Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the

report of the court of investigation into the circumstances of the destruction by fire of the S.S. Quebec off Tadoussac on August 14, 1950. Under the provisions of section 551 of the Canada Shipping Act, the Hon. Mr. Justice Fernand Choquette was appointed on August 18, 1950, as commissioner to investigate and report on the circumstances of the loss of the Quebec. He was assisted by two nautical assessors, Captain Antoine Fournier and Captain Jean-Charles Fraser, and by an engineering assessor, Mr. William Percival.

Counsel appeared for the Department of Transport, for Canada Steamship Lines, Limited, and their officers, and for one of the passengers. During the course of the nineteen hearings held in Quebec city, a total of fifty-two witnesses were heard by the court. Over one hundred exhibits were produced in support of the evidence.

Members will recall that on November 21, 1949, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Howe) in my absence tabled the report of the formal investigation into the destruction by fire of the S.S. Noronic. Recommendations contained in the Noronic report resulted in the passenger steamships fire protection regulations being made. When these regulations were promulgated I stated that they would be implemented as far as practicable before the opening of the navigation season of 1950. In the case of the Quebec a very earnest effort was made by the owners to comply with these regulations, and the report indicates that there was considerable new equipment installed. However, due to lack of time, it was not possible for the owners to complete certain fireproof bulkheads and sprinkler systems which were required.

A study of the report reveals that the investigation gave ample opportunity for all persons having knowledge of the disaster to give evidence, as well as the officers and crew, and officials of the board of steamship inspection. All relevant documents were

submitted for the examination of the court and I think I may say without fear of contradiction that the investigation was searching, impartial, and thorough.

In his report the commissioner makes the following statement:

In the circumstances as revealed by the evidence, we are of the opinion that the board of steamship inspection and the Minister of Transport gave reasonable interpretation to section 11 of the regulations of 1950 in authorizing, under prescribed conditions, the issue of the certificate of seaworthiness.

Section 111 of the report, entitled "Origin and Cause of Fire", is most enlightening. The owners, in their representations, claimed that the fire was of an incendiary nature, and made available to the court the opinion of a consulting chemist, Mr. Hazen. It was generally conceded that the fire had its origin in the linen closet.

Expert evidence established to the satisfaction of the court that, having regard to the contents of the linen closet, spontaneous combustion was not possible, nor was it possible that the fire could have been caused inadvertently. Counsel for the Department of Transport expressed the opinion that there was strong presumptive evidence that the fire had been voluntarily set, and the court, in concurring, summed up by saying:

Mr. Hazen's evidence, considering the circumstances on which it is based and the circumstances in which the aero-electric fire alarm system did not function, does not leave us any alternative. Failing proof to the contrary, we have to hold that the fire on board the S.S. Quebec which occurred on August 14, 1950, off Tadoussac, was deliberately set by one or several individuals whose identity Is not established.

The procedure followed in formal investigations of this kind is for the Department of Transport to propound certain questions for the opinion of the court. For the information of the house I quote two of the questions and answers which are recorded in the report:

Question: What was the cause of the loss of the

Quebec, and the loss of life?

Answer: The Quebec was destroyed by fire, and, according to evidence which was not contradicted, fire was set deliberately by one or several persons whose identity has not been established, and the extinction of that fire was jeopardized by the fact that the aero-electric fire-alarm system was deliberately put out of order.

The cause of the loss of lives was asphyxia by carbon monoxide resulting from inhalation of smoke, as well as secondary charring.

Question: Were the loss of the Quebec and the

loss of life caused or contributed to by the wrongful act or default of the owners, Canada Steamship

S.S. "Quebec"

Lines, Limited, Montreal; Captain Cyril Hunter Burch, the master, or by any other person or persons?

Answer: No. There were several individual

faults and omissions on the part of members of the crew to go to stations which were assigned to them; moreover, the lack of fire-fighting qualifications and training of the crew is obvious; but, in view of the nature of the fire and the fact that the aero-electric fire-alarm system was put out of order, the evidence does not permit to say positively and beyond all doubt that these defaults, omissions and insufficiencies contributed to the destruction of the ship and the loss of lives.

The commissioner made some six recommendations, the first having reference to personnel and' the others having reference to equipment. These recommendations will receive the immediate attention of the department.

With the full implementation of the passenger steamships fire protection regulations of 1950, which must be complied with before different types of ships are placed in commission for the season of 1951, the fire protection standards on Canadian vessels will be the highest required in any maritime nation, and the travelling public will be assured of the best possible protection.

On the orders of the day:

Mr. Gordon Graydon (Peel):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of his statement with respect to the loss of S.S. Quebec. What progress has been made in establishing the identity of or apprehending the persons who are believed to have been guilty of the sabotage which he has just described?

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

That is a matter for the court of justice in the province in which the investigation took place. As I stated a moment ago, the evidence indicated that the fire was of an incendiary nature, and I presume it would be up to the authorities in that area to prosecute the offenders. However, when there is no way of finding out who they are, as stated in the report, I am afraid that I cannot enlighten my hon. friend any further.

(Translation):

Mr. Paul E. Gagnon (Chicoutimi):

I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier) if the board of transport commissioners has not gone beyond its authority in granting a navigation licence to the

S.S. Quebec although the latter did not have proper fire-fighting equipment as recommended in the report of the investigation into the Noronic fire.

Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Minister of Transport):

Mr. Speaker, the board of transport commissioners does not grant navigation permits to any company. This privilege belongs to the Department of Transport. The department had authorized the Canada Steamship Lines to make use of this ship after the company had assured the department that it would implement the recommendations made by the Kellock commission in its report on the Noronic fire, since the company could not carry out all the alterations before the shipping season. Thus, we did grant them a licence and the commissioner, Judge Cho-quette, decided the department was perfectly right in doing so.

(Text):

1. Did the government, through the Department of Veterans Affairs or otherwise, purchase property at Windsor, known as the Roseland project, veterans land administration?

2. Did the Department of Veterans Affairs or the veterans land administration subsequently build on the said lands a number of dwellings, and were these lands and dwellings subsequently sold to individual veterans of world war II?

3. At the time of any such purchase, were investigations made as to taxes or other levies which might form a charge against the said lands?

4. Were the veterans who purchased the lands and premises from the veterans land administration required to engage solicitors for their own protection, and if not, were they recommended not to engage such solicitors?

5. Have any claims been made by the municipality in which such lands are situated for any taxes or local improvement levies which were alleged to be owing at the time of the purchase of the said lands by the veterans land administration?

6. If so, does the government propose to dispute the said claim of the municipality?

7. Alternatively, has the government taken any action to assume such obligation?

1. Yes; the property was purchased by the director, the Veterans Land Act.

2. The veterans land administration did build a number of buildings on the said lands, and these have been sold to individual veterans pursuant to the terms of the Veterans Land Act, 1942.

3. Yes.

4. The director, the Veterans Land Act, has no authority to require veterans to obtain the services of solicitors for any purpose. The director has no knowledge of any recom-

Questions

mendations made to veterans not to engage solicitors in connection with their purchases of lands under the Veterans Land Act, 1942.

5. Claims have been made by the municipality of the township of Sandwich West for alleged arrears of taxes dealt with by a plan for the adjustment and reorganization of the debenture and other indebtedness of the municipal corporation dated the 1st of December, 1946, purporting to be implemented by bylaw No. 1207 of the corporation passed on the 22nd of September, 1947, and approved by the department of municipal affairs for the province of Ontario on the 24th of September, 1947, and approved by the Ontario muncipal board on the 9th of July, 1947, which bylaw and plan and all levies purporting to be made thereunder for the years 1945, 1946, 1947 and 1948 were ratified and confirmed by an act of the province of Ontario known as Township of Sandwich West Act, 1949. The director, the Veterans Land Act, has made payments to the municipality equivalent to the taxes for the years 1945 to 1950, inclusive, that might have been levied on the lands concerned had such lands not been owned by the crown; the present claims relate to levies made pursuant to the above proceedings for the year 1948 and subsequent years in relation to lands sold during those years to veterans and others.

6. No, in view of facts recited in answer to No. 5.

7. See answers to Nos. 5 and 6.

Mr. Kirk (Antigonish-Guysborough):

What amount has been expended each year under the provisions of the Maritime Marshland Rehabilitation Act, to December 31, 1950, in (a) Nova Scotia; (b) New Brunswick; (c) Prince Edward Island, giving the name of each project and the cost of same?

Annapolis

Royal town

Expenditure Apr. 1/49 to

Mar. 31/50

Colchester County Truro dikeland

park 307.50

Victoria Diamond

Jubilee

Isgonish

Cumberland County

Advocate

Upper Nappan

Amherst Point

Barronsfield

Digby County Saulnierville

Hants County Falmouth

great dike... 291.67

Castle

Frederick

Falmouth

village

Noel shore

Newport town

Seim ah

marsh body

Scotch village

Herbert river

Kings County

Grand Pre_____ 899.50

Habitant

Total

Mr. McCubbin:

(a) Nova Scotia

Expenditure Expenditure Apr. 1/49 Apr. 1/50 to to

Mar. 31/50 Dec. 30/50

Name of marsh body Annapolis County

Comeau

$23,024.07 $ 106.60Queen Anne .. 361.61 52,409.58Dugau

17,994.71Woodworth ... 1,642.73 88.00Upper Belleisle

150.80Dentiballis ... 297.00 41,483.17Ryerson

69.79Allan river *

634.70Mount Anne

921.45Moschelle

900.30

(b) New Brunswick Name of marsh body Albert County

Upper dike

$ 2,468.16

Germantown .. 9,639.21

Hopewell Hill. 212.45

Lower

Coverdale

Middle

Coverdale

New Horton

Upper

Coverdale

Calkins

West

Coverdale

332.00 Expenditure Apr. 1/50 to

Dec. 30/50

39,221.29

35,751.85

127.00

416.05

307.11

34,705.54

720.20

6,380.78

37,315.02

449.30

1,497.87

650.25

382.70

396.00

124.85

389.95

62,252.97

3,249.49

1. As at March 22, 1951

Alberta $2,648,093.25

Saskatchewan 4,743,632.50

Manitoba 165,666.50

2. As at March 22, 1951

Alberta 869

Saskatchewan 781

Manitoba 211

Mr. Boisvert:

What amount was paid out each year since 1945 to the prairie farm emergency fund under the Prairie Farm Assistance Act, 1939?