Mr. Higgins:

I am afraid that is not so.

Mr. Higgins:

Having listened to the minister just now, Mr. Chairman, I understand that he feels happy to be in a position to make that announcement. I am certain that we all feel happy that the seaway is going to become a reality. As the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra said today, we are entering a new era in transportation in Canada. In St. John's, Newfoundland, about six weeks ago, the minister said that the transportation system of Canada is the lifeblood of Canada. Those may not be his words, but I think that is the thought. Of course, the construction of the seaway will definitely mean entering a new era in Canadian transportation. The members of all parties hope that such will be the case, and wish the project well. We congratulate the minister on what he has done so far in making it possible.

I want to mention one subject, but I want to talk as quickly as I can because we are all getting a little bit weary of listening to ourselves talk. Without causing annoyance, I want to devote as short a time as possible to the subject of the coastguard. I have referred to this as a hardy perennial since I have come up here in 1949. The hon. member for Annapolis-Kings talked about it today. If the minister will not mind, I want to correct something he said to the hon. member today. I believe that inadvertently the minister gave the hon. member the wrong advice. He said it was not his job any longer to handle the coastguard, but it was the job of the Minister of National Defence.

Before the minister says anything about it, I should like to refer him to a directive I had the pleasure of reading with the compliments and good wishes of his parliamentary assistant. This arises out of the report of the subcommittee set up in 1950, and is signed by N. A. Robertson, secretary to the cabinet. It is described as a directive, and is dated July 12, 1951. I am not going to read it all, but I should like to read a small portion of

it. It is headed "Search and Rescue Service" and gives a directive to all the services about search and rescue services. Paragraph (c) reads:

AH departments concerned will co-operate fully with the R.C.A.F. rescue co-ordination centres and keep them informed of the movements and state of readiness of their ships (for reasons of security the R.C.M. Police may not be able to provide detailed movements for their vessels).

A press release dated July 21 states:

Government-operated ships numbering more than 200, are being co-ordinated into a general marine search and rescue system in Canada, it was announced jointly today by the Hon. Brooke Clax-ton, Minister of National Defence, and the Hon. Lionel Chevrier, Minister of Transport.

There is no suggestion, so far as I can find out, Mr. Chairman, and I tried to go through Hansard and through the P.C. orders, of any transfer from the Minister of Transport to the Minister of National Defence. I am not criticizing him for the statement he made today, but if by any chance I am wrong, then I still say it should not be transferred to national defence. The coastguard should be under the Minister of Transport because one of the vital services of the coastguard, as we know, is the search and rescue service.

I want to read two more paragraphs of this directive, because to me they do not make sense. Paragraph (e) of the same directive reads:

Necessary publicity will be given to this proposed marine search and rescue organization so that all interested agencies and the public will be aware of the action to be taken in the event of an emergency and of the necessity of notifying the appropriate R.C.A.F. rescue co-ordination centre of any casualty.

Then, paragraph (f), subparagraph (i) reads:

The immediate action required is that necessary to ensure safety of life and, if possible, prevention of damage to or loss of any ship or its cargo until such time as private or commercial salvage is available for this purpose;

To me that seems like a lot of nonsense because if you pick up the report of the Department of Transport for 1951-52, at page 74, you will find this paragraph headed "Lifesaving Stations". It reads as follows:

A wartime voluntary lifesaving service, approved by order in council P.C. 156/9150, dated October 7, 1942, was extended by order in council P.C. 133/5500 dated November 16, 1950. By this means, and on a voluntary basis, the co-operation of fishermen and owners of vessels is encouraged for the saving of life from vessels which may fall into distress in Canadian waters.

What a lot of nonsense that is. In other words, as I view it-and I am trying to be fair in this matter

the minister has passed the buck to the department of defence, and at the same time he is asking the vessel 68108-328

Supply-Transport

owners on a voluntary basis to assist in the saving of life at sea.

As the minister will realize, Canada has the longest coast line of any country in the world. Not only has it coast line on both oceans but it has it on the great inland waters. Only today I pick up the Globe and'Mail and I read this headline:

Gale Sinks Ore Ship, Fear 16 of 31 Lost.

The thing that I draw to your attention is this:

Compiling its report from radio messages, the Grand Marais coastguard station-

Meaning the Americans.

-said 15 crew members had been rescued and 8 bodies found.

Then further down we read:

Radio reports intercepted by Grand Marais coastguard station. . . .

Then again:

The coastguard at Cleveland reported . . .

As a new Canadian, if you will, but as a person who has lived on the sea and close to the sea all his life, the thing I object to is this lack of a coastguard. Canada should be big enough and proud enough now to have its own coastguard. It is all very well to say-I have discussed this matter with various members of the minister's staff and this is the story that I get-"Oh, we cannot afford it; it is too costly to have a coastguard." To my way of thinking that is absolute nonsense. It would be much cheaper to have a coastguard and certainly it would be much more in keeping with the pride that Canada should have in herself in these days.

All I wish to say, Mr. Chairman, is this in conclusion. We are proud of the search and rescue service. A few days ago I paid a tribute to the search and rescue unit stationed at Torbay, Newfoundland. The chief pilot of the Newfoundland unit is Flight Lieutenant Carl Ensom of Toronto. He is doing work that is wonderful, and he has done a creditable job right through the piece. But Canada should have a coastguard. With all due respect to the minister, may I say that in the United States-and I am not going into the matter further-in war the coastguard is with the navy and in peace it is with the treasury. In Canada I think it should be under the Minister of Transport. I believe that we should have a coastguard.

Mr. Higgins:

But Moncton is a small place. Where is Moncton? In this modern transportation world to which the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra referred today, we must remember that Gander is the front door of Canada. With all due respect to the members from Vancouver, I still say that the western world looks to Gander as the front door. I ask the minister to bear in mind that we must do the things that should be done at Gander, things that should have been done long ago. We cannot have a lot of decent people coming in and putting them into the type of place we have at Gander. We cannot have them come in, as was described about two or three weeks ago, with tags on them. We do not want that. Canada is not a small country. Canada has now taken in Newfoundland, and Newfoundland is the front door of Canada in that part of the world.

We are extremely proud in Newfoundland. We want the Minister of Transport to remember that when the new immigrants come in, we do not want to have them with tags on. We do not want to have them brought into the restaurant with tags on. We want to have them met by people who speak their language. We want to have those people who are going to stop for the night at Gander stay in a proper place and not in the cubicles in which they have had to reside.

I want to say only this to the minister, as one of those people from Newfoundland like my confrere here. We say these things because we are so proud of being part of the parliament of Canada and we want things to be done in a proper way. I hope the minister will take what I have said in the way I have meant it.

Mr. Higgins:

I shall read this again, if you do not mind. It is a press release from defence headquarters, and the last paragraph reads:

Department of Transport meteorologists and telecommunications operators are remaining at Torbay to carry out essential duties, and the change-over allows for continuation of limited commercial operations from the station.

What does that mean? That is all I asked the minister.

Mr. Higgins:

I want to talk with the minister in a way that he will understand. I want to talk about Gander and the question of the value of Gander to Canada. Gander is an airport in that part of the world we know as the new world. Dorval at Montreal is getting practically double the money that Gander is getting. I believe that, in so far as Canada is concerned, Gander has much more value from a tourist point of view and from an immigration point of view. The minister has been there, and he has been talking to our premier. He has agreed that things are going to be done, but truthfully I am not too happy about what is going to be done there, at least from what I have heard.

I should like the minister to take into consideration the fact that Gander is the biggest airport, and it is on the crossroads of this continent. Whatever money Canada spends on Gander will be money well spent. The minister does not have to spend very much money, but he does have to provide the proper accommodation and proper advertising. We all recall what the Queen of The Netherlands had to put up with on one occasion. We do have very meagre accommodation for tourists.

I saw the newspaper report of what the minister was going to do, but I do hope he will

[Mr. Chevrier.)

provide-one minister said "what is a million?"-proper accommodation at Gander. Canada could spend a million dollars there with profit. I do not think Canada could do a better job for its tourist policy or its immigration policy.