift Current. I should like the minister to give that point serious consideration with a view to 83166-318
overcoming that obstacle and putting the line into operation. I would point out that no great amount of construction work is required. It is possible now to put trains over that line. Occasionally they do run a train, for some special reason, up as far as a little elevator point called Burnham, which is a little west of Neidpath; and the only thing required would be some reconditioning of the road to give service down from Moose Jaw to Gravel-bourg and right into Swift Current to the people in that section of the country. They are not asking for expensive new construction, but simply that this line, which is "under construction" according to the books but actually ready for use, be put into operation.


Mr. PINARD:: At the beginning of this session I inscribed upon the order paper a resolution which I was not able to discuss because, as was the case with many other resolutions of the kind, the time was devoted to more urgent matters. So today I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the matter mentioned in that resolution, which is the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges in the vicinity of Montreal. In the resolution I asked this house to express the opinion that these tolls should be abolished.


Roch Pinard: At the beginning of this session I inscribed upon the order paper a resolution which I was not able to discuss because, as was the case with many other resolutions of the kind, the time was devoted to more urgent matters. So today I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss the matter mentioned in that resolution, which is the abolition of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges in the vicinity of Montreal. In the resolution I asked this house to express the opinion that these tolls should be abolished.
First, I might express the view that this matter falls within the competence of both the central power and the government of the province of Quebec. It comes within the competence and jurisdiction of the province, because everything having to do with thoroughfares and highways falls within the domain of the provincial legislatures. The construction of bridges as well as the maintenance and construction of roads are matters solely within the jurisdiction of the provincial governments, and it is up to them to legislate in this regard. It is their duty to organize the highway systems of t'heir province, and such highway systems remain exclusively under their control. I think it is also important to recognize that in matters of this kind any conflict between the central power and the provincial legisla-

Supply-Transport

ture must be avoided, since interference by the central power in such matters could produce disastrous results. So it is up to the authorities of the province of Quebec to solve any problem which may arise from the existence and maintenance of tolls on bridges used by the general public. It was, of course, the government of Quebec under a Liberal administration that abolished tolls on all bridges which were the property of the province. When there were bridges which were not the property of the province, the owners of which collected tolls, the provincial government intervened, as was its privilege and also its duty. Such bridges were expropriated, as was the case in connection with what were known as the Bellefeuille and Plessis-Belair bridges. Following this procedure, tolls on those bridges were abolished', and the public finally obtained free access to them.
The same reasoning should be applied to the present case, and it is up to the provincial government to solve the problem of tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. It is the duty of the government of that province to enter into negotiations with the central power to find ways and means of abolishing these' tolls. For instance, the provincial government might very well follow the suggestion, which has been made time and again, that is, to offer to purchase the Jacques Cartier bridge at its present value. Of course the province should not be asked to pay the actual cost of construction, or the replacement value of the bridge. What should be paid is the actual present value, taking into account the condition of the bridge and the revenues derived by its owners. If the government of Quebec has not intervened it is because it has failed in its obligation to the population affected by this situation, or because it does not wish to put an end to the collection of tolls on the Jacques Cartier and Victoria bridges.
This question has been raised often in the provincial legislature. On the last occasion, when it was raised by a member of the opposition, the government of that province took the attitude, which it has taken time and again in other matters, that it would do nothing at all. It will surprise no one if I say that the government of Quebec gave its answer through its almightly leader, the all-powerful Hon. Maurice Duplessis. Since the government of that province seems to be more or less a one-man government, and since that man does not happen to be Hon. Mr. Talbot, minister of highways, of whom the question was asked, the premier himself, speaking in the name of all the members of his cabinet, took the attitude that nothing would be done.

Since the initiative was not his, he replied by declaring that the solution of such a problem was of no interest to him. When a question to be decided is within the competence and authority of the Quebec legislature he would like to decide it by himself; but when such a question does not give him an opportunity to play politics the premier of Quebec ceases to shout about the rights and autonomy of his province. Since he could not resolve this difficulty, he resorted to his habitual method of playing politics and took the attitude that nothing at all could be done. So that once more the government of Quebec refuses to cooperate with the central power, and this question of abolishing tolls on the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges remains unsolved.
But as I said before, Mr. Chairman, the matter also falls within the jurisdiction of the federal government, because the two bridges of which I am now speaking are indirectly the property of this government since they are under the administration of two central bodies, the national harbours board and the Canadian National Railways. The Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges are known and used by a great number of persons in the city of Montreal and the surrounding district, and, of course, by a great number of tourists who come to the province of Quebec each year. For those who live in the region of Montreal there is a popular way to describe these bridges. When one refers to the Victoria bridge he would refer to the old bridge, and when he refers to the Jacques Cartier bridge he would mention the new bridge. I think those expressions are not entirely accurate, because the Jacques Cartier bridge has now been in operation for more than seventeen years. Of course the expression is accurate when used with reference to the Victoria bridge, because it has been in operation since 1860.
I wish to discuss the Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges separately, and will be as brief as I can in both cases. In order to be clear, and also out of respect for old age, I will first give reasons for the abolition of the tolls on that ancestral enterprise called the Victoria bridge. I am sure some hon. members who are not familiar with the situation will be astonished to learn that, despite its advanced age, the Victoria bridge is still a toll bridge. I will say more and state that in my opinion it is a bridge in connection with which the collection of tolls has become most remunerative, since on that bridge tolls have been imposed on all sorts of vehicles for the last ninety years.

Supply-Transport
As its name implies, the Victoria bridge dates back to the glorious time of the great queen under whose reign so many great enterprises were born. The construction of this bridge takes us back to a time before confederation. In fact it was authorized in 1853 by chapter 75, Victoria, which statute allowed the Grand Trunk Railway Company to carry out this enterprise and to collect tolls from vehicles using the bridge.
Of course at that time only horse-drawn vehicles were concerned. At the time of its construction, no doubt because of its length- because it has practically no artistic value- this bridge was considered as one of the wonders of the world. We can say the same thing today, but for different reasons. I would say it is still one of the wonders of the world, because it has remained a toll bridge ever since the beginning of its operation some ninety years ago. Then, of course, it is a wonder because of its old age.
During the period of eighty-seven years the owners of the bridge have collected tolls, the revenues from which have never ceased to increase from year to year with the rising population, with the ever-increasing intensity of traffic, both from horse-drawn vehicles and from automobiles, and also with the development of the tourist industry.
The principle which should be applied in connection with the imposition of tolls of that kind on a bridge is that the bridge should become free when its cost of construction has been paid for by the users. Immediately one must conclude that in the present instance the cost of construction must have been paid many times over, since tolls on that bridge have been imposed for more than eighty years.
But there are other reasons for coming to that conclusion. Between 1897 and 1900 the Grand Trunk Railway Company had rebuilt in part the Victoria bridge to allow the addition of two vehicular lanes, one on each side of the bridge. The total cost of the project was $1,883,679. So far as the cost of installation of these two vehicular lanes is concerned, it was in the neighbourhood of $100,000. Then, it should be said that motorists and owners of other vehicles using these lanes have been paying for forty-seven years, since 1900, to defray the reimbursement of that $100,000 which was spent for the installation of the lanes. When one learns that there were years when the revenues have reached $500,000 he will rightly conclude that the cost of construction of these two lanes for vehicles has been paid nearly five times annually, through the revenues derived from tolls. But this, again, is only part of the truth.
83166-318i
In fact, during the course of the session of 1900 the Grand Trunk Railway Company, for the purpose of rebuilding the Victoria bridge and the addition of these lanes for vehicles, to which I have referred, obtained from the federal government a subsidy totalling $500,000. We must then conclude that the users of these two vehicular lanes for traffic have been called upon, since the year 1900, to pay and are still paying today to reimburse an expense the cost of which was covered by a subsidy granted by the federal government.
Even at that time, in 1900, the grant of that subsidy to the Grand Trunk Railway Company seemed so excessive that it brought a flood of protest in the house. I have read with care the debate which took place at that time, after the then minister of railways and canals asked authorization in his budget to impose on the Canadian people this great expense. The item of the budget reads as follows:
To the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada towards the cost of rebuilding and enlargement of the Victoria bridge over the St. Lawrence river, Quebec, in addition to the amount received by the company on account of the subsidy granted by 60-61 Victoria, chapter 4, viz., $270,000 to make up the grant in aid of the undertaking to $500,000 not exceeding $230,000.
The subsidy asked for seemed so much out of proportion, especially when account was taken of the fact that the Grand Trunk Railway Company had always collected tolls and intended to keep on doing so, that violent protests were registered.
One of the members of the opposition, Mr. Cochrane, spoke as follows on the question, as reported at page 9989 of Hansard for 1900:
If the Grand Trunk railway saw fit to reconstruct that bridge it was their own business and not ours. We have paid all this country could afford to pay as a subvention to the Grand Trunk railway. Now why, after giving a subvention of $300,000 do you want to give them $200,000 more when you are paying $40,000 a year for the users of that bridge?
And later the same member of the opposition declared:
Why do you not put in a condition that the people should travel over the Victoria bridge free and then you will get something for the people in return for that subvention?
Consequently, in 1900 one of the members of the house was asking the government of that day to abolish tolls on the Victoria bridge. Today, nearly fifty years later, I have the privilege of making the same demand. This seems to indicate that times goes on, but things are done slowly.
Since then, there has remained only one lane for the use of motorists, because I believe
Supply-Transport

it was in 1909 that the Grand Trunk Railway Company took the lane away from automobile users and gave it to the Montreal and Southern Counties railway, one of its subsidiary companies. And yet the Montreal and Southern Counties railway paid the Grand Trunk Railway Company, and is each year paying to the Canadian National Railways the sum of $50,000 for the use of the very lane which had been built with the subsidy of the government for the use of ordinary vehicles. In spite of the fact that the cost of constructing these lanes for vehicular traffic was paid by the subsidy awarded in 1900 by the government, the Grand Trunk kept on collecting tolls and the Canadian National is now collecting tolls ever since the government of this country, by special statute, purchased the Grand Trunk Railway Company.
Since the Canadian National Railways was created, instead of redressing this injustice that company became an accomplice to the perpetration of the injustice, and the injustice became greater as the years went on. During all this time this famous bridge kept getting older, to such an extent that today it has become totally inadequate and it is even extremely dangerous to use. One must almost be compelled to use the bridge and, unfortunately, that is the position of a great many people. As far as tourists coming to visit our country are concerned, many of them refuse to go over this shaky lane with their cars. They prefer taking the Jacques Cartier bridge.
If through misfortune-and I have been the victim of such misfortune many times- through collisions or even from a punctured tire or an automobile running out of gas, there is a tie-up on the bridge it is likely to delay traffic for hours. The motorists who have paid to cross the bridge are then forced to wait for two or three hours before they can resume their course. I should like to ask the Minister of Transport, who, I am sure, is in a position to obtain the information, to give the number of accidents which have occurred on this bridge. I am told that especially in the last ten years these accidents have been very numerous and, in some cases, they have proved fatal.
In connection with the cost of constructing this Victoria bridge, there is the question which one has a right to ask himself and also the government: What has been the total revenue from the tolls collected on this bridge, in the first place by the Grand Trunk Railway Company and then by the Canadian National Railways, since 1860 when the
(Mr. Pinard.]
bridge was first opened to vehicular traffic? All those who have asked for these particulars from the Canadian National have never succeeded in obtaining the information. From the scattered information which I have been able to collect, I understand that the Grand Trunk and its successor, the Canadian National Railways, collected $4,733,000 up to December 31, 1934, in tolls on one lane only of the Victoria bridge, and that up to the end of 1943 the total of this revenue exceeded $7,000,000.
If that information is correct one will realize how far away we are from the $100,000 which was the cost of constructing the vehicular lanes on the Victoria bridge. If that information is not accurate, in order to complete it I would ask the Minister of Transport to give the total revenues derived from all tolls charged on the Victoria bridge. I am convinced that the figure will be frightening and will lead everyone to conclude that the cost of constructing the Victoria bridge has been obtained more than one hundred-fold. The Hon. G. A. Simard, a legislative councillor of Quebec, declared some years ago that the Victoria bridge had been paid for 142 times. The only answer he got from the Canadian National was that that was a gross exaggeration. That may be true, but it appears to me that it is unnecessary to try to convince anyone that this situation has lasted long enough. Before this old bridge collapses, motorists should be permitted to use the bridge free of tolls for the few remaining years.
There is in Quebec another bridge which also spans the St. Lawrence river, the Quebec city bridge in the vicinity of that city. This is a much larger and more adequate bridge than the Victoria bridge; but, despite that, for a long period of years motorists have been permitted to use this bridge free of toll. Why make a distinction between that bridge near Quebec city and the one in Montreal, especially when the bridge in Montreal was built so long ago, is today so totally inadequate and has been paid for hundreds of times?
I do not want to be too long with my remarks, and I shall now deal briefly with the other bridge in Montreal, the Jacques Cartier bridge. In this case the injustice is not quite as striking. I should like to state briefly why I think the tolls on this bridge should also be abolished. The cost of constructing this bridge was $19,000,000, but that was due to the fact that the bridge was constructed in a manner to permit ocean traffic to pass underneath. Are the people in the vicinity of Montreal to be penalized because the cost of construct-

S upply- Transport
ing that bridge was so high? If the bridge had been built in a manner similar to other bridges in the vicinity of Montreal I am told that the cost of construction would not have been more than about $5,000,000. I am told that during the seventeen years that revenues have been collected on that bridge they have exceeded $500,000 annually. I understand that, according to the last report, the figure is $900,000.	,


Lionel Chevrier: The revenues from tolls in 1946 were $720,000, but the deficit is $600,000.


Roch Pinard: That may be true, but while there may be a deficit in connection with the Jacques Cartier bridge as far as its operation is concerned, the fact remains that there is a surplus amounting to millions of dollars in the case of the Victoria bridge. In both cases these revenues are collected by the government and they should be indivisible. In other words, the surplus in one case should be applied against the deficit in the other.


Lionel Chevrier: There is no such surplus in connection with the Victoria bridge.


Roch Pinard: I do not think there is any doubt that the Victoria bridge produces high revenues each year from tolls charged automobile traffic. I was told that the revenues in the case of the Victoria bridge are much higher than in the case of any other. In the one case, so far as the national harbours board is concerned, we are dealing with revenues of the crown. In the other case we are dealing with revenues of the crown obtained through the Canadian National Railways. It would not be legal to my mind to contend that the revenues in the one case should not compensate for the losses in the other. Any other contention in that respect would appear to me to be more legalistic than legal.
The maintenance of tolls is a bar to the development of all the cities and towns on the south shore of the St. Lawrence river. It is also a great handicap to the tourist industry, which today, as we all know, is one of the greatest industries of Canada. I do not believe there is any justification in asking tourists to pay twenty-five cents, or whatever it is, to cross over a bridge of that kind, which is dangerous and totally inadequate and has been so for many years. Three or four weeks ago I had the privilege of presenting a memorandum to the Minister of Transport on behalf of a considerable delegation, and the minister gave us encouragement. I hope the question will soon be settled, because it is one that is serious and of great importance, not only to the people of my constituency, but to the general public of Canada.


Mr. COTE (St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville):: Mr. Chairman, I want to add a word to what has been so well said by my colleague the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville.
(Translation):
In 1942, tolls were abolished in the province of Quebec with respect to provincial bridges, Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges being excepted. When tolls were no longer required on other bridges however, the government of that province declaredj its willingness to offer any reasonable compensation in return for the abolition of tolls charged on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. They were therefore convinced that, in fairness to all, the abolition of tolls should apply to every bridge in the province of Quebec.
The abolition of toils like taxation, must be effected without discrimination towards anyone. Unfortunately, however, Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges remain toll-bridges, although charges are no longer required on provincial bridges.
Such a situation is extremely unfair toward the people settled on the south shore of the St. Lawrence in the vicinity of the island of Montreal. They represent, with the exception of the metropolis, 70 per cent of the population of the province of Quebec. Today, moreover, these same people, the only ones from whom charges are still exacted on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges, continue to pay so that all other bridges in the provinces may be toll free.
I understand that the province has jurisdiction over its highways and the bridges which extend1 them. The fact, however, that the dominion government shouldered the cost of building bridges within the limits of the province of Quebec does not remove from the province the duty of providing equality of treatment for all its taxpayers. The injustice of exacting tolls from a large section of the province when all other citizens enjoy the free use of bridges cannot be sanctioned.
To sum up, that is why, in 1942, when the government of the province of Quebec decided to do away with tolls on provincial bridges, it deemed fit to request that charges be also dispensed with on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. Further, it declared itself willing to offer the dominion government reasonable compensation in return for the abolition of these toll charges. Unfortunately, what should have been done in 19'42 has not yet been carried out but should come about in the near future.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister to see that dominion and pro-
Supply-Transport

vincial authorities come together as soon as possible with a view to fixing the amount of the fair compensation mentioned in 1942 and which the province of Quebec must pay Ottawa in exchange for the repeal of tolls on Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges.
In coming to an agreement, your department as well as provincial and federal authorities would only redress a situation where justice should have been done the taxpayer of Quebec in 1942. According to statistics, the 25 counties surrounding Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges have a production estimated at approximately $400,000,000; in those 25 counties yearly salaries paid exceed $120,000,000. It is therefore unfair to burden the population living on those industries and salaries with tolls, when such tolls have been repealed, and rightly so in other parts of the province of Quebec.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that there is no conflict but rather a community of interests between provincial jurisdiction and federal jurisdiction. Ottawa paid for the bridges and it is only fair that they be reimbursed. The provincial government has decided to do away with tolls, and it would be only fair to repeal them on all bridges in Quebec, including Victoria and Jacques Cartier bridges. In order to do so, the Quebec government should pay the dominion government a reasonable compensation that should have been set and paid in 1942. I sincerely hope that the amount of the said compensation will be determined by way of agreement between the Quebec and Ottawa authorities, in order that justice be done to all taxpayers of the province of Quebec.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!
(Text):


Lionel Chevrier: I think I should make a reply to the statements made by the hon. member for Chambly-Rouville and the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville-Napierville. I have no intention of replying at the same length as the hon. gentlemen spoke on this important question. I might summarize in part what I have to say by making this statement, that I met the representatives of the municipalities on the south shore together with the two hon. members and certain others and discussed this question at some length, and advised them of the stand I was prepared to take. I think I should place on record, without going into the matter in too great detail, some facts concerning these two bridges.
(Mr. A. Cote.]
Both hon. gentlemen request the abolition of tolls, and with that there is no disagreement because I think we would all like to see tolls abolished, particularly motorists who have to cross bridges and are not anxious to pay tolls at any time. But one must not forget that, under the constitution of our country, the municipalities and the provinces have certain responsibilities and the dominion government has certain other responsibilities.
The Jacques Cartier bridge was, I think, at the outset purely a municipal and a provincial responsibility; but in view of circumstances that existed at the time, the federal government was prevailed upon through its agency, the national harbours board, to build that bridge, which it did. It entered into a tripartite agreement with the city of Montreal, the province of Quebec and the national harbours board, or rather its predecessor the Montreal harbour commission, to build this bridge, it being understood that one-third of the cost of operation would be paid by the municipality of the city of Montreal, one-third by the province, and the other third by the federal authority. Since 1944 the city of Montreal has fallen down in that responsibility. The national harbours board has had to institute proceedings against the city, which has not paid its share of the cost of operation for 1944, 1945, 1946 and thus far in 1947. The province has taken a similar attitude and has not paid its contributions since 1944. So that I am sure that the hon. gentlemen who have sponsored this cause will take into consideration the fact that if the municipality of the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec by statute and, prior to that, by resolution agreed to pay their share of the undertaking and now refuse to pay it, the federal government cannot look upon the abolition of tolls with much enthusiasm.


Roch Pinard: I do not want to discuss the point because it is sub judice. There may be reasons why the city and the government refused to pay their share. I do not think we should continue discussing it.


Lionel Chevrier: That does not derogate from the force of the argument that, by contract, these bodies have consented to pay a portion of the cost of maintenance and operation. Whether they have a just cause or not, they have for some time refused to pay, even though they had undertaken and begun to make payments. The federal government is now being asked to abolish tolls. I am sure that the hon. gentlemen-and both of them in their remarks have said so-would not want the federal government, or at least the agencies of the federal government, to abolish these

Supply-Transport
tolls without further negotiation. I am sure that they feel it should be done, but it should be done by way of agreement. I can tell both hon. gentlemen here and now that, in so far as the national harbours board is concerned, it is willing at any time to enter into negotiations with the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec with a view to abolishing tolls and to reaching a settlement which would take into consideration the amount of money that has been spent by the national harbours board and by the other bodies, so that tolls would not be abolished at the sole expense of the federal government. I do not think the hon. gentleman, or anybody else in the committee, would for one moment consider that the tolls on this bridge should be abolished at the expense of the federal government. I certainly would not stand for it and both hon. gentlemen would not.


Roch Pinard: That is what I had in mind. But I am beginning to lose confidence in the possibilities of negotiations with the present government of Quebec.


Lionel Chevrier: Be that as it may, I have to say this, that there seems to be no objection, in so far as the national harbours board is concerned, to entering into negotiations, but the initiative will have to come from some source. The delegation which interviewed me some time ago asked me what the government was prepared to do. I simply stated what the position was. I reiterate that statement here this evening, namely, that we are prepared at all times to enter into negotiations toward the abolition of tolls but on a proportionate and fair basis. We will sell to the province or to the municipality the Jacques Cartier bridge, but they will have to take into consideration a fair and reasonable value. I do not want to go into this thing at great length.
Let me say just one word with reference to the position of the Canadian National Railways and the Victoria bridge. It is not a new question. The hon. gentleman says that it has been brought up here as long as forty years ago when it was asked that tolls be abolished, and nothing was done. Well, nothing was done because again the request is that tolls be abolished at the exclusive and sole expense of the federal government, and the federal government has always taken the position through its agency, the Canadian National Railways, that that should not be the case. As far back as 1942 the deputy minister of transport was advised by the Canadian National
Railways that it would be willing to agree to a proposal for abolishing tolls, subject to the following;
The Canadian National is agreeable to abolishing tolls on private passenger cars and passengers carried therein, passing over the Victoria bridge, provided a satisfactory agreement could be effected with the province, which will compensate the Canadian National for the loss incurred and protect its interests.
The hon. gentleman has asked for a number of things that I am sure he will not want me to give him on these estimates. For instance, he asks for a list of the accidents on the bridge and a list of revenues from the Victoria bridge. That is information which can be obtained in the railways and shipping committee of the House of Commons when the officers of the Canadian National Railways are there, and prepared to answer questions.


Roch Pinard: I am ready to accept the suggestion, but I should like very much to get the list of revenues collected on the Victoria bridge if at all possible.


Lionel Chevrier: I am sorry; I cannot give that information to the hon. gentleman. I will undertake to get it for him at the earliest possible day.
Mr. MoGARRY:	Mr. Chairman, I am
assuming that general discussion is permitted on this item. I wish to bring to the attention of the committee a matter which is of great concern to the maritime provinces directly and to the whole dominion indirectly. I am referring to the spanning of the strait of Canso by a bridge or a causeway. This is a matter which has concerned the people of the maritimes particularly for a great many years. They have urged the government to take this project into favourable consideration. It is one of great importance. I might say that it is an urgent thing; particularly is it necessary if the transportation facilities of the maritime provinces are to be relieved of their inadequacies and their operating awkwardnesses.
I possibly could not contribute to this committee a more intelligent understanding of the need of this project and the necessity of having it attended to as early as possible than if I were to submit a report which was compiled by an ex-premier of Nova Scotia, Mr. A. S. MacMillan. This report was compiled after a great deal of careful and intensive study by Mr. MacMillan in collaboration with engineer experts. With the unanimous permission of the committee I should like to read the report and have it placed on Hansard. Before reading the report, may I say that Mr. MacMillan is a man who, since his very
Supply-Transport

boyhood, has been connected with construction of all kinds. He is an authority on all kinds of construction.
The figures which are found in this report he took from figures that were submitted by Mr. Fairweather and Mr. McLaehlan to the select committee of the house on reconstruction and rehabilitation. Mr. MacMillan first starts with the estimated amount of fill for a causeway. He estimates that there will be
3.231.000	cubic yards of fill. The estimated
cost of fill at S2.25 per cubic yard would amount to $7,270,000. The estimated cost of tunnel	approach and	trackage	would	be$600,000, making a total cost of $7,870,000 for the causeway. The estimated cost of a lock, 650 by 70 by 30 feet and a bascule bridge would	be $4,000,000.	Thus the	total costof the	causeway and	the lock	would	be$11,870,000, or, in round figures, $12,000,000. Track revision; that is, the amendments of the curves and grades from Sydney to Point Tupper, partly by grade line revision and partly by new construction, is estimated at $6,000,000. But if this track revision were to be	made from Mulgrave to	Truro,	he
estimates it at $8,000,000 and the new line from Truro to Moncton, $10,000,000. That *would mean that the causeway, the amending of the grades and the alignment, in all would cost $36,000,000. That is assuming that a causeway is built. For the track revision and strait of Canso crossing: the revision from Sydney to Point Tupper is $6,000,000; from Mulgrave to Truro, $8,000,000; from Truro to Moncton, $10,000,000. and a bridge over the strait of Canso would amount to $20,000,000, or a total of $44,000,000.. A revision of the line from Sydney to Truro with causeway would be only $26,000,000, and if we add revision, Truro to Moncton, which would be $10,000,000, would amount to $36,000,000. He goes on to state the tonnage:
I am advised that the tonnage shipped from Cape Breton to points in Quebec in 1937 was
1.300.000	and in ,1943 was 2,400,00-0, a difference of 1,100,000 tons.
He explains this by saying:
This difference is accounted for, in large measure, by water transportation of coal from Sydney to St. Lawrence ports, which did not occur in 1943.
He further states:
For the purpose of this study I am using a conservative figure of 1,500,000 tons. This is a reduction of 900,000 tons from the 1943 figures. The cost of freighting coal from Sydney to Montreal-
And that is something which has been discussed before in the house.
-as determined by the transportation commission by trial shipment is $4.95 per ton.

Estimated saving per ton with proposed revision and proper crossing, 25 per cent, or $1.23 per ton, which multiplied by the tonnage would amount to $1,845,000. Plan 1A-
That is with not a bridge but the causeway.
-costing $36,000,000, wfith interest at three per cent -would amount to $1,080,000. Thus on that there would be a saving of $765,000. '$765,000 would amortize the capital cost of $36,000,000 in thirty years. Plan 2A, if we use the top figure cost of $44,000,000, and tonnage 1,500,000 at $1.23 per ton, the saving would be $525,000 per year. That $525,000 will amortize the capital cost of $44,000,000 in forty-two years.
He states further:
If we are satisfied to use a causeway and revise the line from Sydney to Truro, leaving out the revision from Truro to Moncton, the cost would be $26,000,000. (Saving on ,1,500,000 tons of freight at 70 cents per ton would be $270,000. This vrould amortize the capital cost of $26,000,000 in forty-six years.
In the attached -brief summary I have endeavoured to show the annual saving in freight charges that may be effected by realigning and regrading the Canadian National Railway, and by the construction of a causeway or bridge across the strait of Canso. I should like to point out that the figures I have used in the statement are the figures given in the evidence by the Canadian National (Railway experts before the special committee of the House of Commons on reconstruction and rehabilitation, namely, Mr. Fairweather and Mr. McLaehlan.
It should be noted that I have used the maximum amounts set forth by them, which sets the cost of the completed work, Sydney to Moncton with bridge across the strait of Canso as $44,0-00.000. You will find on page 400 of the committee's report, the following statement from Mr. Fairweather:
"So when you add the thing up you will see that in order to get this system-and it would be a magnificent system-you would have a total, taking my estimate along with Mr. McLachlan's, of about $35,000,000. and it -would be a programme of work which would probably extend over three years."
Mr. MacMillan says:
I have discussed these figures with a number of engineering experts and they all agree with me that the figures used by the Canadian National Railway experts are extravagant and away beyond what the actual cost will be. My personal opinion is that the figures used are from ten to fifteen million dollars above what the actual cost will be.
However, in order that there may be no chance of an argument I have used in this study the higher figures given in evidence by the experts of the Canadian National Railways, which may all be found in the report of the committee under date of May 24, 1943. In addition to the conclusions I have reached and set forth in my statement, there must 'be taken into consideration the freight tonnage from the mainland of Nova Scotia to central Canada on all products shipped to central Canada as well as coal from the Pictou and Cumberland county mines. In the statement I have used the outgoing tonnage only, and in no case have I used the large amount of tonnage from all over Canada to Cape

Supply-Transport
Breton and through Cape Breton to Newfoundland. Neither have I used the saving to be effected in passenger traffic, and the delays which would be overcome. I am leaving these two things out of the picture, which in the judgment of competent railway men would amount to two or three hundred thousand dollars annually. My reason for not taking them into consideration is that undoubtedly there will be some incidental expenses in connection with the new proposals which must be given consideration, and which can very well be taken care of from this source. I have tried to point out the different proposals and the cost of each, and to prove in each case that the financing will take care of itself over a reasonable period of years.
First, there is the proposal to regrade the railway from Sydney to Truro, with a causeway across the strait of Canso, costing $26,000,000.
Second, there is the revision of the railway from Sydney to Moncton, with a bridge across the strait of Canso, $44,000,000.
Third, there is the revision of the railway from Sydney to Moncton, with causeway across the strait of Canso, $36,090,000.
I will deal briefly with the necessity for the proposed change. In the first place the condition of the roadbed, curves and grades is such that no comment is needed, other than to point out how ridiculous it appears, particularly to visitors to see a couple of locomotives chugging along hauling eighteen or twenty cars of freight. From the point of view of the passengers, -they get no sleep on account of the twisting and rolling, are unable to read or write and if they want a meal the jolting is liable to spill the food all over their clothes. As a matter of faot4 it is dangerous to walk through the cars unless there is something to hold onto. It requires almost fourteen hours to travel from Sydney -to Halifax, a distance of 289 miles, or an average speed of approximately twenty-one miles per hour.
The following table gives the running time of the trains, and the miles per hour:
Running
time
including Miles stoppages per Miles Hours Hour
No. 6 morning	train ..	289	m	23-12No. 8 evening	train ..	289	18}	21-02No. 10 evening train .	289	14}	19-59
Mr. MacMillan continues:
I suggest that, for your information, you take note of what the railway economist, Mr. Fair-weather, had to say about this condition in his evidence before the parliamentary committee, at page 399:
"Then you would still have the problem of getting to a point near Truro, because the line of railway from Mulgrave to Truro, let us say, or New Glasgow, is a line that was built in the early days when railroading was not as well developed as it is now. It is not a good line. It is expensive to haul over it, and you cannot, unfortunately, improve it because the people who built it just went over the tops of the hills/'
In his evidence Mr. Fairweather refers to the capital cost and insufficient returns. I have tried to deal with that phase of the situation.
His next objection is increased maintenance cost, depreciation, et cetera. I cannot see how anyone can argue along that line, as undoubtedly with a new alignment, reduced curvature, and a well ballasted roadbed, while the cost would be higher for maintenance than at present there certainly would be a big decrease in the maintenance of rolling stock. The wear and tear on the rolling equipment on the present road must be out of all proportion to the mileage. As to depreciation, there is the depreciation on the present road. In addition to this, there is depreciation on the ferry steamers and the fact that the present steamer will have to be replaced within a few years, as it has been in the service twenty-nine years.
Again the argument is advanced that we will return to pre-war freight after the war. Tt should be noted that I have used in my calculations the 1937 tonnage, and at that time coal was being shipped by water to St. Lawrence ports. The rail tonnage in that year was, I am reliably informed, 1,300,000 tons. I have used for my purposes 1,500,000 tons. Surely I am justified in increasing the estimate by 2-00,000 tons, which will be 900,000 tons less than the 1943 tonnage. We cannot agree for one minute that we will go backward instead of forward.
From the post-war rehabilitation point of view, I know of no project that could be undertaken which would take care of so many returned men, or men who might lose their positions through the dislocation of industry than this proposal. You will find on page 400 of the evidence taken before the parliamentary committee, that Mr. Fairweather states this proposal would give employment to 7,000 men for three years. My opinion is that it would take care of 8,000 men, which would mean approximately 7,000,000 days work in three years, and would undoubtedly take up all the slack in so far as ordinary labour in the maritime provinces is concerned.
If a bridge is decided on. it has been suggested that it would be difficult to hold the piers in the strait on account of currents, floating ice, et cetera. I would point out that the highway bridge across the Annapolis is built on similar piers, and is subject to floating ice conditions and an eight-knot current, whereas the strait of Canso has only a four-knot current. We have experienced no difficulty on this account at the Annapolis river bridge.
Another objection raised is that a causeway crossing the strait would prevent the ice from passing through the strait to the Atlantic, and it would remain in the bay and cause late springs. Records show that only a very small percentage of the ice passes through the strait, but that the next tide forces it back and eventually it remains in the bay until a southeasterly wind drives it back and it finds its way around to the Atlantic through the gulf of St. Lawrence and Cabot strait.
This report, Mr. Chairman, I think has been well thought out and well prepared, and I believe it should be given favourable consideration by the minister. I thank the committee for its courtesy in allowing me to present these statements this evening.


John George Diefenbaker: I want to bring
two matters to the attention of the minister; one is national in scope and the second affects

Supply-Transport

particularly the provinces of Saskatchewan, and Alberta. The national problem is the Canadian National pension fund. From time to time representations have been made to me in regard to the rules and regulations concerning this fund. These regulations are made by the directors of the Canadian National Railways, and the fund is administered by a board of seven members, four of whom are officers of the railway and three are elected from the ranks of recognized labour organizations of the Canadian National. The administration of the fund is under the superintendent of pensions, with the company in the position of trustee of the contributions. Generally speaking, the retirement age is fixed at sixty-five, with the pension fund regulations constituting a contract between the company and each employee. The basic pension provided for under sections 12 and 14 is $300 per annum, which amount is provided at the sole expense of the company. Section 12 of the regulations reads:
Every employee who joins the service of the company hereafter before attaining the age of forty-five years shall, if he remains continuously in the company's service to age sixty-five, be entitled to receive upon his retirement a basic pension of $300 per annum, which amount shall be provided at the sole expense of the company.
Section 14 reads:
Every employee in the service on January 1, 1935, who entered the service before attaining 50 years of age, and who at such date shall have had more than ten years continuous service shall, if he remains continuously in the company's service to age 65, receive upon retirement a service pension of such amount as is represented by one per cent of his highest average salary for any ten consecutive years multiplied by his years of continuous service at the said date. Such service pension shall be provided at the sole expense of the company. No employee shall be entitled to both a basic pension and a service pension.
My reason for bringing this matter to the attention of the minister is this, and I am sure other hon. members are in the same position. From time to time employees of the railway company complain regarding inequities in the regulations and anomalies in interpretation which have resulted in injustice to not a few; and the employees feel that under the interpretation of the rules they have not been fairly dealt with. The attitude taken by many is that in the interpretation of the rules the letter rather than the spirit is adhered to. Having regard to the rates of present-day pensions, the representations made to me on the part of many who are eligible for pension is that consideration should be given to an increase in the amount of the basic pension; secondly, that the provisions applicable today respecting the award-

ing of pensions are determined in large measure upon continuity of service. Where there have been breaks in the service under circumstances which, upon examination, are shown not to have been of a serious nature, it is recommended that a change should be made in the regulations to enable a small break not to be permitted to operate to the detriment of the employee. The third representation is that a number of changes should be made in general with regard to these provisions, details of which at the present time I am not going to place before the minister.
I make this appeal to the minister, because this fund is subject to recourse by all employees of the Canadian National railways who come within the ambit of its provisions. I think the minister would be doing a worthwhile act if he would let the employees of the railway know he would appreciate suggestions and representations from them individually as to changes which should be made in the pension regulations, and that, in particular, examples they have in mind, whether personal or otherwise, indicating that injustices have been done, should be brought to his attention to the end that recommendations might be made on the part of the board to relieve the individuals in question from the inequities which result from too strict an application of the regulations.
I believe, if the minister were to follow those suggestions, he would receive a large volume of representations, provided that the employees knew that when they make representations their identity would in no way be revealed to anyone else. On the basis of the composite representations which would come to his attention, suggestions might very well be made to those charged with the making of the regulations-and the power, of course, rests with the board-to make changes in order, not only to bring the regulations up to date in accordance with present-day conditions, but to remove anomalies in the interpretation which so often occur.
I make this suggestion to the minister because I realize he is as anxious as anyone can be to assure the maintenance of t'he morale of the employees of the Canadian National Railways who contributed so mightily, as did all railway employees during the days of war, to the victory which came to our country and the empire.
Railway employees gave their all; and when the story of the war, including the story of their contribution, is written, that contribution will stand alongside the service of all other sections of our community. These employees cannot speak directly to the minister;

Supply-Transport
but if opportunity is given to them in this way, many of the causes of dissatisfaction, not large in themselves individually, but in their entirety very large, would be brought to his attention. Then, through his higher officials these various complaints could be collected and a composite picture of the necessary changes in the regulations brought to the attention of the board. That is the matter of national importance I bring to his attention.
Now, as a matter of importance to Saskatchewan and Alberta I bring to his attention once more the need at this time of something being done at an early day to complete the gaps in the Bonnyville-St. Walburg line and also the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte 'line. I know what the reasons were for discontinuance. Financial conditions made it impractical to continue them. Depression was everywhere in our country as it was throughout the world. Then, with the improved conditions came the war, and during the war no construction work, however necessary, could be proceeded with because of the exigencies and demands of war.
But today we have in these two lines the uncompleted ends going nowhere. In other words, we have two lines of railway, one of which is to join up with the Hudson Bay railway and the other of which goes in a southerly direction. In one case the railway ends forty miles from its terminal, and in the other, a little less than that. As the minister knows, thousands of these people went into the area in northern Saskatchewan and Alberta believing that the railway would be completed. They have been waiting for the past fourteen or fifteen years. I know the minister could do no better thing to open up the northern parts of Saskatchewan and Alberta than to say that something would be done to complete these gaps.
Representations have been made before in this connection. It is not a political matter. In this connection I think of the hon. member for Athabaska and the hon. member for Davenport who, as in so many other matters affecting the welfare of the western provinces, has been one of the great proponents of the completion of these two lines.
These are two matters I bring to the attention of the minister. One is a national matter which will develop a greater morale among the employees of the Canadian National railways than ever before, and the other will do much toward raising the hopes of those who believe in the future of the northern parts of Alberta and Saskatchewan.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to answer the recommendations made by the hon. mem-83166-319J
ber for Lake Centre, and in doing so I would deal, first, with the last one having to do with filling the gaps between Bonnyville and St. Walburg, and Heinsburg and Frenchman Butte. I am fairly familiar with the question, because last year I received a delegation which recommended the filling of those gaps. Then, less than a week ago I saw another delegation of some eight or nine people, and saw them in western Canada not very far from the place where the gap is situated.
As I pointed out to them, and as I must point out to the hon. member and the committee, the reason these gaps were not filled, and no new construction of branch lines was contemplated during the war, was lack of materials and lack of labour.


John George Diefenbaker: That is true.


Lionel Chevrier: The position today is that during the war years the railways were not able to replenish their stock and equipment, with the result that there is a great deal to do in that respect. I am thinking at the present time of boxcars for which there is a tremendous need, not only on the Canadian National Railways, but on the Canadian Pacific railway. While I am authorized to speak only for the Canadian National Railways, the position on the Canadian Pacific railway is exactly the same. They must put in new rails; they must lay ballasting and obtain boxcars, refrigerator cars and reefer cars. That is the reason why the; railroads have not been able thus far to undertake a programme of branch line construction or branch line extension. These remarks which I am now making have to do with the question raised by the hon. member for Swift Current this evening, and they will serve to answer the request that he made. I think, when the position of the railroads in so far as equipment is concerned is better, they will be able to consider this. I told the delegation, as I am telling the hon. member now, that when the time comes to build branch lines and to fill these gaps, the gap between Heinsburg and Frenchman Butte is one that will be given consideration.
With reference to the other matter of national scope of which he spoke, I must say that I have not the rules and regulations of the pension board before me. I thank my hon. friend for sending them over to me now. My recollection is that the rules and regulations provide for a pension board made up of three representatives of the railroads and two of the brotherhoods. I may be mistaken, but that is my recollection. If that is so, the complaints which he makes concerning inequities and anomalies in the interpretation of the regula-
Supply-Transport

tions should work out automatically. By that I mean that if employees bring to the attention of their own brotherhoods their position in so far as injustices are concerned, I am sure they will make that position quite clear to their colleagues on the board. If it is thought that is not so, not only will it be my pleasure, it will be my duty to bring any inequalities or injustices suffered by the employees to the attention of the directors of the Canadian National Railways.
In so far as rates and amendments to the regulations are concerned, perhaps the remarks which I have made would apply equally to that. I do not know when the rates were last changed.


John George Diefenbaker: They have not been changed since the inception of the plan.


Lionel Chevrier: If that is the case I shall certainly be glad to bring the representations of my hon. friend to the attention of the directors of the Canadian National Railways just as soon as my estimates are through.


Thomas Langton Church: I want to transfer the discussion on the administration estimates to Ontario, the St. Lawrence river and the upper lakes. I have great regard for the minister and what I am going to say is not in criticism of him because I have raised the question before. I agree with what the hon. member for Davenport said about him. You, Mr. Chairman; come from the province of Ontario, and you know that we have a magnificent transportation system in the great lakes. The tonnage passing through the Welland1 canal is equal to the tonnage passing through the Suez and Panama canals. Most of this tonnage is made up of grain moving to seaboard.
We have estimates under the Minister of Transport amounting to $35,000,000. I intend to speak, first, of the canal services, and then I shall speak for four or five minutes on the marine services. There is an agitation to have free harbours in this country, and then we have people wanting free tolls on bridges built that cost millions of dollars. I do not know where the money is to come from unless they get some revenue. Water-borne traffic acts as a competitor with rail traffic during the summer and early fall months, and! saves excessive freight rates.
In connection with this particular item I wish to bring up one or two points. We have a number of canals in Ontario such as the Rideau, the Murray, the Trent. The Rideau canal runs through the Rideau lakes; the Trent and Murray canals up through Mus-koka, Parry Sound and the lake Simcoe dis-

trict. The country has a large investment in these canals. It is true that the Rideau canal was built by the British government shortly after the war of 1812 to provide a back door into lake Ontario. Some use should be made of these canals, including the old Welland canal at Port Dalhousie. I hope that matter will be considered by the department. There should be some national policy in connection with these large investments, and the Trent, Rideau, lake Simcoe, Georgian bay, Muskoka and other northern Ontario districts make a great summer and winter resort. _
I am not referring now to the Newmarket canal, although I thank the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario for calling it to my attention. I remember that canal myself. Some of the greatest speakers of the day, such as the Hon. Sir Allen Aylesworth, spoke so eloquently about the Newmarket canal. I want to point out in all seriousness the lack of life-saving facilities on our great lakes. Dominion day has just passed and fifty-seven drownings are reported up to date. People go out in all kinds of boats which are not subject to inspection. We should do something about it. Six lives were lost at Buckingham from a capsized rowboat. No one should be allowed1 to rent a canoe or rowboat who cannot swim, and the owners should be penalized who do so.
It may not be under the minister's department., but I would call his attention to the great loss of life in this country. We have no life-saving stations on the great lakes. Anyone can rent a canoe or rowboat and he does not have to be satisfied that the person rent-ting it can operate it. Unless the person renting the boat knows how to operate it, he is just committing suicide; not only that, he is committing murder in connection with those who are unfortunate enough to go out with him. This may involve an amendment to the criminal code to provide sufficient penalties.
I come now to the question of life-saving on the great lakes. How is it that we still have these accidents? There was one in lake Superior which occurred about 60 or 100 miles from Port Arthur where several people were drowned. There was one the other day at Port Rowan vrhere three people were drowned and three were rescued. This was a 28-foot cabin type launch, which took passengers for hire. Anyone can go out in these launches and they are never inspected, and should, be under public control. When people go out in them they go out at their own peril, because some have not even life preservers. The vote for life-saving service is only $47,250. The details of this vote ar? on other pages of the

Supply-T ransport
49S9
estimates, but most of this is in connection with, the oceans. Ontario contributes about forty-two per cent of the cash taxes of the' dominion and) yet we get no help at all. How does it come about when these ships moving grain to the east are in trouble that they have to sound their sirens hoping that they will get some help from the United States life-saving stations? As you go along the lakes on the great lakes side from the St. Lawrence river you find life-saving stations at Charlotte, Rochester, Buffalo, Erie and so on. I might also mention the Detroit river, lake St. Clair, lake Huron and Georgian bay, where there was a great disaster a few years ago, and) on to lake Superior. What are we doing about providing life-saving stations on these waters?. Nothing. I do not like to bother the young minister because he has always been, polite and courteous to the members of the house but I do urge that he develop a national policy of life-saving stations on the great lakes.
In a debate in this house in May, 1928, referring to the storms on the great lakes in the (season of 1927 in which many brave sailors on grain trade ships were drowned in lake Superior, and in connection with a change of flag which was under discussion at that time I said:
The sense of Canada's nationalism increases and multiplies through our love of British unity. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see this country a deadbeat on the taxpayers of the British isles for the upkeep of battle cruisers and a navy to maintain the safety of Canadian shores and for the protection of Canada's commerce on the high seas. The true Canadian nationalist will not want to see Canada a nation only in the advertising pages of American journals. As a nation we are a pauper so far as the actual reality goes.
The closing days and nights of navigation on the great lakes in the season of 1927 recorded a great story of unbroken fortitude and of unshaken endurance which proved that our countrymen, the sailors on the decks of those doomed vessels, were blood brothers of the soldiers who brought glory to Canada at St. Julien, the soldiers who could not be blown off the ground they gained at Passchendaele, who climbed the heights of Vimy Ridge, who gained the victory at Amiens and on many another field of glory, men whose names will forever thrill every true Canadian. These sailors struggled or waited hour after hour; help came to them, it was help organized by the valiant hearts and strong bodies of their own country, or if help came it was help bought and paid for by the taxes of the people of the United States. That is Canadian nationality for you. The struggle was a story of glory for Canada's sailors. The struggle was a story of shame for Canada's politicians. The tragedies of the great lakes in the closing hours of navigation last season showed in its true colours the stuff that Canadian nationalism is made of. We have those who write and talk and chatter at banquets and refuse to pay under the terms of that nationality.
Canada is a proud and haughty nation. It sends its merchant ships into the winter storms with nothing to do but whistle fqr a United States service tug when the ship is in danger and to fill the air with the distress signals of a siren with the hope that a United States life saving vessel will put to sea 'and save the lives of Canadian sailors.
That story is being repeated over and over again, and I am very sorry that nothing is-done to provide our own life-saving stations. Only yesterday ten or fifteen boys collapsed in canoes and dinghies off the eastern end of the eastern gap in Toronto bay, where there is an old federal break-water that has been built since confederation. Scores of people would have been drowned in lake Ontario yesterday but for the efforts of the Toronto life-saving station which is maintained at the expense of the Toronto taxpayers. They get calls to go up to Muskoka and all along lake Ontario, lake Simcoe and Georgian bay, and all that is done at the expense of the Toronto taxpayers. 1 plead with the minister for a national policy to save life on the great lakes. Every day men, women and children are being slaughtered on the highways, at level crossings, and by drownings. That is something which should not happen and I hope something will be done about it.
In the Niagara district we should have a car ferry instead of the old tub, the Northumberland running to Port Dalhousie. The hon. member for Davenport was to have had his picnic on it the other day. It was not good enough for Prince Edward Island, which this week got a new $6,000,000 car ferry. We should have a car ferry on lake Ontario for Port Dalhousie. We do not get anything in Ontario, although that is where forty-two per cent of the cash taxes are paid. All we get is this old tub, the Northumberland. In the Toronto district we used to have two or three shipbuilding plants in the old days. The Port Dalhousie route is badly in need of two ships. The hon. member for Davenport was quite right in not risking his life for his picnic this year on that old tub, the Northumberland. He held it this year at Centre island, Toronto. I was at Centre island yesterday. It is under water and you need hip-boots to go around there. I saw a civic controller trying to walk on the narrow boards. He is a great friend of the hon. member for Davenport. He might as well try to walk a tight rope across the Niagara river as try to walk around Centre island, flooded as it is, under this government's system where the city of Toronto has to pay for everything that this government can get the city to pay for. Soak the city all you can -that seems to be the policy. We have not
Supply-Transport

even had a cabinet minister from the Toronto district since 1935. No wonder we are being neglected in the estimates. All we want is equality of treatment in Ontario. We want a fair deal for our province in connection with these expenditures.
The Toronto life-saving crew are on constant call when there are lives to be saved on the waters of Ontario. They get calls from lake Simcoe and the Peterborough lakes district also at times. It is the same all over the province. We want a fair deal in connection with the inland waterways. Not a cent for fife-saving is appropriated in the province of Ontario for the whole lake system. In the United States, on the great lakes they are spending money in this connection, but we are not. That is what is called Canadian nationalism. Well, as soon as we have a somewhat different kind of nationalism for the protection of the sailors on the great lakes who suffer so, the better it will be for this country.


George Alexander Cruickshank: I am rather embarrassed in speaking at this time because the maritimes have been talking of spending $40 or $50 million. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out to the mari-timers who want to spend some $40 million or $50 million-and I am speaking particularly for the benefit of the hon. member for Royal-* that a distinguished member from their district, Major Loran Baker, M.C., who represents Shelburne-Yarmouth-Clare-there are three names in that riding-has been selected as a member of the British empire team which will compete against the United States and Cuban teams for the tuna angling championship of the world at Wedgeport. It appears that the maritimers who want to spend $40 or $50 million caught a fish down there weighing four and a half pounds. We use that kind for bait in British Columbia.
I have no hesitation in saying that the matter on which I wish to speak is a local one and concerns Fraser Valley. The hon. member for Broadview who preceded me spoke for some time about life-savers. If anybody lives in Toronto they need life-savers; but I do not think, with all the power and all the taxation that this parliament has, anybody could put through enough legislation to save Toronto. I wish to speak about a matter that concerns purely and simply my riding. The only hope I have of getting any help is through the minister. As a private member I cannot do anything about the matter because it concerns the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I doubt whether any member of the government could do anything with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; certainly

a private member cannot. Some fifty years ago in the Fraser valley the Canadian Pacific Railway Company built a railway from the main line to connect their line to the Northern Pacific at Sumas, Washington. At that time they built their right-of-way above the high water mark and claimed and secured from the government exemption from dyke taxation because the railroad was above the high water mark. At that time the farmers of the district built a dyke along the Fraser river above the high water mark. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company in a few years lowered their grade eight feet below the high water mark, but to this day they have never paid a dollar in taxes. This great Canadian Pacific Railway Company- have apparently too much to say in the running of all the provinces and in the running of the dominion government and still do not pay a dollar in taxes, claiming and receiving exemption because the right-of-way was built above the high water mark of that day.
As I said, they lowered their right-of-way eight feet below the high water mark of the present time, but still they do not pay a dollar's worth of taxes. I do not know of anything about tolls on bridges, but I have heard a lot about it tonight. This company built a bridge which we are allowed to assess at only $100,000. The bridge cost less than half a million dollars to build some thirty or forty years ago. For municipal taxation purposes we are allowed to assess it only at $100,000, but they secure from the provincial government alone a revenue of over $600 a month. Then they secure revenue from' the telephone and international telegraph companies as well, but we are not allowed to do anything about the matter. I quite realize that, as a private member, I cannot do anything about it, and I doubt whether the minister can; but it is his duty to endeavour to do something about it.
I have read some of the history of the great Canadian Pacific Railway Company. You cannot read anything funnier than the history of this company which you can get from the library. If you want to get a book that you would not want your wife to see you reading, get a history of the builders of the Canadian Pacific railway. It is a lot worse than a book you would hide under the mattress, I can assure you, Mr. Chairman. These people can get away with this and pay no taxes to the municipality. This branch railway is the highest revenue producing railroad in the Dominion of Canada, and for the last ten years they' have not paid one dollar's worth of dyke taxes on this railroad. I think it is time the minister took the matter into con-

Supply-Transport
sideration. I admit it is a local issue. The only opportunity the farmers have of dealing with an injustice is through their local member who has to deal through the minister. I would urge the minister to use his influence a little to see that the farmers in my riding particularly get a fair deal.


Lionel Chevrier: Just one word in reply to the hon. member for Fraser Valley. I am not familiar with the details of the railways-


George Alexander Cruickshank: Your predecessors are.


Lionel Chevrier: to which he referred. I do not think there is anything in the department-I know there is nothing in my office that would set out the circumstances such as he has related them. I am not saying that they are not such as he has said they are. There is another thing my hon. friend must keep in mind. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company is a private corporation; it is not under the jurisdiction of the federal government as the Canadian National Railway is. The Minister of Transport or the government have no direct jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company; but I certainly shall be pleased to communicate with the company and bring to their attention the complaint which my hon. friend has made. As soon as I receive their reply, I shall communicate it to him, but I presume it will be some time after prorogation.


George Alexander Cruickshank: Thank you. I want to make one correction with regard to what the minister has said. I admit that it is a private corporation; but I say that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company receive all the benefits, all the privileges from the board of transport commissioners who are responsible to this government and to parliament; consequently the minister and this parliament have something to say in the matter.
Mr. WINTERS.: I wish to say just a few words on this item before it passes. I can think of no better way of starting than by complimenting the minister for the efficient way in which his department has rendered service in the constituency of Queens-Lunen-burg during the past year. I refer to the department generally, but in particular I should like to say their service in the navigation aids branch has been good and they have made a very fine improvement in the Canadian National railway between Halifax and Yarmouth. At last we have a service on that railroad which compares favourably in quality with any that may be found elsewhere
in Nova Scotia and in many parts of Canada. With a little more speed we shall indeed have a fine service.
In particular, I wish to lay two problems before the minister tonight, one in connection with the special merchant seamen bonus, and the other a littile later in connection with benefits for Canadian National employees. Generally speaking, merchant seamen special bonuses are paid to seamen who qualify by virtue of the fact that they served in dangerous waters and received a war risk bonus. I believe that the merchant seamen special bonus has been paid to many seamen who served on Canadian government ships, but there is one class who have not been able to qualify for this bonus. I refer to the seamen who served on fishery protection boats operated by the Department of Fisheries. To all intents and purposes these seamen are merchant seamen in every sense of the word except possibly one. I understand that these seamen on the fishery patrol boats signed on under continuing articles of agreement rather than Canadian articles of agreement, and therein lies the only distinction between these seamen and bona fide merchant mariners. The seamen on the fishery patrol boats were given the merchant seamen's pin; they were given documents stating that they served in the merchant navy, and in fact they were registered under the merchant navy.
The department has been very good and flexible in its arrangements for payment of the merchant seamen special bonus. It extended the time limit on the -regulation several times to permit seamen who failed to take advantage of the dateline to qualify. But there is this class of seamen who are still debarred, and I can- see no good reason for it. According to the regulations, they may -not be merchant seamen in fact, but in my opinon they were in deed. They qualify in every' respect except for those few words, "continuing articles of agreement", as against "Canadian articles of agreement". There is, therefore, this deserving class of people debarred from the benefits. I would urge upon the minister that he give them every consideration by attempting to broaden the interpretation of the regulations. I believe that, in terms of the spirit of the regulations, these deserving seamen qualify, and I would: ask the minister to see if they cannot be brought under the regulations.
The next problem I should like to place before the minister is in connection with benefits to employees of the Canadian National Railways. It is somewhat along the lines of the problems raised by the hon. member for
Supply-Transport

Lake 'Centre. To illustrate the point more particularly I should like to deal with a specific case. The case in, question is that of a gentleman by the name of Aubrey H. Conrad, who lives in Bridgewater, Nova Scotia. Mr. Conrad became an employee of the old, Halifax and Southwestern railway in 1917. That railway has since become part of the Canadian National Railways. He was forced to retire from his job in November, 1917, after twenty-six years of service, for reasons of illness. His age then was forty-seven.
The railways' pension plan was enunciated by' the hon. member for Lake Centre. This pension plan, which was introduced1, I understand in 1935, was made applicable to employees who at that time had fifteen years or more of service. Employees under the terms of the pension regulations become pensionable at the age of sixty-five, or earlier in the case of injury or accident, provided that they have reached the age of fifty years. But since Mr. Conrad, the man to whom I have reference, was only forty-seven years of age at the time he was stricken, he was not eligible under this pension plan, nor was he eligible under the old provident plan.
There is another means of providing benefits to employees with long service, and that is by gratuitous allowances. That means is applicable to those men who do not qualify for pension or provident benefits. It was set up, and I quote from a letter provided to me by the minister:
... in order to take care of employees with long service who were forced to retire before reaching pensionable age.
I emphasize, Mr. Chairman, that term "long service". For the purpose of these allowances, the definition of long service is twenty years or more. Mr. Conrad qualifies fully in this respect of long service because he has had twenty-six years of service, or six more than the minimum required.
But there is another requirement in connection with these gratuitous allowances, which states that employees must have reached the age of fifty years. Here Mr. Conrad is debarred because he was only forty-seven years of age at the time of his forced retirement. If long service is to be rewarded, or, to put it another way, if employees with long service are to be protected, as I believe they should be, then the age at which they are stricken should be a minor consideration. However, if the age is to be a factor, then a formula should be used which would combine age and service, as is done in many other companies. For example, if the qualifying length of service is to be a minimum of twenty years and the minimum age is to be

fifty years, I submit that there should be a formula combining the two for a total of seventy. That is done in some other companies and it works satisfactorily.
Mr. Conrad had twenty-six years of service. If the over-all is to be seventy, then he could have qualified at the age of forty-four. In other words, with twenty-six years of service, he being forty-seven years of age, the total would be seventy-three which would qualify him easily.
There is no other avenue I know of, or no other avenue which the railway brotherhood or the Department of Transport have been able to suggest whereby this man could qualify for benefits. I believe that every effort should be made to open the door so that he could qualify under the regulations applying to gratuitous allowances. The minister is aware of this case. I have referred it to him several times, as well as the brotherhood, and in a letter to me dated May 17, 1947, he stated:
To extend the present arrangement or to change the existing formula . . . w-ould cost the company a very substantial sum annually and we have had to take the stand that our present retiring allowances are as generous as we can make them.
I quite agree that there are practical limits with regard to how far any company can go in this direction of pension benefits. I know it has many commitments and, when dealing with one commitment, it must keep its eye on the over-all programme. But if, as the company itself states, the gratuitous allowances are "to take care of employees with long service who were forced to retire before reaching pensionable age", then it would appear that the age restriction is not allowing the company to live up to the purpose of these allowances. I would therefore urge upon the minister that such cases as this fall within the spirit of the gratuitous allowances, and that when the term of their service is adequate, employees should be allowed to qualify. If the railways do not see fit to ignore the age completely and qualify a man on the basis of long service alone, then they should make age a secondary consideration by applying a formula which permits service and age to be added together. As I have said before, that is a formula which is accepted in many other companies and it works satisfactorily. There is no other means whereby employees of this class can receive benefits. They have the greatest difficulty in paying their doctor bills; for the reason they had to retire in the first place, even at an early age, was because they were ill. I would again ask the minister if he will give that problem serious re-consideration, and determine whether or not the terms

Supply-T ransport
of the regulations cannot be extended to include men in'this unfortunate class.


Lionel Chevrier: May I say just one word in reply to the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg? He asks that the merchant seamen's special bonus be extended to cover the case which he has just referred to, which is that of seamen in fishing vessels. The difficulty in the past has been that the special order in council setting up the bonus defined the terms "seaman" and "ship". For instance, "seaman" means a person employed on board a ship under agreement made pursuant to section 163 of the Canada Shipping Act; and "ship" means a ship engaged in voyages in dangerous waters. I presume that the case which my hon. friend has reference to is a ship which is not one where a person is under an agreement and not one which was continually operated in dangerous waters. I suppose sometimes it did operate in dangerous waters and sometimes it did not. This being an order in council which was passed in order to give assistance to merchant seamen who operated in dangerous waters, I hesitate to say to the hon. gentleman that it would be possible to extend it to cover the men he mentioned. If consideration is given to cases such as he has in mind, it would have to be by a method other than that devised under this bonus.
As far as the case of Mr. Conrad is concerned, I made representations to the Canadian National on behalf of this gentleman, and the letter my hon. friend read is, I think, the final answer. However I shall be glad to ask the railways 'to take another look at the position.


Mr. WINTERS:: These men have established the fact that they served in dangerous waters, because they were in receipt of the war risk bonus, so that they have fully qualified in that regard. I believe the articles they signed are known as continuing articles of agreement, but I am not too clear on that point.


Mr. ARCHIBALD:: At this time I should
like to bring up one or two points which normally would come under items 413 and 451. Since I should like to spend a few minutes in the industrial relations committee, where I should be at the moment, I would ask permission to mention these matters now.
Last winter representations were made to me by the boat owners of the halibut fleet and also the crews, as well as the salmon trawlers, asking for more navigation aids on the Pacific coast. I know that from time to time the board of trade of Prince Rupert have asked for more navigation aids for steamships, and the department has taken
the position that, with modern instruments, more navigation lights and so on are not necessary; but in the case of the fishing fleet that is not so. I personally went down the coast from Prince Rupert to Bella Coola last year on a halibut boat, during the stormiest season; and when it gets dark and you try to find one of these small fishermen's harbours, as they are called, where they hole up for the night, it is almost impossible to get in. -It is at the entrance to such small harbours used by the fishermen that they would like to have lights installed. At the entrance to one small harbour commonly used out there they hang a Lantern. That is against the law, but they have to do it in order to protect themselves. I would suggest that, in putting in lights on the coast, if the department would consult with the boat owners association of Prince Rupert before installing them I believe it would be more satisfactory than having the department dnstal the lights on their own responsibility. The fishermen point out that there should be a light at Rosespit; that there should be a larger light on Bonilla island; and they state that from Bonilla island to Egg island there are no lights on the outside. There should be a buoy on Badjo reef on the west coast of the island. They also say the existing lights should be improved by expanding the number, and putting in larger lights with greater candle power. They say directional finding is not on continually; it is of low power, and there are not sufficient stations. There are no stations at Beal or Eculet, and the one at Tofino is unsatisfactory. However, they say the one at St. James is good. They urge that these directional finding stations should be put on an automatic basis, as in the United States, and that there should be a constant patrol service the year round. They point out that the one light they would like immediately is at Bonilla, and they say it should be more powerful.
Then they have pointed out to me that the weather station at Dead Tree is absolutely useless. When they are out in Hecate strait they may get a report from that station that it is calm, whereas it may be blowing a gale outside, and it may work the other way also. They would like to see the Dead Tree weather station put at Bonilla or Sandspit, to make it more satisfactory to the fishing fleet. Then at the northwest end of Banks island, forty-eight miles from Prince Rupert, there is a place called White Rock harbour where they would like lights installed. That is where they have a habit of hanging a lantern, in order to guide themselves into the harbour.
Supply-Transport

That harbour is used a great deal by fishermen during the fishing season.
I have also had representations from Reverend Mr. Kelly, who is in mission work along the coast with the United Church, in connection with the lighthouse keepers stationed there. He says that under the present set-up a tender is supposed to visit the lighthouse every six weeks, but that generally they are visited every two months, and sometimes even iess often. Tenders bring in food and incidentals. He points to the fact that lighthouse keepers are not overpaid, and that quite often they run out of food. The mission boat visits them once a month, and Mr. Kelly points out that the lighthouse tenders should pay more frequent visits to the lighthouses in order to service these men more adequately, and points to Egg island lighthouse, Addanbrook lighthouse, Pointer island lighthouse, and Ivory island lighthouse as particularly outstanding examples. Some of the lighthouses have two-way radios, while others have not, but that does not solve the problem altogether. All lighthouses should have two-way radios.
While in Prince Rupert, I ran into another problem having to do with the radio division. At the present time the R.C.A.F. frequency modulation stations at Mount Hays have been turned over to the Department of Transport, and are used only for weather reports. The installation consists of three circuits operating to the following points: Massett, Queen Charlotte islands; Sandspit, Queen Charlotte islands, and Annette island, Alaska. If these stations were put to proper use it would give the people in these localities longdistance telephone service to any country in the world having any means of voice communication. It is understood that this installation was made for the R.C.A.F. by the Northwest Telephone Company on the understanding that when the R.C.A.F. had finished with it they would purchase the entire installation. The main point of disagreement is that this F.M. equipment is used only for weather reports, and that it should be placed at the disposal of the people for telephone service, especially at Massett. It is understood that the circuit at Sandspit likely will be maintained, inasmuch as there is regular air service running through that point at the present time, but we would like to see this service extended so that people could use it as a means of telephone communication, because otherwise they are absolutely cut off from the outside.


Lionel Chevrier: The aids to navigation to which the hon. gentleman refers particularly are in the Prince Rupert agency, and he will be interested to learn that the department is spending some $65,000 in improvements, repairs and replacements to aids to navigation in that area. Then some thirty-two secondary lights have been installed in the inside channel extending from Vancouver to Prince Rupert, and they have been found fairly satisfactory. The condition of the lighthouse keepers, to which the hon. gentleman has referred, of course is not always of the best because of the isolated parts of the country in which they live, but the department is continually in touch with them trying to better their conditions. For instance, the salaries of some of the lighthouse keepers have been increased; in many of the stations two-way range telephones have been installed, and we are continually trying to improve the conditions under which these people live. The hon. gentleman has referred to a number of specific cases. I have made a note of them, and I will keep his representations in mind.
(Translation):


Mr. BONNIER:: Mr. Chairman, the Canadian National right of way crosses my constituency without a single stop. There are no stations between Lachine and the Union station in Montreal, a distance of 7 or 8 miles. In the country, trains could possibly go that distance without a stop. However, in my constituency, the trains go all that distance without stopping. It means that a population of from 75,000 to 80,000 are deprived of this transport service, which would be available to them if a station were located at St. Henri. Of recent date, a change occurred and the trains were routed farther to the south, with the result that our station is now useless, no trains making that stop now.
The Canadian Pacific have two stops, one at Montreal West, the other at Westmount, and their terminus is at Windsor station. At St. Henri, the Canadian National do not stop. The people of Verdun, numbering about 75,000, would be willing to board the trains at St. Henri, but as the Canadian National do not stop there, they have to use the Canadian Pacific station.
The Canadian National have consistently a deficit. It is no wonder since they do not take the trouble to stop for taking on passengers.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Joseph-Arsène Bonnier: It is bound to stop somewhere. Alongside the Canadian National tracks there are two tramway lines on the north side,

Supply-Transport
the St. Antoine-Westmount and the St. James lines, and three on the south side. These lines would convey passengers from Verdun and Ville-Emard.
In St. Henri, there is a most appropriate place for the construction of a station. The old structure could be moved to this new location where it would adequately serve the people of the district. Next to St. Zotique church, there is a former freight yard, owned by the Canadian National, adjoining Notre-Dame street. This location is most appropriate for the erection of a station that would be handy for the people from Verdun and St. Henri.
The Canadian National, ever anxious to serve the population of my constituency and increase their revenue, would derive real benefits by having their trains stop there to take on passengers, instead of keeping right on, like excursion trains.
(Text):


George Hugh Castleden: I should like to ask the minister one or two questions.


Mr. LANGLOIS:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. I have been trying to get your attention for an hour and a half, but without success. However I do not wish to take the turn of the hon. member who is about to speak, but I hope that the next turn shall be mine. I thank you.


George Hugh Castleden: I believe there is a list of speakers for this evening.


Mr. MacNICOL:: No, not on estimates.


George Hugh Castleden: The matter I wish to discuss this evening has to do with spur lines in the west. I know this is a headache to the minister and the railway companies. I believe the condition was caused by the competition which existed when the railways were being built-the Canadian Northern, the Grand Trunk and the Canadian Pacific. As one railway built its way through it ran a spur out to head off the other railway. Then the other company cut in north of that, with the result that very often these spur lines were left.
In my own constituency there is a case of that kind which I should like to draw to the attention of the minister. I am going to offer, for what it is worth, a plan which, I think, might be used to remedy the situation, for the benefit of all.


Lionel Chevrier: What is the name of the line?


George Hugh Castleden: The first is a spur line that the Canadian National Railways ran from Melville. They ran the line up as far as Yorkton, and then ran a spur line from Yorkton, through Willowbrook to Beaver Dale to Parkerview, and it ended there, at a dead end. The Canadian Pacific railway came through Yorkton from Winnipeg to Saskatoon. They ran through from Yorkton to the northwest from Foam Lake. They ran a spur down to head off the Canadian National Railways. The spur line ran from Foam Lake to West End and Back End, ending at Wishart. The result is that these people living on these two spur lines find themselves with a most inefficient service. The spur line from Foam Lake gives them a passenger service once a week, running out from Foam Lake to Wishart, and then running back picking up freight. This is a congested and unsatisfactory situation, both for the people and the railway company.
I know petitions are being sent by these people. In fact I have helped to present them to the board of transport commissioners. I know what the problem is, and I believe the minister might help to prevent the stalemate which exists if he were to act as arbitrator. He could call the two railways together and suggest that either one or the other withdraw from the field. Have someone arbitrate and find the value of the spur line; then let. the other one buy out the other's spur. These two could then be joined together. It is a distance of fourteen or fifteen miles. If it is the Canadian National that buys out the Canadian Pacific's spur, then let the Canadian National run from Yorkton through Parkerview on to the Canadian Pacific spur and come back to their own line perhaps at Touchwood or Raymore.
If the Canadian Pacific buy out the Canadian National to Parkerview, then let the Canadian Pacific complete their line and run from Wishart back to the Canadian Pacific line at about Wynyard. In that way they could operate an efficient service for the whole of the area and give these people a better passenger and freight service, while at the same time they would make it more profitable for themselves. At the present time the condition is not economical, and there is not a good service.
I should like to have the minister's reaction to my suggestion. I understand that there was a shortage of materials and labour. I know the board of transport commissioners are working with these problems, and it seems to me that some solution such as I have offered would be of great assistance.
The other matter to which I would draw the minister's attention is the Trans-Canada Air Lines service to Yorkton. Would this come under his department, or that of the Minister of Reconstruction and Supply?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of
Reconstruction and Supply.


George Hugh Castleden: Then I shall take it up under that department. In the meantime I should like to have the minister's reaction to the other matter.


Lionel Chevrier: There is provision in the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act for cooperation between the two railways to cover a case such as he has mentioned. Since I have been in the Department of Transport, I have never acted in the capacity of arbitrator, although I have been requested from time to time to do so. The matter he has discussed is one which should be brought to the attention of the two railway companies, with particular reference to the application of the act. The Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act was enacted with a view to coordinating the services of the two railway companies. If the hon. member would write to the railway companies and make reference to that act I believe consideration would be given to his request.


George Hugh Castleden: The board of transport commissioners does not handle that.


Lionel Chevrier: The board of transport commissioners would handle it if an application were made by the parties concerned to complete the line and to coordinate the service. It has jurisdiction.


George Hugh Castleden: Petitions have been coming in asking for improvement of the service. Perhaps we could make the representations the minister has suggested.


Lionel Chevrier: I do not know all the details, but in order to get the matter before the board of transport commissioners the case would have to be one which would come under the jurisdiction of that body. I do not know enough about the matter to say whether it does or not, and that is why I have refrained from saying that it does. But if it does not, the other alternative is the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act.


J. G. Léopold Langlois: Mr. Chairman, before making the remarks that I wish to make I should like to associate myself with the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg who made such timely remarks in connection with the special bonus payable to seamen. If I understood correctly what my hon. friend said, his suggestion would entail another extension of the time in wkich seamen could put in claims for bonuses. As hon. members know, the expiry date was March 31. I strongly recommend to the minister that another extension be made.
There are a few cases in my riding which were not considered because they had been made after March 31. In this connection it might be well to remind the committee that the men who served in the armed forces of Canada were given ten years in which to claim their gratuities, while our seamen were given only a few months to claim their special war bonus. During the war the proposed provisions in connection with our returned soldiers were largely publicized among the troops, and on demobilization the members of the forces had the free services of a rehabilitation counsellor who reminded them that they had something they could claim from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Moreover, the man's service record was made available to him by officers of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The merchant seaman sailed, not just on one ship, but on many ships during his years of service. When he was discharged from his last ship there was no one beside him to tell him what he was entitled to and he had no one to make the necessary computations. As I say, he was given only a few months; he was told that if he did not make his claim within such a period he would have no claim at all. If we are to compare the service rendered by our seamen with the services rendered by our soldiers, airmen and the men of our navy, it is only fair that we should give the merchant seaman an equal chance to claim the few benefits to which he is entitled and which he has truly earned.
Last year when I spoke on these estimates I reminded the Minister of Transport of the numerous representations which had been made during the past fifteen or twenty years with regard to the acquisition by the Canadian National Railways of the railroad line between Mont Joli and Matane and the extension of the line from Matane to Ste. Anne des Monts. I gave the committee at that time many good reasons in favour of that project and I shall not repeat them tonight. Last year the minister promised that he would ask the Canadian National Railways to investigate this matter further.
At the beginning of the present session I was given an opportunity of seeing the report which was subsequently made by the officials of the Canadian National Railways. I can quite understand why I was not able to obtain a copy of that report, but I wish to say that it was most disappointing in that it was quite incomplete. The report mentioned the lumbering industry which would be served by this railroad and it gave a wrong idea of the real picture. The manager of one lumber

Supply-Transport
company located in my riding has asserted that the figure given in the report in connection with the lumbering industry was ridiculous. He told me that in only two villages in that part of the country there was a production this year of fifty-eight million feet of lumber, while the report mentioned only a few million feet.
If my memory serves me correctly, the report stated that fishing was the main industry in the region concerned. To my knowledge, there is not a single full-time fisherman in the whole region through which it is proposed that this railroad should go. In the report no mention was made of recent mining developments in that area. Candego Mines Limited is actually building at Site. Anne des Monts a mill which will be ready by the end of the summer. It will have a daily capacity of fifty tons. The building of this mill together with the construction of the road leading to it was in the course of being realized when this report was made, but still the report made no mention of it.
I do not want to lay any blame on anybody.
I know the minister was courteous to me and willing to help me in this connection. That is why I hope he will ask the officials of his department to visit that part of the country and really investigate the possibilities of development, and then make a complete report on what is going on there. For myself I want to assure the minister that I shall always be at the disposal of any official of his department to 'introduce him to our public bodies like the chamber of commerce and our businessmen, and I shall be more than ready to go with him and show him just what is happening and help him in any other way, so that he oan make a full and complete report.


Mr. ARGUE:: I wish to bring to the
attention of the minister a few gaps in the railway line that exist in my constituency. Last year I brought to his attention a problem concerning the fences being down on the Canadian Pacific line south of Assiniboia, and I am glad to report that within a couple of months afterwards I received a letter from an official of the railways stating that the fences had been repaired.
There is a gap between Mankota and Val Marie of approximately forty miles; another between Big Beaver and Minton of approximately thirty-two miles, and another one between Cardross and Dunkirk of approximately nineteen miles. These railway lines in each case are owned by the Canadian Pacific. The lines existing as they do at present mean that anyone going to the city from points along these lines must go either
a long way out of the way east and back again, or else a long way out of the way west and back again. Leaving Val Marie to go to Regina one has to stop a night at Noteku and another one at Assiniboia and take another day to get to Regina. If these gaps were filled the railway service could be improved so that people would be able and willing to use the lines more for passenger service and express than they do at the present time.
The rural municipality of Happy Valley has sent me a resolution asking that the gap be filled between Big Beaver and Minton. I can best illustrate what happens when gaps have not been filled by citing the branch line on which I happen to live. For example, this winter I got on a train at home at 9.30 in the morning to go to Regina, a distance of seventy-five miles. At 6.30 that evening I was passing through the little village of Corinne, and I had made about forty miles on the way to Regina. Then I had to go to Moose Jaw and back again to Regina.
There is only a 19-mile gap between Cardross and Dunkirk. If that gap were bridged, the service could be made reasonably good to the city of Moose Jaw.
I have had representations made to me from the town of Ferland for a railway station agent being placed there. I took the matter up with the board of transport commissioners and they sent me a return of the C.P.R. earnings at Ferland for the past three years, as follows: 1944, $83,100; 1945, $24,200; 1946, $13,500. I realize that the earnings in the last two years are definitely down, but in view of the serious crop failures which they have had at that point in those two years those earnings cannot be taken as representing the average returns. I received a number of letters from the secretary of the board of trade of Ferland, Mr. J. A. Fournier, and I think the case for a railway agent at that point can best be stated by my quoting a couple of paragraphs from those letters. He says:
The town of Ferland has three general stores, one garage, one blacksmith shop, one butcher shop, two implement dealers, three oil agencies,
And so on. He goes on:
There are some twenty thousand acres seeded to wheat every year that are tributary to this station, which should in normal times grow 400.000 bushels of wheat for shipment
There are three big ranchers directly south of here who have to take their cattle and horses to the neighbouring towns when they ship.
We have tried begging the C.P.R. for an agent for the last couple of years but they always put it off. They claim that the revenue of our town is not sufficient to warrant an agent here. The facts are as follows: Not hav-
Supply-T ransport


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Is that the Canadian National railway?


Hazen Robert Argue: The Canadian Pacific.


Pierre Gauthier: The Canadian National have some like that in my district.


Hazen Robert Argue: There are 156 householders, five grocery stores, three garages, a blacksmith shop, a tow drayman, two hotels, two cafes, along with a three-story cooperative store. The school is attended by some ninety children. The town is growing. The business -places are all attractive, all except the C.P.R. station. The people there have waited for a long time for a station and expected that something would be done on it last year, but to date nothing has been done. May I ask the minister to see that something be done to speed up the building of the station?
Before I take my seat, may I give an additional reason-if I may revert to the service along the Willow Bunch line-since there has been a promise all the time for many years to extend that line to hook up with the branch line coming out from Swift Current. After Willow Bunch, which is the end of steel, there is a little town called St. Victor that has not a railroad in it at all. I think that place should be provided with railroad facilities.


Lionel Chevrier: One word in reply to my hon. friend. I am sure he realizes that the Department of Transport has no jurisdiction over the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. All the matters that he has directed attention to this evening are matters affecting the Canadian Pacific. He did ask about the Miankota-Val Marie line. That is a Canadian Pacific railway line, I know the Minister of Agriculture has interested himself in that line par- [DOT] ticularly and has made representations to the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
The hon. member was not here when I replied to the hon. member for Lake Centre a moment ago and outlined the position with reference to branch lines and filling of gaps.
It is, I believe, the same in the Canadian

Supply-Transport
Pacific Railway Company as it is in the Canadian National Railways. I am informed by the officers of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company that just as soon as they begin branch line projects the Mankota-Val Marie line is one of those which will be considered.
The hon. member spoke of the station agent. That is a matter for the board of transport commissioners. Under the Railway Act they have full jurisdiction to deal with the subject. With reference to the railway station, that again is a matter for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, and if it will assist my hon. friend I shall be glad to direct his remarks to the attention of the officers of the railway.


Mr. BROOKS:: There are a few matters that I should like to mention. First, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond upon bringing to the attention of the committee the matter of the double-tracking of the railway from Moncton to Halifax and also the causeway at Canso. This is not new. It is not the first time that these matters have been brought before the house. I have been here for a number of years now, and I do not think a year has passed but that some hon. member from the maritime provinces has recommended that the main line of the Canadian National railway be double-tracked from Moncton to Halifax and from Moncton to Sydney. I do not suppose that there is any part of Canada where it is more needed than in the maritime provinces, as was suggested by the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond.
It is not my intention to ask very much for my own constituency. As a matter of fact the minister knows that my constituency is an inland one. We have no wharves or causeways or anything of that kind to request. I was much interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Wood Mountain, who just took his seat, and in his description of the railway station in his home town. I point out to the Minister of Transport that the Canadian National Railways have many old stations, and possibly I have as many in my constituency as are to be found in any other place in Canada. They are homely and ugly buildings. I would suggest to the minister that as soon as possible something should be done to replace these buildings. I would also suggest to him that when we have new buildings put up they be not of the kind described by the hon. member for Wood Mountain; they are more of the boxcar type of building. When the minister's department decide to build new railway stations, or when the Canadian National Railways decides to build them I suggest that they employ an architect so that we shall have
good-looking stations. They do not cost much more and they add to the attraction of the countryside.
Last night and this evening mention was made of the merchant marine and the treatment which they have received. I do not apologize for mentioning it again, although I have spoken on it a number of times in the house. I have always felt that our merchant marine did not receive when the war ended, and have not received since, the justice to which they were entitled. In that connection the merchant marine is spoken of as the fourth branch of our service. I should like to quote what the Prime Minister so eloquently said yesterday in speaking of the debt that we owe to the different branches of the service. He said, as reported at page 4888 of Hansard:
I am sure I speak for all hon. members when I voice feeling of thankfulness for the part which Canada was privileged to take in helping to preserve the freedom of mankind in that great conflict. We look back with tremendous pride on the part which our defence forces were able to take, along with those of allied and associated forces; the contributions made by our army, our navy, our air force and the merchant marine.
In his remarks yesterday the Prime Minister, I am sure, recognized the fact that the merchant marine was a branch of the services during the great war. In the remarks that he made yesterday I am sure he realized that they were on an equal footing with the other branches of the services.
Last evening the hon. member for Van-couver-Burrard covered this subject very well. He pointed out how this branch of the service was greatly discriminated against. I do not think anyone will question that statement. Tonight the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg made mention of one particular. The hon. member for Gaspe also made mention of this fact. I am not going to emphasize this point particularly tonight, but I wish to call to the minister's attention what I consider the unjust treatment which these men have received.
Last night the minister spoke of the benefits which the merchant marine had received. I acknowledge that they have received some benefits, but they have not received benefits in any way commensurate with the services which they have given to this country. One of the chief complaints is the education of the younger men who joined the merchant marine. From my own part of the country there were many young men who, instead of joining the air force or the army, joined the merchant marine. Their services were needed. They were told that they were doing a
Supply-Transport

patriotic duty just as though they had joined some other branch of the service. Today, when these	young	men	wish	to attenduniversity they do not get the $60 which is received by men who served in the other branches. Some of these young men were on ships which were torpedoed; they crossed the Atlantic	during	those	very	dark days.
Today they sit beside young men in universities who were never outside Canada. These young men receive $60 a month, but the men of the merchant marine who wish to complete their education receive absolutely nothing. I contend, Mr. Chairman, that that is most unfair treatment.
Again, the minister last night spoke about the ten per cent bonus. I think he knows that not all the	men in	the	merchant marinereceived this	ten per	cent	bonus.	The men
who served in the allied ships did not, I believe, receive the ten per cent bonus, although these men were Canadians. Soldiers who served in allied forces received the same benefits as those who served in our own forces, but here again there is a great discrimination against these men who served this country so well.
The minister also spoke about the dental and medical treatment these men received. I think it is a well-known fact that the only dental treatment which was received by the men of the merchant marine was the extraction of teeth. There was no filling or other attention given to these men. Again, there are many older men in the merchant marine, men who were broken down after the hardships they encountered in the voyages across the Atlantic. These men are not allowed the privileges of the Veterans' Land Act unless they are pensioners. They are not allowed to purchase small holdings. The men of the merchant marine have not the benefit of the civil service preference, which I consider one of the greatest benefits that any man in any service could receive.
As I say, it is not my intention to elaborate any further on this matter. I have spoken of it before. I hope the minister and his department will give it consideration. Last year we in the veterans affairs committee expected that this matter would be given attention.
I know the minister will reply that there was no promise made by him; but if he will read the report of the veterans affairs committee he will note that all through it there ran this idea, with good foundation-possibly not from the minister-that something would be done for these men. I will say to the minister that had the members of the veterans affairs committee known-and I know I speak for members of all parties-that these men would

have to wait for two years and that they would receive such shabby treatment as I feel they are now receiving, they would have insisted in their meetings last year that something be done.


Mr. CBOLL:: I have just a few words to say about the merchant seamen. The statements which have now been made by the hon. member for Royal bear out my understanding of the intention of the committee on veterans affairs. I have had occasion to look at the record since then, and it appears to me -and I think the minister may agree-that the members were rather the victims of an unfortunate misunderstanding. What happened was this. We intended to give the merchant seamen treatment commensurate with that which was received by other branches of the service.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is right,


David Arnold Croll: We were discussing it. It was rather late in the session, sometime in July. We had a great deal of work to do in the committee. About that time there appeared on the order paper a notice of motion in the name of the minister reading, "Leave to introduce a bill respecting compensation for merchant seamen." We had asked the minister or his department to deal with the problem, and we thought the minister had decided to do so.


Lionel Chevrier: No.


David Arnold Croll: I said, "we thought". We then appointed a sub-committee, and we specifically withheld from that sub-committee anything to do with merchant seamen. After the sub-committee considered the question and dealt with it, on July 17, 1946, the minister came before the house. He was asked to explain his bill, and we then found out for the first time that, instead of dealing with compensation, he was dealing with workmen's compensation.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That is right.


David Arnold Croll: As a matter of fact, the hon. member for Royal asked him a question on that day and we were all quite surprised at the answer he received. As reported1 at page 3533 of Hansard, the question asked by the hon, member for Royal was:
Has this anything to do with gratuities and reestablishment credits for seamen who served during the war?
The answer given by the minister was: "Nothing at all." I appeal to the minister on the ground that an injustice is being done these men. He may very well say that it was our duty to bring in a report; but time

Supply-Transport
was running short then. We had to get our sub-committees organized. We had to bring our report in. Unfortunately we did not include merchant seamen. I agree entirely with the hon. member for Royal and the other members who have spoken, that we intended to include merchant seamen. What I say to the minister tonight is this. It does not make any difference whether it is the Department of Veterans Affairs or the Department of Transport which corrects the wrong, but one of the departments ought to do so. Since it is within the power of the Department of Transport, and since these people are peculiarly the charge of the Department of Transport,
I think in all fairness the Department of Transport ought to correct the wrong.


Lionel Chevrier: I wish someone would clear up in my mind, and to my satisfaction, whose responsibility this is. When we had a discussion on this matter the other evening it was clearly stated, from the other side of the house and by more than one member, that this was a responsibility, not of transport, but of veterans reestablishment and benefits. This evening the hon. member for Spadina says that he thinks it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport. I am not trying to escape my responsibility, whatever it may be; but I am face to face with the position that 'the merchant seamen have not been considered as veterans in the same light and to the same extent as members of the armed services. If they had been, I take it that they would have been given the same benefits. Why? I have put on the record some of the reasons, and I do not want to repeat them tonight. But it is a fact that in the United Kingdom-and I think the position is the same in the United States, although I am not sure-they receive no reestablishment benefits. I am not arguing that we should do the same thing, but there is at least an example of what is done in that country. The hon. member for Spadina referred to his interpretation of the bill which was introduced iby me last year concerning compensation for merchant seamen, and I shall not dispute what he said in that respect. That may have been his impression. I believe his interpretation may not have been inaccurate, but since that was done several other benefits were established to assist the merchant seamen. There was the act to which the hon. gentleman referred, granting compensation to merchant seamen for injuries, accident and death from 1945 on. Then the Minister of Labour brought in an amendment to the Unemployment Insurance Act, providing certain unemployment benefits for members of that group. Then vocational training was
provided for members of the merchant navy, in their own calling, though it is true it did not go nearly as far as some hon. members would have wished. Then representations were made that they be included under the civil service preference, and my colleague the Secretary of State may have something to say in that respect.
I just wish to point out that the matter has been carefully considered. The other evening, during the discussion of the act to amend the Merchant Seamen's Compensation Act, the Minister of Veterans Affairs and I gave an undertaking that sympathetic and careful consideration would be given to the possibility of amending the Civilian War Pensions Act to cover cases prior to 1945. My colleague gave careful consideration to that point; he consulted with his officers, and they came to the conclusion that the position could not be met by an amendment to that act. It was stated that the act provided for ten different groups of civilians who served during the period of world war II, and in every instance entitlement to pension was conceded only when the disability or death was the result of enemy action or counter-action against the enemy, or the direct result of war service, and consequently to make provision for the position which was referred to at the time would be a serious departure in principle, because it would provide for claims which it is definitely stated would not be the result of direct enemy action or counter-action. That brought the matter down to the position discussed the other evening on the Merchant Seamen's Compensation Act, namely, that in view of the fact that this act was set up at the expense of the ship owners, both as to the cost of compensation and the cost of administration, it would be unjustifiable at this stage to ask the ship owners to pay into the fund money for accidents arising from 1939 to 1945.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: That really is not what
we are discussing. We are discussing the rehabilitation benefits, which is something entirely different.


Lionel Chevrier: I agree with the hon.
gentleman. That is what I discussed a moment ago in reply to the hon. member for Spadina, when I stated the things that were done in the way of benefits for merchant seamen following the introduction of the act of 1946. That brought me to the statement made by my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs that he would give sympathetic consideration to amending the Civilian War Pensions Act to cover cases such as those brought up by the hon. gentleman, and I am stating that
Supply-Transport

this was considered carefully and specifically and that the decision was as I have given it to the committee.


Mr. KIDD:: Under this item I should like to draw to the attention of the minister the matter of the Canadian National station at Kingston; and this is not the first time I have done so. Some twelve or thirteen years ago the Canadian National Railways definitely promised the city of Kingston a new station, but up to the present they have not fulfilled that promise.


Lionel Chevrier: Is the hon. gentleman
correct in saying there was a promise to build a new station?


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Yes. It was made some twelve or thirteen years ago when they took off the early morning train to Toronto, and a sleeper that ran from Kingston to Toronto. However I believe something could be done to improve the service at that station. Just a week ago Sunday evening I happened to see an incident there which should not have occurred at all. A lady who had been in Kingston visiting her son in the hospital was returning to Toronto. The trains pidl in there about six-thirty in the evening. Usually the fast trains are in two sections, and often there are three sections. This lady, not knowing what section her car was in was hurrying, with many others, across the tracks, which are not in very good condition. In doing so, she knocked the heel off her shoe and was thrown full length across those tracks; and she was not very young, either. The facilities at that point are not good. Those trains pull in perhaps with a couple of diners, two or three chair cars, with the first-class coaches at the rear. It is not unusual to find forty or fifty people hurrying to the rear or the front of the train in order to get seats. If it is raining these people have to stand in the rain and wait while forty or fifty other people get off the train. When they get on the train they are directed to the right; when they get there they find all the seats occupied. Then they have to pick up their luggage and walk through two or three or four cars looking for seats. I believe the company can improve present conditions, even if they cannot proceed immediately to build a new station. I believe they could help matters by opening more doors. It is not right to ask a lady carrying a suitcase to walk through four or five coaches in order to find a seat. I am not finding fault with the personnel of the trains. I believe they are the finest in Canada, and I pay tribute to them. But they are probably the oldest employees of the company, and I believe the Canadian

National should give them some extra help. Plenty of boys who have come back from overseas are looking for positions today, and some of them would be glad to work on the trains.
I now want to bring to the attention of the minister a matter in reference to the upper St. Lawrence. Only a few days ago it was brought to my notice that out of the goodness of his heart one American who had a good dock had permitted some 130 boats to tie up at it. He did not have to do that, but because of the scarcity of good docks on the St. Lawrence he gave these people permission to do so. I have in mind particularly Cedar island, which is the first island out of Kingston. There used to be two docks there but during the war, perhaps on account of shortage of labour and material, they were allowed to fall into a state of disrepair. What applies to Cedar island applies to many other islands as well, and I should think something could be done about it. It would not be a costly matter to build a few docks in that area; I believe there are several carpenters or contractors -who would welcome the job. We have many Americans coming to that district in boats, and there is no suitable place for them to tie up.
Then, I want to bring to the attention of the minister a matter having to do with the pilots who sail the upper St. Lawrence, down to Montreal. I brought one or two incidents to the attention of the department, and they were kind enough to rectify the mistakes that had been made. One of these pilots will board a boat in Kingston or Belleville and go to Montreal. He will arrive there late in the evening and take the midnight train back. These men are not employed during the winter months. Navigation opens on May 1, and they will take a boat down the river. They have not received any pay during the winter time. They will sign their card, leave it in the office, board the train and go back. Two or three months will go by before these men will get their pay cheques. I saw one of those cards. It goes through the office in Montreal, and I tried to rectify this.
But this should not occur. I believe there are forty of these men, and cases are piling up.
I think those men should file their claims in duplicate. They are given only single cards. When one asks a man what claim he wishes to make, he has no card on his person. So I bring this matter to the minister's attention to be checked up. I have brought it to his attention personally, but it has been neglected.


Lionel Chevrier: I should like to say a word or two concerning the points raised by

Supply-Transport
the hon. member. With reference to Kingston station, the hon. member will understand that in 1947 the Canadian National Railways are not building many new stations. They are building some, such as the one at Edmonton, and one or two other points where conditions are such that they feel stations should be built. However, they do not propose to do any building in the Kingston area this year.
They have plans and specifications for a new station at Kingston. Just when or how soon it can be built, I do not know. That will depend upon materials, and matters of that kind. There are a number of things it is difficult to get. The position in my own constituency is very bad; almost as bad as, indeed if not worse than that in the constituency of the hon. member. But I can assure him that the situation is not being forgotten.
The other rather serious matter he brought up was with reference to pilots who complain they have to go quite some time before receiving their cheques. The hon. member knows, of course, that those cheques are not paid by the Department of Transport. Ship owners employ and pay the pilots. But the pilotage authority, who happens to be the minister, will certainly see that delay such as that does not occur. My officers who are here and who are familiar with the situation tell me this does not happen often, but only in a very rare case. I know the hon. member has brought the matter to my attention at least once before, I can assure him I shall have my officers communicate with the ship owners to make sure that it does not happen again.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have just a word to say about the imposing delegation which called upon the minister to speak about the Temis-couata railway, which is in very bad condition. I have heard something said about the condition of different railways in Canada, but the Temiscouata railway is in the worst condition. All the facts have been laid before the minister. I shall not take any more of the time of the committee; the minister knows his business and I hope he will not forget the representations wThieh were made to him some two months ago by the delegation which called upon him.


Lionel Chevrier: I can assure the hon. member I shall not forget the representations made by that imposing delegation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you.


Mr. HERRIDGE:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer to a matter which has been of
interest to members in my constituency for over forty years. I have spoken briefly about this matter, but I feel I must refer to it again this evening. I refer to the matter of bringing the Canadian Pacific railway steamers which operate on the Kootenay, Arrow and Slocan lakes under the act and thus under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners. I mentioned this matter last session and I believe the minister replied that he would make inquiries.
I notice that in the 1946 report of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada these words are found at page 20:
By amendments to the Transport Act in the year 1945, the board's jurisdiction was extended to all ships of over ten gross tons operating for hire and reward in the Mackenzie river watershed. The said amendments became effective on February 9, 1946, by proclamation.
I believe, from my knowledge of the subject, that the application to have these steamers brought under the board1 of transport commissioners is of much more recent date than the various applications made by numbers of organizations and representative bodies consisting of farmers, and those connected with industry and commerce in my constituency throughout the years.
Years ago, up to the time of the building of the Kettle Valley railroad we had a satisfactory steamer service. A passenger steamer went south every day and another passenger steamer came north. A third boat operated during the summer months to handle fresh fruits which went on to the Calgary and 'Edmonton markets.
Since the building of the Kettle Valley railroad1, the service has gradually grown worse and worse. I believe I know the reason why. We are more or less of an orphan in transportation, so far as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company is concerned. Of course the Kettle Valley railroad wishes to divert as much traffic as possible for itself. Some years ago during the depression, an official of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company when asked the reason for our poor service said, "Well we do mot want to split our tourist traffic that is going to lake Louise or to our coast hotels. If we advertise the Arrow lakes or improve the service the country is so beautiful that many people will not go on to the coast hotels and possibly would not stop as long at lake Louise."
We have no redress in the matter, nor have we any board to which we can appeal. I do not think it is right that these people should be asked to spend their lives and to invest their money over long periods of years in the
Supply-Transport

development of a country, and not have some security so far as transportation is concerned. Quite recently, through a misunderstanding of a post office inspector with regard to correspondence between the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and his department, letters were sent to a postmaster at an Arrow lake point, indicating that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company was likely to discontinue the passenger service on the lake. It was a mistake, of course, but the information in that letter was widely circulated throughout the whole district. I received letters from several, inquiring about the matter, because they know their position, so far as transportation is concerned, is insecure.
During the summer months, instead of a daily service north and a daily service south each day on the Arrow lakes we now have a bi-weekly service which has killed the soft fruits business, so far as the prairie market is concerned. You cannot pick strawberries and raspberries and leave them standing two or three days to wait for a steamer. They should be picked today and delivered the following morning. In the winter months the service is split because of the low water in the narrows above the swift water.
On the upper lake we have a tri-weekly service, which is not such a serious disadvantage in the winter months. In the lower lake we have what might be called a passenger tug, the Columbia, which has served the people who have lived there a good many years.
Quite recently-during the winter-I was on the boat for twelve hours in a small cabin' eighteen feet long by ten feet wide. In it were housed twenty-two people, men, women and children. No food is served on the boat, and there is no other refreshment accommodation. That is not good enough passenger service for the people of the district. If an accident occurs during the winter months they are entirely dependent upon small launches to bring out those injured, and the same conditions apply to sudden illness.
When it comes to freight transportation, this very small and obsolete tug pushes a barge in front of it, on which carloads of fruit are loaded in winter weather. Because of the size of the boat it can handle only one carload at a time from landings to railhead. Fruit which has been picked and grown at great cost must be hauled in near zero weather on an open barge. As I said before in this session, hundreds of tons of hay were on order and the purchasers were waiting for it for months because this little tug and the small barge it pushes could bring only one carload of hay down the lakes at a trip. It

is not good enough that these people who have developed the country, who have spent their lives and invested their money in the country, should be subject to the caprice of a railroad corporation so far as satisfactory transportation is concerned. I urge the minister to give this matter his serious consideration. What are the reasons for not bringing the Canadian Pacific steamship service on the Kootenay, Arrow and Slocan lakes under the act and thus under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners?


Lionel Chevrier: The answer is set out clearly in the Transport Act, which states that the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners with reference to steamers over the tonnage referred to applies only to the Mackenzie river area.


Mr. BURTON:: Mr. Chairman, the greater part of the evening has been spent in asking for the filling in of transportation gaps here and there across the country. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister a matter which no doubt bis officials have been aware of for a considerable number of years. This matter has been allowed to go on all that time without receiving proper consideration and I feel obliged to bring it to the attention of the minister tonight.
The old Canadian Northern main line from Winnipeg to Edmonton and on to Vancouver runs east and west through the centre of Humboldt constituency. When the Canadian Northern was in operation there was a daily passenger service on that line on week days and Sundays. After the amalgamation with the Canadian National Railways, that stretch of line was more or less relegated to the position of a branch line; at least it has received only branch line service. The result is that there is no passenger or mail service on that old Canadian National line on Sundays. Train No. 9 leaves Winnipeg on Saturday nights, but it goes only as far as Dauphin, and from there on to Saskatoon there is no service on Sundays on that line. I am also given to understand that on the greater part of that line, if not. all, a similar condition exists with reference to service from the west. After the amalgamation to which I referred took place, instead of the trains running through to Edmonton the passenger service was switched to run from Humboldt to Saskatoon and from there to Calgary. I understand that the train from the west comes through on Saturday nights and then makes a turn-about which leaves a gap in the service.
That is bad enough, but something else has occurred through the years which is of more concern to the people. A considerable amount of the freight that originates on the old Cana-

Supply-T ransport
clian Northern lines is diverted and sometimes back-hauled to Saskatoon in order to send it over the Grand Trunk line. The men who work on the Canadian Northern line and the people who are depending on that service feel that they have a grievance. If it were not for the lateness of the hour and the fact that these estimates have been brought down so late in the session I would be prepared to give the minister facts and figures on the freight that originates on these lines of the old Canadian Northern. We contend that we should at least have sufficient trains and train crews to handle the freight which originates there, instead of its being back-tracked in some cases over the line originally known as the Grand Trunk.
As I said, it is not my intention to delay the work of the committee and I will keep my word. But I urge the minister and the department to give this situation considerable consideration throughout the year. If he washes to have further information I am sure that the boards of trade and other interested parties in the different places between Dauphin and Saskatoon will be ready to cooperate with me in supplying him with what information he may require as to both the desirability of Sunday passenger service and correcting the other matter to w'hich I have referred.


Mr. McLURE:: I have always spoken on
this item, but I do not intend to say much this evening. For many sessions I have agitated in connection with a ferry system, a ferry boat and freight rates. On Saturday last I was invited, along with many others, to witness the christening of the wonderful boat at Sorel, the S.S. Abegweit. I want to say to the minister that I hope he will have an opportunity to repeat some of the speech he made at that christening, in order that hon. members may know what a wonderful boat has been built in Canada. We are grateful to the department and the minister for having had this boat completed. I am sure that I annoyed the minister a great many times by nagging at him to have this boat built. We now have for our ferry system the largest boat of its type in the world, a boat built in Canada by the government, by Canadian workmen.


Gordon Graydon: A great boat for a great island.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: Correct. I speak on behalf of the people of my province when I say that we bring to him 88,000 thanks for this boat. As I say, I hope that a little later on the minister will be able to say something about this boat.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I have two questions
I should like to ask the minister although, in view of the statement he made, it is not necessary for me to say very much. He did not say what would be done in connection with the branch line from St. Walburg to Bonnyvilie. Will that be in the same category as the line from Heinsburg to Frenchman Butte?


Lionel Chevrier: There is a difference
between the two.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Will the St. Walburg-
Bonnyville line have the same priority as the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte line?


Lionel Chevrier: It will be given consideration when the Canadian National railway decide to set up a branch line programme. But there are conditions in the Heinsburg-Frenchman Butte area which are more favourable than those in the other area. This does not mean that the other area will be forgotten. It will be considered along with the others.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Last year the minister told us that the report of the Canadian National Railways was more favourable to the other.


Lionel Chevrier: No, I do not think I said that. I certainly did not have that in mind. The development of a salt mine in the former area gives it a more profitable aspect at this time. I do not want to rule out the other. It will be considered along with the others.


Alexander Maxwell (Max) Campbell: Is there any prospect of a new station in the city of North Battleford?


Lionel Chevrier: No provision is made for it in the 1947 estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of the Transport Act-
403. Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada-administration, maintenance and operation, $430,164.
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the minister consider bringing in an amendment to the act to bring the C.P.R. steamers on the Kootenay-Arrow lakes under the jurisdiction of the board of transport commissioners? If not why not?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to give consideration to amending it. That is as far as I can go.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: On page 235 of the details the position is mentioned of official car porter and court crier. What does he do?
Supply-Transport


Lionel Chevrier: He is the official car porter on the car of the transport board commissioners. He does that work when the car is in use. He also works in the office of the board.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Why do you call him court crier?


Lionel Chevrier: That is part of his title.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Have they a court?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes, it is a court of record.


Mr. SHAW:: I understand, Mr. Chairman, we are on item 402.


The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN:: Item 402 was passed, but if the hon. member wants to refer to it he can do so by consent of the committee.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Agreed.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I should like to revert to item 402, but it is quite possible that what I have to say can be dealt with on item 403. It involves the question of railway abandonment and a subsequent appeal from such action on the part of the board of transport commissioners. It would be very easy to rule me out of order if I raised that on item 403.


Lionel Chevrier: We have been almost four and a half hours on the first item, and I wonder if my hon. friend would raise his question on the item for railway service.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I shall be only too pleased to do that, provided that I am given the assurance that leeway will be allowed.


Lionel Chevrier: I give that assurance now.


Frederick Davis Shaw: I hope the Chairman heard that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals service-[DOT]
JiOJf. Canals service-administration, $57,900.
Robert Henry Winters: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I should like to correct something that went on earlier this evening. When I was speaking on item 402 and urging the minister to extend the merchant marine special bonus to seamen serving on fishery patrol boats, apparently the minister understood;-I have just seen his remarks in Hansard-that I was dealing with men serving on fishing vessels. That was not the case. I was dealing with men on fishery patrol boats operated by the Department of Fisheries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Canals service-
405. Canals - operation and maintenance, $3,119,080.
Gordon Knapman Fraser: I just want to say to the minister that a real good job was done fixing up the Rideau canal here in Ottawa, but there is still a section that needs fixing up which I hope he will have looked after, because it looks very bad to all coming in on the train.
Last year I spoke of weed-cutting on the Trent canal. Is it not possible for the departs ment to do something along this line? It means a great deal to the tourists coming into that section.


Lionel Chevrier: These weeds are cut on the main channel only.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: I have had requests from Keene down to Rice lake. That whole lake is filled with United States tourists from whom we get a lot of money, and they go up there in their outboard motors to buy supplies. I think it would be good business to have the weeds cut.


Lionel Chevrier: I will bring the matter to the attention of the director of canals.


Mr. STOKES:: In front of No. 6 dam on the Trent river a large body of material has accumulated. It is composed of rook, not very thick in dimension, which has been raised by the frost over a period of years, until there is now quite a bit right in front of the dam. As a result, the water is diverted to the west side of the river from the centre, where it should flow, and does serious damage to valuable garden lands. Cannot something be done about that?


Lionel Chevrier: I shall be glad to look into it.


Mr. McKAY:: What is the cost of maintenance of the Rideau canal?


Lionel Chevrier: In round figures,$140,415 for operation and $97,000 for maintenance.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: Would the minister give the same figures for this year and last for the Trent canal?


Lionel Chevrier: In round figures, last year, $201,000 for operation; maintenance, $75,000, improvements, $102,000, or a total of roughly $378,000.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: What are the figures for this year?


Lionel Chevrier: Operation, $240,000, and maintenance, $92,000.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Does any revenue come to the government from the operation of the dideau canal? *
vlr. CHEVRIER: Yes, there is some.

Supply-Transport
Mr. MaeINNIS: Does the minister know what it amounts to?


Lionel Chevrier: No, but I will get that in a moment.
Mr. MaeINNIS: Perhaps this question will be answered when I get the answer to the other one. What economic or commercial purpose does the canal serve?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a connecting link between the river St. Lawrence and the Ottawa river.
Mr. MaeINNIS: A connecting link for what?


Lionel Chevrier: For tourist traffic and for lighter craft using it during the season. Boats of a certain tonnage operate through it.
Mr. MaeINNIS: How many boats went through it last year?


Lionel Chevrier: My hon. friend asked about the revenue. It was $15,000. I will get the number of boats going through the canal in 1946 in a moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals servicei08. To provide for the carrying out of flow measurements and other expenses connected with the department's supervision and control oveT the hydro-electric power development of the Beauharnois Light. Heat and Power Company, Limited, $2,500.
John Ritchie MacNicol: It will be observed that the amount voted on canals is $3,577,100, and not one dollar of that is for any canal in the west. I know that the minister has an inquiring mind. I have been greatly pleased with the way in which he looks after his department. I suggest to him that between now and the next session he look into the question of the canalization of the Saskatchewan river which would be a project for some future time. It is a project that should be considered. As a preparatory inquiry into the subject by the minister I would1 suggest that he read over the speech made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, his former leader, on the opening of the St. Andrew's locks when he said that he hoped to see the day when boats would leave Winnipeg and go through the St. Andrew's locks up to lake Winnipeg and on up the Saskatchewan river as far up as Edmonton. That was a great vision. The then minister of public works endorsed what the then prime minister said, and he too planned to canalize the Saskatchewan river. It is a great river but it just runs loose. There is little shipping on it at the moment, but there should be. It is important that the matter be looked into, because at the present time there are only two low-level
railway bridges across the river between the mouth at Grand rapids and' Edmonton itseilf. That is as far as I know, and I have been up and down it. There is one at The Pas and the other at Prince Albert. If the river is ever to be made navigable, as it should be, it is time to look into the matter so that navigation will not be obstructed by bridges at water level.
In my opinion the. river should be canalized1. If it were it would be one of the greatest tourist routes in the world. The river route, including lake Winnipeg, is about 1,200 miles long from Winnipeg to Edmonton. I am not just in accord with the route proposed1 in the days of the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, namely, via ascending the river from Grand Rapids. I am not opposed to that being also provided, but I would suggest that the route from lake Winnipeg be by way of the Dauphin river, lake St. Martin, lake Manitoba, lake Winni-pegosis and' into the Saskatchewan river at Cedar lake and then on west. In his spare time when he is inquiring into what he should do as Minister of Transport for that great country, for which nothing has been done yet so far as navigation is concerned, as his estimates will show, I suggest that he inquire into the problem of the canalization of the Saskatchewan river and a water route from Winnipeg to Edmonton. It could be a profitable route. The department has ample specifications and reports on hand. The department has on its files, back to the time of the late Mr. Pugsley, the late Hon. Robert Rogers, and particularly his former leader, one of the great Canadians, none greater, the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, reports on this project. I always refer to Sir Wilfrid Laurier's speech as a great vision. I have read the speech he made at the opening of the St. Andrew's locks and it inspired me to try to inquire into developing transportation on that great river.
As I say, there is not one dollar in the estimates for western canalization. Here is a great river the canalization of which had been planned many years ago. I am going to suggest to the young minister, not young in years but in service in the government, a minister who has an inquiring mind and, I am convinced, a desire to serve the country that, after looking into the estimates and observing nearly $4 million for eastern canals and not one dollar for western canals, he inquire himself, because he and I and everyone else down here in the east, want to invite the support of the western provinces in the seaway canalization of the St. Lawrence waterways. We want unity throughout Canada so that Canada will rally behind the proposed St. Lawrence seaway, which will merit
Supply-Transport

the west rallying behind it, because it would be just as beneficial to them through the shipment of wheat at lower rates and other western commodities to European markets. I suggest to the minister that he keep before him the idea of the canalization of the great river with regard to which Sir Wilfrid Laurier said, in language that no other Canadian orator could use, that he could see modem ships going up and down the river from Edmonton to Winnipeg. I suggest that the minister take the matter under his own observation and consult his engineers. He will find all the facts and figures there. I myself have looked over them several times with great interest. Probably he could get a big motor boat at The Pas and go up the river himself. I have been up and down much of the river. I took a delight in surveying the Saskatchewan river. This is just a suggestion primarily to show the western people that we are trying to do something for them and to assist them in getting behind the projected St. Lawrence deep waterways.


Mr. STEPHENSON:: I do not see an
item under which I can ask the question I wish to ask. I should like to refer to such places as Rice lake and lake Scugog. Weeds have grown to such an extent in these lakes that it is pretty nearly impossible to get boats in and out from the docks. What department of government will give any assistance to clean up these lakes?


Lionel Chevrier: The Department of
Transport looks after canals. The canals administration has to do with the cutting of weeds in the main channels but not outside the channel.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: That is the difficulty. Will the government give assistance to assist people to cut these weeds? What department of government will give any assistance?


Lionel Chevrier: These weeds are not
growing on federal property. It is not our responsibility. If they are growing on federal property it is their responsibility. The weeds that my hon. friend refers to are not on our property.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: I should like the
minister to give me some information as to where we can get some help. Is there any department of the dominion government which will give assistance in this case?


Lionel Chevrier: It is a provincial matter.


Charles Elwood Stephenson: Strictly a provincial matter?


Lionel Chevrier: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine service-
1,15. Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $5,000.
Mr. DROPE:: This item has to do with wharves. There are a lot of wharves on Rice lake and some are in need of repair. They are really in bad condition. Nothing has been done this spring toward fixing them up. Apparently there is a small maintenance crew for this job. Our tourist season is open now and yet the wharves are in a deplorable condition in this part of the lake. Will the minister say whether they are to be repaired?


Lionel Chevrier: I am not familiar with the repairs that the hon. gentleman has in mind. If they are small repairs, repairs which would involve little expense they come under this department; otherwise they come under the Department of Public Works. If the hon. member will bring the matter to my attention I shall look into it.
The answer to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver East with reference to boats on the Rideau canal in 1946 is as follows: 135 exceeding forty feet in length and 16,382 vessels using ships' reports, including pleasure craft.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
b