Certain of the comments we make appear to be the cause of merriment, but that is quite all right. I should like to understand why it is that the item reads as follows:
To provide for reimbursement of the Department of Transport stores account . . .
rather than to authorize the writing off of the stores? As I understand the situation, the bulk of this item is made up on account of stores that have been burned. Why is it to be to reimburse the account for which we have already voted money rather than to authorize the writing off of stores to the value of those which were destroyed?
I thought I had explained that matter to my hon. friend a moment ago by referring to the section. I read part of it but I did not read the whole of it. I thought it was sufficient to read the part I read, but let me read the whole of it. It is chapter 34 of the statutes of 1950, amending the Department of Transport Stores Act. Section 8 of the act reads as follows:
The Minister of Transport, with the approval of the treasury board, may direct the deletion from stores inventory of obsolete or unserviceable stores, or stores lost or destroyed, and the value of stores so deleted shall be credited to the stores account and charged to appropriations that may be made by parliament for this purpose from time to time.
That is the point I want to get at. In the list here I see the names of Atlin, and Cranbrook; and for a little place called Westview there is $12,000. What I want to find out is if this additional $10,000 has been allotted. I have been trying to get $25,000 or even $3,000 for the best municipal airport in the Dominion of Canada. There is no question about it, it is the largest training school. I want to know if this $10,000 has already been allotted.
I am sure the Minister of Transport has had a number of representations from the trucking associations in western Canada. As the minister knows, the railways have offered an agreed charge to the oil refineries and the oil companies if they will use the railways exclusively for the transportation of petroleum products. The truckers, some 2,000 or more, in the province of Saskatchewan, are most concerned lest the agreed charges, if they become effective, will overnight wipe many of them out of business. So they have been requesting members of parliament from western Canada and the members of the board of transport commissioners to be given the opportunity to present their case to the board. As I understand the Railway Act at the present time, neither truckers, nor the trucking association, are allowed to appear before the board of transport commissioners. I know that the minister himself supports a national transportation policy. I know also that the trucking association have opposed anything being done to control trucking-