October 30, 1957

DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS

PC

John George Diefenbaker (Prime Minister)

Progressive Conservative

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prime Minister):

Mr. Speaker, in response to a question asked by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. St. Laurent) I now wish to lay on the table of the house copies of the exchange of correspondence between the dominion government and the provinces with regard to the conference to be held on November 25.

Topic:   DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler

Liberal

Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anioine-Wesl-mount):

Mr. Speaker, might I suggest that in conformity with past practice these might be printed as an appendix to Hansard.

Topic:   DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Is it agreed that these documents be printed as an appendix to Hansard?

Topic:   DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Agreed.

(For text of correspondence referred to above, see appendix, pages 589-93.)

Topic:   DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE TABLING OF CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Permalink

STARRED QUESTIONS

ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY HARBOURS

LIB

Mr. Chevrier (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

1. Has the government any plans for the development of ports and harbours along the route of the seaway?

2. What is being done at the port of Montreal? Are the plans as announced by the former administration being carried out? What plans are being evolved for the development of the south shore?

3. Is this area to be taken over by the national harbours board? Are port facilities to be erected here for the expected increase in volume of trade?

4. What is being done at the port of Trois-Rivieres?

5. Is consideration being given to the construction of additional wharves and warehouses?

6. Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?

7. Is consideration being given to the construction of a grain elevator here?

8. What is being done at the port of Sorel?

9. Will the national harbours board provide cargo handling equipment at the port for vertical hatch loading and unloading, extra space on existing wharves and new docks?

10. Are port facilities in this area considered adequate for seaway traffic?

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY HARBOURS
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Transport)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, in regard to part 1 of the question, perhaps I might give a reply under 96698-36

three headings. First, the national harbours board is giving active consideration to necessary harbour developments at Quebec, Montreal and Three Rivers. I may say I have had the pleasure of visiting all three of these ports and was very much impressed with the facilities now provided and with the plans for improvements and additions. Second, the development and plans for harbours administered by local commissions, that is to say Toronto, Hamilton and Belleville, are the responsibility of those commissions. Here again I was very glad to have an opportunity to visit both Toronto and Hamilton harbours recently and review the program of work to be undertaken at both points. In Toronto both the federal Department of Public Works and the harbour commission are undertaking additional works. At Hamilton the commission has a substantial program of works and, as previously announced, I propose to introduce legislation to authorize a loan to assist these works. In addition funds will be provided to public works to build a new low-level bridge across the harbour entrance and for certain other terminal development.

3. The development of harbours other than those administered by the national harbours board or local commissions will be the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, which I understand has the matter under review.

In reply to part 2, the program of works at Montreal harbour, estimated to cost $57 million, is being carried out. The St. Lawrence seaway authority is constructing 4,000 linear feet of wharf above the Cote Ste. Catherine lock. Other developments will receive consideration as the need arises.

As to part 3, no action has been taken to extend the jurisdiction of the national harbours board, but this matter will remain under review. The policy of the government will be to provide facilities when the public interest so requires.

The reply to part 4 is that a contract has been awarded for the construction of an additional commodious transit shed.

In answer to part 5 I would say that in the normal course the government will give consideration to recommendations of the national harbours board for such new facilities as the growth of traffic warrants.

Part 6 is answered by the reply to part 5.

Questions

As to part 7, the grain elevator at Three Rivers is privately owned and its capacity has recently been increased.

In reply to part 8 I might say that the Department of Public Works recently awarded a contract for improvements to the east face of terminal wharf No. 1 at Sorel amounting to $47,204. Surveys and pre-engineering studies are continuing in order to have available the necessary information for recommendations concerning future expansion or improvements.

The answer to part 9 is that the provision of cargo handling equipment, additional space on existing wharves and new docks will be considered by the Department of Public Works should the need for such additional facilities be justified. At present the facilities at the port of Sorel appear to be adequate.

Part 10 is answered by the reply to part 8.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY HARBOURS
Permalink

VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT

LIB

Mr. Chevrier (Official Opposition House Leader; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

1. What was the cost of the Victoria bridge between Montreal and St. Lambert?

2. What are the operating costs, operating expenses and profit and loss position in the last 25 years?

3. What amount of tolls were collected on this bridge in the last 10 years?

4. Will tolls be abolished on this bridge?

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Transport)

Progressive Conservative

Hon. George H. Hees (Minister of Transport):

In dealing with question No. 5 I would like to answer parts 1, 2 and 3 together. As recorded in an answer by my predecessor, the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount (Mr. Marler), when he was minister of transport, to an order of the house tabled on July 13, 1955, it has never been and is not now the practice of the management of the Canadian National Railways to disclose financial details of the operation of the Victoria bridge. The management advise that this also is their position as far as the capital cost of the bridge is concerned.

This fact was well known to the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Chevrier) when, as minister of transport, he spoke on this subject in the house on February 23, 1951, as reported at pages 569 and 570 of Hansard of that date, when he said:-

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler

Liberal

Hon. George C. Marler (St. Anloine-Westmouni):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

George Harris Hees (Minister of Transport)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hees:

-when he said:

As for Victoria bridge I cannot give you any idea of the amount collected since it is buried in the accounts of the Canadian National.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

Order.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
LIB

George Carlyle Marler

Liberal

Mr. Marler:

Mr. Speaker, I think it is perfectly clear from the rules that answers are concise and are not expected to be political.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

Richard Albert Bell (Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Finance)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Bell (Carleton):

What about questions?

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

Gordon Knapman Fraser

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Fraser:

Why bring up political

questions?

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink
PC

Daniel Roland Michener (Speaker of the House of Commons)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Speaker:

It occurred to me as the minister was giving his answer that he was going beyond the scope of an ordinary answer in referring to the knowledge of the hon. member at a certain time. That struck me as being somewhat in the nature of debate rather than answer.

Topic:   STARRED QUESTIONS
Subtopic:   VICTORIA BRIDGE, MONTREAL-ST. LAMBERT
Permalink

October 30, 1957