1964-11-10

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting not only all the members of this house but more than a million Canadians. It may be that my point of privilege is due to a misprint in a document which I have in my hand. If so that can be corrected without delay. On the other hand, if what I have in my hand is correct I think other steps should be taken. Yesterday in the course of her remarks to this house the Minister of National Health and Welfare used these words:
-all future old age security pensions will be pegged to the cost of living index and will increase automatically if living costs increase.
Later she said:
-this will provide not only a greater measure of security but will also protect the real value of the pension dollar for Canada's million-odd pensioners.
We were given no details, but what the minister said was spoken in the present tense. When we got the bill last night after the debate was over we learned that the possible increase due to this adjustment cannot be received by any person drawing old age security until 1968, and that the possible amount of increase in 1968 is 75 cents.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might be $1.50; it might be nothing; probably it will be 75 cents. I submit, from looking at the bill, that this could well be a misprint. If so I trust it will be corrected. If not I trust that the Liberal party, which found out that six bucks was not good enough in 1957, will not try six bits in 1968.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, on the particular point I should hasten to say to the
chamber that this is not a misprint; that the address I made yesterday was on the resolution preceding Bill No. C-136, and this was known by all hon. members to be the case. All the remarks I made at that time have reference to that particular bill. Since last August it has been known by the members of this chamber and members of the public that the initial coming into effect of the bill was not anticipated to be until January 1, 1966. Within the bill there is provision for commencement, on a number of dates subsequent to that date, of benefits which will accrue to contributors and survivors; that also in the bill is indicated the initial tying to an index figure, something to take into account the increases, if any, which take place over a certain period of time which are then calculated for a two year period. There was no attempt to mislead the chamber or the public at large; that the amendments to the old age security act which are incorporated as part of Bill C-136 would come into effect at any point of time earlier than the main provisions of the Canada pension plan.
In so far as my hon. friend's suggestion that the original increase would be 75 cents or $1.50, it should be noted that use of an index is a departure, and it is the first time an index has been used for any payment in this country. My hon. friend and his party, as well as other hon. members opposite, enthusiastically accepted this last night, and indeed have heretofore urged such an inclusion in government legislation. My hon. friend now sounds as if he is unhappy that one of the matters which he himself has urged has been adopted by the government.
It should not be forgotten that the index which is to be attached to the old age security payments is to bring them into line with the index which is attached to pension payments under the Canada pension plan proper. Nothing in the proposed old age security amendments deals with the base rate of $75 a month which this government introduced a year ago and which was unanimously approved by the house. Nor is anything in this bill intended to exclude any future action by any parliament with respect to that base.
This is a very major, very far reaching and sweeping change in social legislation in this country, Mr. Speaker, and indeed commences

Question of Privilege
in a responsible way by tying the plan to the index at the time at which it comes into operation. I suppose my hon. friend in the flush of yesterday's by-election victory, which he should regard really as a victory against the Conservative party and not otherwise, now seeks to make political capital out of something which he has generously, and I think sincerely, long since accepted as a really major step forward. I would ask my hon. friend and all hon. members of the house to bear in mind that in the usual spirit of Canadian fiscal responsibility we are beginning this experiment in a relatively modest manner.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for obvious reasons I will not attempt to debate this matter at this point.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, the Minister of National Health and Welfare made one statement concerning me which is not correct. I have not been an advocate of pegging the old age pension to the cost of living index. I have been an advocate of raising the absolute amount.

On the orders of the day:


Hon. J. W. Monteith (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre apparently had a copy of the bill to which we gave first reading last night, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if she will undertake to make sure that the other members of the house are supplied with copies before the day is out?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I had about 100 copies here last night, and I assume those have gone somewhere. I believed each member would have received one this morning, but some members tell me they did not get them. I have just checked and I am told it was not possible to print more than the original 100 until a number was given to the bill, and by virtue of its length it is not likely members will have copies before Thursday.
There are 100-odd copies in existence, but 1 apologize to the house because the rest will not be available before Thursday morning in either language.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: As
a supplementary question, would the minister give consideration to having this cost of living bonus for old age security pensioners brought in by amendments to the old age

security legislation so it could become effective immediately and could be based on the cost of living as of October, 1963, when the last increase was granted? It seems to me this would be a much more rational approach to the whole problem rather than having to wait until the Canada pension plan becomes effective.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Well, Mr. Speaker, the last 20-odd clauses of the Canada pension plan bill are an amendment to the Old Age Security Act, and as this bill has received first reading it is further advanced than any other legislation which could possibly be introduced.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was able, after consultation, to amend his announcement, would the minister have similar consultation to see if she cannot get this bonus amended and back dated?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, my colleague did not amend his announcement. He simply did not disclose in the first part the effective date, but he did so subsequently in response to a question.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on October 30 I informed the house that there would be an announcement of government proposals to increase pensions and war veterans allowances. In conformity with that statement I am now able to make the following announcement.
There will be brought before the house at the earliest opportunity a supplementary estimate that will enable an across the board increase in disability pensions payable under the Pension Act of approximately 10 per cent, and a similar increase to pensions awarded to widows and dependent children. I am sure the house will agree that this increase in pension rates is warranted.
I am pleased to announce that the supplementary estimates will include an amount which will permit an increase in the attendance allowance from the present maximum of $1,800 a year to a maximum $3,000 a year. There will also be increases in the allowances such as for wear and tear of clothing, which are also authorized by the

Pension Act under certain circumstances. It is estimated that the additional annual cost of these pension increases, based on the present number of pensioners, will be about $17 million, and the annual cost of increasing the attendance allowance will be some $500,000.
The other important matter to which I wish to refer is the proposal of the government to increase war veterans allowances. In reaching a decision on the appropriate amount of these increases we have taken into consideration the recommendations that have been made by veterans organizations. It is proposed to increase the maximum monthly rate of war veterans allowances for a single person to $94 and for a person paid at the married rate to $161 a month, with corresponding adjustments in the rates paid to orphans.
In considering appropriate adjustments in the maximum income ceilings under the War Veterans Allowance Act we have also considered the recommendations received from organized veterans. We have decided that any adjustments in the ceilings should remove the anomaly that at present exists with respect to the ceiling applicable to veterans and widows below age 70 and the ceiling above age 70, where the recipient is in receipt of an old age security pension. At present a recipient over that age is in effect allowed a ceiling, if payment is at the single rate, of $240 a year higher than if he or she were under age 70 and, if payment is at the married rate and the husband and wife are both over age 70, the difference is $480 a year.
In order to provide a ceiling in accordance with the recommendations we have received, and to remove this anomaly, but nevertheless ensure that every recipient will enjoy some increase, including the proposed disability pension increase, we are proposing that the annual income ceilings be raised to $1,596 for a single recipient and to $2,664 where the recipient is paid at the married rate.
I should also mention that corresponding increases in rates and changes in income ceilings will apply as well to those who are in receipt of allowances under the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act. These increases and changes under both acts will also be accomplished by means of a supplementary estimate. It is estimated that these proposed increases in rates and the ceiling adjustments under the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act will result in an additional expenditure of about $16,250,000 a year.
Veterans Pensions Increase
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, this statement will be welcomed by members of the house as an indication of the recognition that the welfare of Canada's veterans is of responsible concern to all of us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this is a much delayed announcement on the part of the minister with regard to a proposed increase in disability pensions and war veterans allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Minto Churchill: It has taken the minister and the government a year and a half to come to this decision, although representations were made to them frequently over the period to get busy and do something for the veterans.


An hon. Member:: Why didn't you do something?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Somebody says why didn't we do it. We gave two increases with regard to pensions and war veterans allowances, each to the extent of 20 per cent, making a total 40 per cent increase in these pensions and allowances. This is only a 10 per cent increase. What puzzles me is why the minister did not have this ready when the standing committee on veterans affairs was examining the estimates of his department. Why did he not have this ready when his estimates were before the house a few days ago? We were put off and delayed, but now his statement reads that a supplementary estimate will be brought before the house at the earliest opportunity.
What is the earliest opportunity? It is right now. Why does the minister not say when this will be brought forward? Does this mean next January or February, or now in the month of November? This is what should have been said in his statement, not this ambiguous phrase "at the earliest opportunity."
On many occasions we have indicated our interest in such an increase for war veterans, and we are certainly glad that the government has finally moved in this direction. However, I am sorry it has taken it so long simply to make this announcement without setting an actual date when the increase will come into effect. If the supplementary estimate is brought before us this week we will pass it this week and thus let the veterans have their cheques before Christmas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Veterans Pensions Increase


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, there is an old saying, "Once bitten, twice shy". Therefore I am not going to hasten to welcome the government's announcement until we know when the government proposes to implement it. Are these increases going to be effective on January 1 or December 1? When will they be effective?
The minister says he is going to bring in a supplementary estimate to cover the increases. So far as this party is concerned, if the minister will bring in that estimate we will undertake to see it is passed, so far as we are able, the same day it is introduced. There ought to be some date mentioned in this statement. There is no reason why the increases should not be payable at the end of November, but this announcement without any supplementary estimates accompanying it leads us to suspect that there may be further delaying tactics. Therefore we would like a great deal more information.
If I could have the minister's attention I would like to ask him when this additional payment in both veterans pensions and allowances will become effective, and when does he intend to bring down the supplementary estimate? If we had that information the house would be more satisfied, and certainly the veterans and the widows who will benefit from this increase would also be more satisfied.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of this party may I say we welcome the announcement that there is to be some upward revision in war veterans allowances and disability pensions, but we are concerned about the fact that the effective date was omitted from the statement the minister has just made.
Without going into a lot of detail on whether or not this is a satisfactory increase I simply say we welcome the fact that there is to be one and that it has been announced at this time, despite the fact that the minister has been promising it for something like 18 months. Again may I say we would be very interested in knowing what will be the anticipated effective date.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: If I may be permitted, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I can indicate to the house the date of the introduction of the supplementary estimate, but I can assure the house that the recommendation in it will be to make these rates effective as of September 1, 1964.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Peters:: That is a pretty sloppy announcement, if you are just making it now. [Translation]


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I preferred waiting for the answer of the Minister of Veterans Affairs before making remarks on this question, on behalf of our group, after the objections which were raised by the spokesmen of certain opposition parties.
We were happy to hear the minister state that this increase would be retroactive to September 1, 1964.
Under the circumstances, we must congratulate the government for announcing increases in favour of veterans. However, I wish to add that the veterans must really benefit from those increases. At the present time many veterans are applying for pensions. They are examined by Department of Veterans Affairs' physicians or in hospitals maintained by the department, they are granted a very low rate of invalidity, and thus, despite the increases they will receive, their pensions will still remain very low.
On the other hand, if veterans are examined in other hospitals than those maintained by the department, by physicians holding the same qualifications as those of the department, then their rate of invalidity is higher than the one which was determined by the Department of Veterans Affairs' physicians or hospitals.
In fact, a physician who is a member of the War Veterans Allowance Board told me that the laboratory material used in the Chicoutimi hospital was not sufficiently modern, while we know very well that the Chicoutimi hospital is one of the most modern in Canada.
I would like to point out to the minister and his officials, and more particularly to those who determine the rate of invalidity of veterans, that it is not sufficient to allow increases to veterans, but that one must also be fair toward them.
They must accept the advice and recommendations of Canadian hospitals and doctors, so that the veterans may get decent and honourable pensions. They should at least be permitted to benefit from the increases announced today, and no attempt should be made to reduce the amount they are receiving by reducing the percentage of disability, as it is regularly done at the present time.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed

to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and arises out of the statement he made today regarding amendments to veterans legislation. Will the minister consider assisting that forgotten and neglected section of our society, the needy widows of deceased veterans who were drawing pensions and were classified as less than 50 per cent disabled? These widows receive nothing from the government, and are destitute.


Roger-Joseph Teillet: Mr. Speaker, may I advise my hon. friend that there are a number of further amendments in process of preparation, amendments which will require the introduction of bills, and we decided to go ahead with the increases announced today rather than wait for these others which will be introduced in due course in the normal way. The reason for proceeding in this fashion is to make the new rates quickly effective.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, with all due deference to the minister, he has not given an answer to my question. May I have this debated at ten o'clock this evening?



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, at what I consider to be the invitation of the Prime Minister yesterday with respect to making a motion to adjourn the house under standing order 26, I do so now in the light of the evident failure of the government to take the responsibility that is properly theirs by placing before the house the whole of the affairs surrounding the activities of the trustees of the maritime union; surrounding the circumstances of the departure from Canada of Mr. Banks and the failure of the government law agencies of Canada to locate him; the circumstances surrounding allegations made in national press articles which implicate Liberal members of parliament and the Liberal government as a whole, implications which if they are well founded may well cause the seats that those members are holding to be occupied improperly. I believe, under the provisions of the Canada Elections Act, that if offences have been committed of the nature implied in these articles, then the seats of these members today are void.
Motion for Adjournment
The tentacles of Mr. Banks and the S.I.U. seem to be involving ever more Liberal members of parliament. The most recent one, and the case which I think underlines the need for an urgent and immediate study of this problem by the government, is that of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) who was implicated by name and by riding in a news broadcast this morning. Since lunch time that hon. member has given an interview to Vancouver radio station CKNW and admitted that he had in fact received help from the S.I.U. This was following a story yesterday by CKNW reporter Ed Murphy. He is the first Liberal member who has had the courage to come forward and admit his complicity. This in itself emphasizes the need for a detailed and immediate investigation into such situations.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Woolliams)-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Graffley:: Why the nervous laughter?


Erik Nielsen: Members opposite are obviously taking this matter very lightly. They are trying to cover up their sins. But I wonder who they expected to second the motion?


An hon. Member:: Nobody.


Erik Nielsen: I ask leave, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River to move the adjournment of this house in accordance with standing order 26 in order to discuss a matter of urgent public importance, namely:
That it is imperative in the public interest and in the interest of the maintenance of law and order in Canada to proceed forthwith into a full inquiry of the influence exercised by Hal Banks and/or the seafarers international union over the Liberal government and into the activities of the board of trustees of the maritime transportation unions particularly in the light of recent statements in the press that
1.	"Certain people in the government made a deal with Hal Banks to get him out of Canada". (Toronto Star, October 2, 1964)
2.	The questionable allowance by former minister of citizenship and immigration, Hon. Walter Harris of an appeal by Hal Banks against a deportation order made June 30, 1964. (Toronto Star, October 2, 1964).
3.	The payment of moneys by Hal Banks and/ or the seafarers international union to Liberal candidates and/or Liberal members of this house and the acceptance of such moneys by Liberal candidates who subsequently sat or are sitting as Liberal members of this house. (Toronto Star, November 6, 1964).
And in the light of the continued obvious reluctance and refusal of the government to allow these and all matters affecting the relationship of the government with Hal Banks and the seafarers international union to be exposed to the scrutiny and judgment of the people of Canada.

Motion for Adjournment


Some hon. Members:: Time.


Mr. Woolliams:: May I, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Pearson:: Are you going to permit intervention in this discussion by the hon. member before you take cognizance of this motion, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Under the new rules of the house as given to me it is my duty to ask for comments from a few members who may wish to speak to this motion, as to whether the house should be adjourned under standing order 26. After I have had the advantage of listening to a few arguments both for and against, it will be my duty to reach a decision.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. member who moved this motion was permitted to go into great detail as to the substance of his alleged charges. I can understand the hon. member raising the question of the S.I.U. today because today, of all days, for them it is any port in a storm.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: What about the union candidate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course the motion has no urgency attached to it, and it is doubtful whether it has any importance. But if hon. gentlemen opposite wish to take it seriously and have a discussion and really go into this matter, I suggest we call motion No. 82 at once and pass it without debate. Then we shall have the opportunity to call the trustees as witnesses before the committee and the whole question can be gone into. This would be the best test of the good faith of members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: think the only problem the Chair might have concerns the question of urgency; and "urgency" means urgency of debate. It is a question whether we should postpone the usual business of the house and discuss something urgent or not.
I have heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs, when he used to sit on this side of the house, quote Beauchesne on occasions such as this. It might be refreshing to quote from one of the English authorities. I have here Erskine May's treatise on the law, privileges, proceedings and usage of parliament. The following appears on page 300 in reference to standing order 9 of the British house, which is the same as our standing order 26:
Under special restrictions laid down in standing order No. 9, a motion for the adjournment of the
[Mr. Nielsen.)
house may be moved by a private member "for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance". The rule is designed to give the discussion of some recently occurring matter of emergency precedence over the program of business arranged for the sitting.
Why is there urgency of debate in connection with this matter? The last time such a motion was moved-today, of course, we have new facts and it is a brand new motion-the Secretary of State for External Affairs was acting prime minister and he promised us that the estimates of the Department of Justice would be brought in on the following Thursday. I am not being critical of the hon. gentleman personally, but they came in on Wednesday after a long question period, with the result that we were denied the privilege of discussing this topic adequately. This was the reason you gave in the course of your judgment setting the motion aside; that we would have the estimates before us on Thursday. Instead we got them on another day, on Wednesday. We have called upon the Minister of Labour, the Prime Minister and others in the government asking that the trustees for the S.I.U. be brought before a committee, but we were never given a real answer in this regard.
This is a further reason why there is urgency attached to debate. I say to the Minister of Justice there is a definite erosion of the rule of law. There is a breakdown of the whole moral fibre of the government as far as this matter is concerned, and on this ground I say there is urgency, that there is an emergency, and that this question should be discussed. I think it is more important than the question of redistribution, more important than the flag; because if the rule of law is eroded the fundamental principle of democracy is eroded.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to give this motion very careful consideration and to rule in the affirmative.


Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Before I comment on the question of urgency, let me say this. I assume the Prime Minister has made a serious offer with regard to motion No. 82. I believe, by virtue of his position as leader of the government, he has the opportunity to have this motion moved if the house gives unanimous consent. We are certainly prepared to give that consent.
There is a qualification which I would make. I took it from the Prime Minister's statement that he thought this whole matter of political contributions could be aired in this committee. I suggest the terms of reference would not allow this to be done, nor

would it seem to me a very fruitful field for a parliamentary committee to get into.
As to the question of urgency of debate as it relates to the contributions to Liberal candidates which have recently been revealed, we feel in our party that this is a problem for the government and a problem for parliament. In so far as the facts are concerned, I would say that almost everyone in our group has been aware of this information for some months, and it hardly seems to us that there is the kind of urgency that our friends on the right are putting forward.
We would like to suggest, therefore, that there is not urgency of debate in regard to this matter; although having said that, we feel there is still a problem-and, we think, a moral problem-for all of us in politics in the revelations with regard to these contributions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the question before the house and for your consideration before making a decision is whether there is urgency of debate respecting the matters that have been raised in the motion moved by the hon. member for Yukon. It seems to me it would be a very useful exercise for a committee of this House of Commons to consider the whole matter of the disclosure of election campaign funds, and I would certainly support that kind of exercise undertaken by a committee of the house. Whether we should single out alleged wrongdoing or misfeasance by accepting this motion, and leave all the other matters out, is another question.
I think, too, we will have to take into consideration that there has already been at least one, and I think more than one, day of debate in this house on the estimates of the Department of Justice, when all the matters that are now included in the motion before the house could have been debated. Whether this matter had been drawn to the attention of the mover and seconder of the motion at that time, I am not sure; but I do believe that all these alleged acts about which hon. members now seem to think there is urgency of debate were in fact known prior to those days when there was debate in this house on those estimates. Therefore in so far as urgency of debate on this particular day is concerned, 1 really do not accept that as a valid argument. We know, for example, that citation 100 of Beauchesne, paragraph 2, says:
The "definite matter of urgent public importance", for the discussion of which the adjoum-20220-629
Motion for Adjournment ment of the house may be moved under standing order 26, must be so pressing that public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention.
Well, Mr. Speaker, if that argument is valid today certainly it must also have been valid on those days when the estimates of the Department of Justice were called; and I do not believe that the allegations now made in the motion were aired at that time. I would like to say, in addition, that in so far as this party is concerned, we would like to take into consideration the suggestion of the Prime Minister in asking for unanimous consent to debate item No. 82 on the order paper, when all these matters could be raised. As far as we are concerned we do not see that there is urgency of debate on this particular day with regard to the allegations made.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, as far as the adjournment of our business is concerned, the subject of this motion should be important and urgent.
Is the subject important? It certainly is. However, not to the extent of foregoing a whole day's discussion of other bills in order to deal with it. The importance of the debate should be related to the general source of the money made available to the old political parties rather than to the amounts allotted to individual contenders for parliament.
To my mind, it is more important to investigate the source of election funds, not only with regard to the Liberal, but also to the Conservative party, because we might discover some interesting facts on that side too. It might be in order also to find out where the New Democratic party gets its funds because it is said that the labour unions support that party financially and the members of those labour unions might be surprised to find out that they can afford to give large amounts to the Canadian socialists.
As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, our election funds come from the hat passed at election rallies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: Now, Mr. Speaker, is such a debate urgent? In my opinion, a debate becomes urgent when those who want to discuss a matter have all the facts. Well, we do not have the facts, all we have is a statement to the effect that some hon. members allegedly received $6,000 from a labour union and that other labour unions allegedly gave other amounts to other people. But we still do not know the names, nor do we know the

Motion for Adjournment facts. This is why I believe the Prime Minister's suggestion to refer this matter to the committee on industrial relations, under order No. 82, would be a generally acceptable solution.
However, I believe there is an even better solution. Yesterday, in reply to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister stated that Wednesday, that is tomorrow, we would have the opportunity of discussing a motion for the production of papers; but since the house will not sit tomorrow, and thus debate on the production of these documents will be delayed for eight days, would the Prime Minister be willing to request unanimous consent of the house to vote immediately and without debate on the production of these documents? The members would then have all the documents before them immediately, which would facilitate matters.
Since members of the house are involved, a third method would be to refer everything to the privileges and elections committee, inasmuch as they are being charged with having accepted $1,000 from the S.I.U., and it is because of this electoral contribution that they are now trying to protect Hal Banks. Therefore, the third solution, which would be preferable to a debate on a matter of urgent public importance, would be to refer the matter to the committee on privileges and elections.
Those are three methods which would be preferable to the motion of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I feel that it is now the duty of the Prime Minister to take the initiative and decide which one of these three solutions should apply to the problem facing us at the present time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to decide whether the motion as presented by the hon. member for Yukon under standing order 26 should be accepted. It is alleged that there is urgency in this matter. It seems to me that mention in the newspapers during the last few days, weeks or even months does not make a matter that much more urgent. It is not made more urgent just because it is mentioned in the newspapers. I do not see that there is that urgency which demands that the business of the house be set aside and this matter be debated at this time. My opinion is confirmed even more if one takes into account item No. 82 on the order paper at the present time, which in any event should


certainly provide an occasion for airing this matter if that is the intention.
It seems to me this matter is more in the nature of a question of privilege, but under standing order 26(6) (e) the motion must not raise a question of privilege. Therefore in my opinion it is faulty on that ground. I must come to the conclusion that there is no real urgency in this question and that opportunity to debate the question in an effective way will be provided in due course. Therefore, with regret, I cannot accept the motion.


Erik Nielsen: May I rise on a question affecting the order of business of the house. Since the Prime Minister has made the offer and since all parties appear to be in agreement, can the house now be asked by unanimous consent to proceed-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is raising a question or asking a question at this time he is completely out of order; he must know that.

On the orders of the day;


Erik Nielsen: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the offer made by the Prime Minister and the apparent unanimous agreement of the house in this respect, will the Prime Minister request His Honour to revert to motions or adopt other procedure which would allow the house to proceed forthwith with motion No. 82 on the order paper in order to permit discussion of this whole matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if the house agrees unanimously that motion No. 82 should be called now and that it should be passed without debate so the standing committee on industrial relations are empowered to hear the board of trustees, I would be very glad to bring it forward. But I would not bring it forward to have it used by the opposition as an excuse to spend the rest of the day talking about their allegations and charges at the expense of important legislation.


Erik Nielsen: A further supplementary question. Would the Prime Minister personally inquire into the admission of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard with respect to the so-called allegations?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to discuss that matter with my hon. friend. I would also be very glad to discuss

with my hon. friend who raised the question the matter of campaign funds in his constituency.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the house will not be sitting tomorrow, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister mentioned yesterday that notices of motions for production of papers which are on the order paper would be dealt with on Wednesday, would the Prime Minister now consider approving the production of papers asked for in motion No. 186 today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that would, of course, be completely out of order. I regret that when I mentioned this matter yesterday I did forget that tomorrow the house will not be sitting. However, this matter will come up a week from tomorrow and can be dealt with then. As it concerns a matter which has been under consideration now for a couple of years, perhaps one week's delay will not be fatal.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider that there are other motions under that heading which might be a little more urgent than this red herring which is being dragged across the trail now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I do agree with that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I would direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding a speech delivered to the public relations society in Montreal yesterday and the strong warnings the minister gave against those who would impair-and I quote-the "integrity or unity of NATO". Were his warnings and threats, if I could so interpret them, directed against General de Gaulle, or whom did he have in mind when he made the strictures in question?
Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I stated last Friday in answer to a question by the right hon. gentleman, there have been some discussions to the effect that because of dif-20220-6291
Inquiries of the Ministry ferences that have arisen nations, or a particular nation, might take a position which would cause a reconsideration of their position in the alliance. I made no reference to any particular country, and I feel that because of discussions which are going on it is better that the question be left in that way.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister this question. Has General de Gaulle or the government of the republic of France given any indication that it has in mind withdrawal from NATO? Otherwise for what reason was the speech made?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions here last week and there were good reasons for the observation which was made. Since yesterday the prime minister of France, M. Pompidou, has made a statement to the general effect that it was not the intention of France to withdraw from NATO.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in the light of the indicated crisis in the United Nations as between the United States and the Soviet union over the payment of dues to the United Nations, and in view of the reported crises over membership in NATO, the Kennedy round of talks and the common market, would the Prime Minister consider setting aside one day, or preferably two days, next week for the early discussion of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs so the house can have the benefit of the government's views on these very serious crises which beggar description of Canada's own domestic problems?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it will be possible shortly to call once again the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and perhaps at that time these very important matters could be considered instead of the presence in Africa of the hon. member for Red Deer.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question. I am sure the Prime Minister is fully aware that the Secretary of State for External Affairs was willing the other day to discuss the change in Soviet leadership and the explosion of a nuclear bomb by the Chinese rather than these other problems. Therefore does he not think he is merely drawing a red herring across the trail?

Inquiries of the Ministry REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING STATUS OF QUEBEC HOUSE IN PARIS
On the orders of the day:


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has Premier Lesage of Quebec informed the federal government that he will be making representations to either General de Gaulle, or other members or officials of the French government relating to the status of Quebec house in France? If so, can the minister inform the house of the nature of the representations Premier Lesage will be making?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any representations in this particular context. That, of course, would be a matter between the government of France and the government of Canada.


William Heward Grafftey: May I ask a supplementary question. Has Premier Lesage informed the minister that he will be making some representations to the French government relating to the status of Quebec house in France?


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have made representations ourselves, and we are carrying on consultations with regard to this matter.


William Heward Grafftey: May I rephrase my question. Has Premier Lesage told the minister that he too will be making further representations? This is a simple question that I ask.


Jay Waldo Monteith: You will never get a simple answer.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: In view of the welcome announcement of the visit of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to Canada, will the Prime Minister say if there has been any decision about the subjects to be discussed, and in particular will the question come up regarding the recommendation by the Canadian government that the surcharges should be withdrawn at the earliest possible date? Have any representations to that effect been made to the British government as yet, and if so, what has been their reaction thereto?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I was hoping to announce to the house today, in somewhat more detail than was in the press statement, that the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would be visiting Ottawa on December 9. This statement was issued at once because we understood a statement had been issued in Washington and in London. Meanwhile we are trying to ascertain exactly how long he will be here and what will be the opportunity for talks with him. At the moment our information is that he will be here only in the late afternoon and evening and will be returning to London the next morning.
I can give the house at the moment no information on the nature of the talks we will have, since we just completed arrangements this morning for his arrival.


John George Diefenbaker: I have not seen the announcement in question, but does this mean that the Prime Minister is going to visit Washington before he comes to Ottawa? Usually it has been the other way around. Second, I would ask the Prime Minister if he would answer my question regarding the surcharges? What representations have been made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In answer to the first question, the United Kingdom Prime Minister will be coming to Ottawa on this visit after he has visited Washington. It will be very interesting for the government to get from him at first hand the nature of the talks he has had with the United States government.
In reply to the second question, we are in touch with the United Kingdom government on the matter of surcharges, or their emergency economic measures, and have made clear to them our hope that these will be of a temporary character.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the statements which have been made with reference to contributions by trade unions to various political parties and their candidates, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he would give consideration to extending the terms of reference of the commission which is being set up to look into the question of election expenses, to give them the necessary
[Mr. Lambert.}

authority to look into the sources of all campaign funds of all political parties in Canada over the past five or ten years.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to do that. I have not before me the terms of reference, but I do recall that those terms refer to "related subjects", and perhaps they are wide enough at present to deal with this matter. However, I will be glad to look into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question to put to the Minister of Public Works, but in his absence, I will direct it to the Prime Minister. It has to do with two or three complaints I received quite recently, that is today at 11.15 a.m., to the effect that when we make long distance calls in parliament, it is impossible to find French speaking operators, or they refuse to speak French.
Would the Prime Minister check this fact and correct the situation as soon as possible?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to look into it, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I deal with a question which was raised yesterday and previously, and make a statement about parole in the cases of commuted death sentences both in regard to what is known as the Meeker case and in the wider context of such cases generally.
I can now inform the house that the government proposes to take steps for the enactment of a regulation under the Parole Act which will have the effect of providing that every person who is serving a sentence of imprisonment, to which a sentence of death has been commuted, shall in no case be released on parole without the prior approval of the governor in council. This will have the effect of giving general application to the restriction which, under section 656 of the Criminal Code, may now be imposed on a case to case basis.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question arising out of that statement. Does the Prime Minister not think that is putting a heavy responsibility directly on the executive?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that responsibility is now already put on the executive when it passes an order in council commuting a death sentence.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I know it is not quite proper to mention this, but observations were made by the Prime Minister which went quite beyond what would have been proper under the circumstances. Does the Prime Minister not think this is a matter which should be looked into more carefully in order to assure the Canadian people that those who are dangerous and will continue to be so are not released, and that the action taken in the Meeker case will not be carried forward to cover all cases? I think the Prime Minister will agree there is nothing heavier than the responsibility which rests on the governor in council in murder cases. Making the rules so wide in order to cover a case which has attracted national attention I think is going pretty far.
I wonder whether he would reconsider that, because he is going a very long way beyond anything that has been contemplated before, and I am saying this in a spirit of helpfulness because I know of the difficulties.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate what the right hon. gentleman has said, but I do not think, in view of the circumstances surrounding these cases and the seriousness of the matter involved-nothing could be more serious, or impose greater responsibility on the executive, as my right hon. friend is aware-we are going further than is desirable in the regulation which I have just mentioned. I assure my right hon. friend that we have spent a good many days since the development of this situation, and have had a great many consultations, in order to convince ourselves that this is the proper step to take under the circumstances.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the

Inquiries of the Ministry Minister of Labour. Could he report on the meeting he had yesterday with the presidents of the International Longshoremen's Union of Montreal, Messrs. Asselin and Tremblay, and could he tell us whether they have agreed to reinstate in their ranks those who had been expelled because they wanted to join another union?
Could he tell us also whether the presidents of the International Longshoremen's Union have agreed to respect in the future the freedom of workers to belong to the trade union of their choice?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the main question we discussed yesterday, which was an urgent question, was related to the resumption of operations at the three river ports. As a result of arrangements entered into with the longshoremen, work has resumed today. I hope it will be possible through the offices of the Department of Labour to set up meetings between the shipping federation and the longshoremen to settle the problem that occasioned this walk-out. As I promised yesterday in reply to the questions addressed to me by the hon. member for Lapointe, I drew his questions and comments to the attention of the delegation who were present in the gallery, and I asked them whether they had heard the questions and comments of the hon. member. That delegation assured me that they had listened to the questions and comments.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Did the minister get a favourable reply from the union leaders, the labour leaders, respecting the employees who were ousted from their union? Did he exert pressure on the chairmen of the union so that those workers might be taken back into the fold?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I did not
make representations to the union officers with respect to a matter which is dealt with under the constitution of the union and for which there are several recourses, as I understand the situation, open to the members affected. I explained this in the house some weeks ago. I felt that I had gone as far as it was appropriate for me to go in drawing those representations to the attention of that delegation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour, asking him whether he has received any assurance from the shipping federation that it is prepared to change its attitude in respect of negotiating the pension plan which was recommended by Judge Lippe?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I addressed messages yesterday to the president of the shipping federation of Canada, and to Mr. Gleason of the international longshoremen, suggesting that a meeting be held at an early date to discuss these questions. It is my expectation that the shipping federation, in accordance with the proposals they advanced yesterday, will be ready to undertake in good faith negotiations or discussions in respect of these questions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Will there be any conciliation officers of the Department of Labour present at these discussions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have asked Mr. Poirier and Mr. McRae, both officers in Montreal, to assist in these discussions.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
Did the representatives of the international longshoremen's union agree to have an inquiry made into the administration of the pension fund of the Montreal longshoremen in order to satisfy those who have been calling for such an inquiry for a long time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take this question as notice and attempt to reply later.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter has been under discussion for two or three days, and properly speaking is a question that should be placed on the order paper in order to obtain a complete answer.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to set the record straight, I would say that is exactly the question I directed to the Minister of Labour yesterday, when the leaders of the union were in his office.
Yesterday he answered me that he would ask these labour leaders to have an inquiry

made into the administration of the pension fund. Now, the next day, that is today, he is telling me that he will take this question as notice and that he will answer it later, although he had the opportunity of looking into these facts yesterday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I regret if I
misunderstood the question asked by the hon. member. I assured him yesterday that I would draw his observations and representations to the attention of the delegation, and I carried out that undertaking yesterday. I drew his observation and representations to the attention of the longshoremen and representatives who were in my office.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration whether he will give consideration to investigating the immigrant status in Canada of Wolfgang Schilbach, at one time of 974 Bathurst street in Toronto, and now publicized as the personal bodyguard of one John Ross Taylor of Gooderham, Ontario.


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. M. J. Moreau (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege affecting all members of this house. I should like to draw your attention to page 9877 of Hansard for Monday, October 9, and quote what the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is reported as having said:
I think quite a number wish to express themselves on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, it is my recollection that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition used the figure 30, and said that 30 members wished to express themselves on this matter. In support of that recollection I should like to quote from page 9879 of Hansard for the same day where the hon. member for Lapointe, who
Question of Privilege
rose immediately afterward, is reported as having said:
When the leader of the official opposition states that 30 members of his party want to talk on that matter-
My recollection is further confirmed by an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail of this morning. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, in some way to correct the record so that it reads accurately, in view of the fact that the official record is not accurate.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I made no change in word, line or expression. I left what was recorded as said yesterday, as I do so often, unchanged and unrevised. If any portion of what I said was not heard by the Hansard reporter, who after all is the final arbiter, then I can only ascribe it to the fact that the noise and din opposite prevented the Hansard reporter from hearing everything I said.
This is the first time anyone has suggested that a challenge should be made of Hansard. I have always followed the course of not changing materially any matter-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Don't start me in that direction or I will recall $100 million that disappeared during the course of a debate. Mr. Speaker, this is the first time that the Hansard reporter has been challenged for not having reported everything.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, with regard to that question of privilege, I notice that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is not denying categorically that he has said "30 members" instead of "quite a number". I should like to ask the Leader of the Opposition, in view of what I stated later, namely:

-the leader of the official opposition states that 30 members of his party want to talk on that matter-
I would like to submit to the Leader of the Opposition that my sentence then has no
sense.


Jay Waldo Monteith: That is nothing new.


Gilles Grégoire: But if he said, as I understood him to say "30 members" and not "quite a number," then my sentence has sense.
When I said the Leader of the Opposition stated that 30 members of his party wanted to talk on that matter I believed he really

Inquiries of the Ministry had said it. I do not accuse him of having changed Hansard. Maybe he did not touch it at all, but if he can remember what he said I think it would be only fair and honest for him to state today what he said yesterday.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman has raised a very novel argument. He says that unless Hansard is now changed and the report given by the reporter altered, what he said was nonsense and therefore should not be in Hansard. If his argument were carried to a logical conclusion, there have been cases when I believe the statement he now makes would have a sound basis in fact.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition is trying to interpret what I have said. I did not say this has no sense, that 30 members of his party want to talk on that matter, because I know 65 out of his 95 members do not want to follow the Leader of the Opposition in the flag debate. That makes sense, and those who do not make sense in this house are those 30 Tories who want to follow the Leader of the Opposition. I congratulate the other 65 who do not want to follow him in the flag issue.


Mr. Starr:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on that same question of privilege. The hon. member for Lapointe talks about sense but what he has just said is complete nonsense.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, if it is nonsense-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely we have all enjoyed ourselves sufficiently on this important matter.



SIR JOHN A. MACDONALD CELEBRATION OF 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF BIRTH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State of which I have given him notice. Noting that the city of Kingston, in co-operation with other groups, is planning a commemorative dinner on the 150th anniversary of the birth of Sir John A. Macdonald, can the minister advise what preparations the government is making for national celebration of this historic event?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of State):: All I can say at the moment, Mr. Speaker, is that a small interdepartmental committee has been appointed but we have


not yet received its report or recommendations.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Could he tell the house whether he had any discussion with the Quebec minister of natural resources or any of his officials concerning the development of the Harricana river and whether the Grand canal project was also discussed?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: No, Mr. Speaker.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Postmaster General. Some weeks ago he stated that he would be calling a housing conference for southern Ontario in November. In view of the importance of such a meeting and the need for preparations I wonder whether he has set the date and, if so, can he tell us it?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the answer has already been given at an earlier sitting. I also tried to speak to the hon. member, when we found that of necessity we had to change the date. There was no hotel accommodation available, and the dates suggested were not satisfactory to many of the municipalities concerned, and the meeting will now be held in Toronto, on December 16 and 17. An invitation will be sent to the hon. member and to all the other members from the parts of Ontario included in the Toronto conference.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.

Now that English Canada has shown in no uncertain terms that it disapproved of the policy of the Leader of the Opposition on the flag issue, at yesterday's by-elections, particularly in Waterloo South, does the Prime Minister intend to place the flag issue immediately before the house in order that we may, once and for all, settle that problem which is undermining the confidence of the people in our parliament?



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinlhe-Bagoi):: I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General. Is it still the intention of the Postmaster General to proceed with resolution No. 12, which appears on the order paper and has been there since April 30, relating to the increase in certain rates on periodicals and newspapers?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in the government's intention to proceed with this legislation. Unfortunately there are other matters with a higher priority on the list. The Post Office Department would like to see the changes made, but we must recognize there are other items with higher priority.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: May I ask a supplementary question. Is it the intention of the minister to proceed as soon as possible?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It depends on the priority, but certainly we will proceed as quickly and as expeditiously as possible.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and relates to the assurance he gave two weeks ago today, that within a fortnight he would give an answer to those who saw the government with regard to increasing the pensions of retired civil servants. Has that answer been given, and can we be told the terms of the answer?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The letter is going out this afternoon. I signed it this morning, but I cannot disclose 20220-630
Inquiries of the Ministry its contents until those who are concerned have received it.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is the government going to give some consideration to the serious situation that now faces the poultry industry? I have a bill from one of my constituents who sold 59 fowl weighing 228 pounds for $13.35. Surely something should be done at once about this situation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss this serious situation with the Minister of Agriculture.


Edward Nasserden: My supplementary question is, how long does the Prime Minister think the Minister of Agriculture can get away with sloughing off this problem by saying the problem does not exist?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the widespread interest in the subject across the country, can the minister inform the house when volume 2 of the report of the royal commission on health services may be tabled?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I have received no information on this, although I have heard from time to time that the document is completed and in the process of translation. My office has not yet been informed that it has been signed, and I have not yet checked with the Prime Minister whether he has had any word of its completion.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I pose a question for the Minister of Fisheries in connection with the multimillion dollar Petitcodiac causeway construction which the minister just announced a while

Electoral Boundaries Commissions ago. Will an opportunity be given to different groups to make representations regarding the location, and when does he expect construction will begin?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: This is a matter that has to be dealt with by the government of the province of New Brunswick.


Thomas Miller Bell: In view of the fact that the minister made this announcement, and evidently took credit for it, and in view of the fact that we would have a large participation in it, does he not think the federal government has a responsibility to answer those questions I pose?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: I was pleased to announce that the federal government was prepared to participate under the maritime marshland reclamation scheme.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister not think the federal government has some responsibility, and will he give an assurance that this is not another pre-election promise that will turn out to be a corpse a few days afterward?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: It is an accomplished fact, Mr. Speaker.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it was his decision that resulted in a change in the name of the national centre for the performing arts, which has now become the Canadian centre for the performing arts? If so, what significance can we read into this change in the name?


Maurice Lamontagne: I can say that there is no real meaning to this. There has been no official name selected as yet for this centre.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, October 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-72, to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions to report upon the readjustment of the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons and to provide for the readjustment of such
[Stage Direction]

representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamou-reux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on October 20 it had reverted to a consideration of clause 6, with an amendment thereto by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The other outstanding clauses are 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13.
Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment to clause 6?


Mr. Pickersgill:: I should like to say a word or two before we vote on this amendment, if that is the desire of the committee. I know it is not strictly in order but perhaps you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, to say that I was very much impressed by the progress which has been made during my absence- wondering, perhaps, whether I should not have stayed away longer-


Gordon Minto Churchill: You have taken the words out of my mouth.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My colleague the Minister of Labour seemed to do so well the other day when this measure was before the committee. But I am hoping that the spirit induced by the hon. gentleman will carry over to our proceedings this afternoon. I think hon. members will recall that at the time we suspended discussion on clause 6 of the bill last April there had developed what might really be regarded as the only serious difference which has yet arisen with regard to this legislation. I should like to recall to hon. members in all quarters of the committee the spirit in which this legislation was approached. I think here I can speak for the government, although in most respects it is clearly understood that once the principle of this bill was adopted, there were no whips on it and every hon. member as far as this side of the house was concerned was considered in every way free, just as was the case the last time a similar measure was before the house, to vote in any way he pleased without any concern because the position of the government was not en jeu then, and is not now. This is a matter for the house, one in which all of us have an equal responsibility. I am, therefore, very conscious of the fact that I can speak only for myself except in one respect: I think I can say it is the view of the government that because of the far reaching, revolutionary character of this legislation it is preferable

that it be accomplished by a consensus rather than by sharp differences and votes.
It is true, as the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre pointed out, the last day when I was present in this committee when we previously discussed this matter, that there was a division over the question as to whether there should be one commission for the whole country or ten commissions. But there was no acrimony attached to the debate on that matter and there was the readiest acceptance of the view that once a reasonable discussion had taken place the question should be decided by the majority of votes in the committee. I hope this will be the spirit in the committee today. I did indicate during the last few days of April when this subject was being discussed that I personally was more inclined-"more disposed" was the phrase I used-to support the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre than I was to support the original provision in the bill. At the risk of repetition I should like to put on record again the words I used on that occasion, words which will be found at page 2320 of Hansard. I said then:
If the house decided to accept the bill in its present form I would not waste any tears on the amendment. In fact, I would have a certain amount of satisfaction, but I really do believe we would have a better act with this amendment. Because all those in the country are not Liberals and Conservatives-
Perhaps I can say that today without dissent, at any rate from one comer of the house.
-because all those in the country perhaps have not got the same highminded view of the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister as those of us in the house have, I think there would be a greater degree of general confidence in the commissions if we were to accept the amendment that has been proposed than if we were to take the bill in its present form. For that reason I am disposed to support the amendment.
Since that time I have not changed my view. But I cannot ignore the fact that the amendment of the hon. gentleman did arouse very strong antagonism in one part of the committee. I did not myself think that the antagonism was justified, but this is a free country and a free assembly. It was a fact. During the past four or five weeks while unable to be here to take part in the work of the house I have been pondering other possible ways of dealing with this matter. I wish to emphasize what I said on second reading and what I have said at every stage -that while we produced the best bill we were able to draft, we were prepared to accept from any quarter of the house any suggestion for improvement. That still goes.
Electoral Boundaries Commissions By "improvement" I do not just mean something which is academically better. I use the term to include something which is more generally acceptable to the whole house as long as it meets the basic requirements of the legislation.
I was somewhat impressed by having recalled to my mind the suggestion made in a bill introduced by Senator Power when he was in this house many years ago. It was not proceeded with because of the war, but in that bill there was a provision for the Speaker to make these appointments after consultation with certain hon. members in the house. I have been rather impressed by both parts of this suggestion and while I was elsewhere and not otherwise occupied I prepared two draft amendments about which I should like to say something-I have some copies, and when I get to them I will be glad to pass them around to hon. members so that they can read them. I am not going to move them now. I could not do so, in any case, because there is an amendment before the committee now. But so that we can take a general look at the whole question, before doing that


John George Diefenbaker: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that he pass them around now and let us look at them. Don't keep them secret.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have not the capacity of the right hon. gentleman for holding the attention of an audience; I would prefer not to make a distraction available. I would rather have hon. members listen to what I have to say until I get to that point. I know I need the assistance of the right hon. gentleman in making my speeches much more than he is in need of assistance from me, but I would really prefer to make my own.


John George Diefenbaker: I thought the hon. gentleman wanted co-operation, and we were giving him co-operation. I was trying to secure it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman is correct. But I do not spell "co-operation" "d-i-c-t-a-t-i-o-n". I hope the right hon. gentleman will not take the view that unless we agree with him there is no co-operation in the house.


John George Diefenbaker: A statement like that is quite in keeping with what we expect from the hon. gentleman. We have tried to practise co-operation. He claimed a moment ago that this was the desire. A moment ago I made the suggestion in the best of good spirits, but the hon. gentleman is continuing

Electoral Boundaries Commissions the attitude he has taken previously with regard to the C.B.C.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think the right hon. gentleman is quite right. I think I have behaved quite badly, and I apologize.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. gentleman would answer a question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He said, "the Speaker, in consultation with certain members". I wonder whether he would now outline the members he has in mind. That would come to grips with the subject immediately.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, Mr. Chairman. I hope the hon. gentleman will not think this is offensive-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -but I would prefer to deal with this matter in the way that I think will make clear what I am hoping to make clear about a rather complicated subject. In other words, it is perhaps almost out of order for me to be doing what I am doing now, because we are really supposed to be discussing nothing but the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is perhaps almost a discourtesy to him, for which I should perhaps apologize, to be suggesting that it ought to be supplanted with something else. But I would like first of all to say a little more about the hon. gentleman's own amendment. There was one objection to it which was made by hon. members in certain quarters of the house and which I thought had some substance. That was, that apart from the representation commissioner, all three members of the commissions would be appointed by the same person. It is true that there were limitations on the kind of persons who could be appointed, but notwithstanding that fact, that is perhaps rather a concentration of power in the hands of one man, even though that man is the chief justice of the province.
Therefore it seemed to me that if we could find some other way to diffuse this power of appointment in some way that would be acceptable to the whole house, it ought to be done. One of the suggestions that I am going to put forward is that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was willing to withdraw his amendment, or if his motion should not be accepted by the committee when it is voted upon, we should then accept an amendment which would

substitute appointment by His Honour the Speaker for the appointment by the leaders of the two major parties in the house. In support of that I could quote a number of-


Stanley Howard Knowles: From categories, or just anybody?


John Whitney Pickersgill: My own view is that of course that would be a possibility; but I would think that after the debate we have had, in the light of all the experience, which is bound to be followed to some degree, in other commonwealth countries, and in view of the difficulty that the hon. gentleman himself recognized in his amendment, namely that these categories of persons referred to are not civil servants of the federal state but are provincial civil servants or persons in other categories whom we cannot order, it might be much better to trust His Honour the Speaker to do the sensible thing, and not to put any strings upon him except the obvious string that these appointments must be made from persons resident in the province.
In the course of the debate hon. gentlemen made a number of points. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings said, as reported at page 2291 of Hansard:
We have a Prime Minister who is an officer of the house and a Leader of the Opposition who is also an officer of the house, and they are the only ones in this category. I agree that whoever occupied the office of prime minister or leader of the opposition would exercise the authority given to them under this provision in a manner which would be entirely creditable both to themselves and to parliament-
I think that will always be true. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, as recorded at page 2298 of Hansard, said this:
X think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should correct his stand on this. What is required in this country is respect for parliament, and that carries with it respect for the leaders of these two great parties.
The hon. member said a little later on:
Obviously some people in the left hand corner of the chamber have no respect for the leader of the Liberal party or the leader of the Conservative party, but there are millions of people in the country who have, while their supporters are not very numerous.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has changed since then.


John Whitney Pickersgill: One could make some comments on that. The hon. member for Edmonton West said:
I would say to the Minister of Justice that in discussing the qualifications, capabilities or impartiality of the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, one must not consider the personalities of the right hon. gentlemen who are

now occupying those positions. If you do this, you may be merely legislating for the next five years.
Then he went on to suggest that the amendment of the hon. gentleman was an implied reflection on the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition acting in a responsible manner as officers of the house and a reflection that they would not do a proper job. I could quote several other hon. members. There is a quotation of the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary as reported at page 2307 of Hansard-I am not going to read it -and several other hon. gentlemen opposite. The gist of all this is the same, namely that we should have confidence that whoever is the prime minister, whoever is the leader of the government, whoever is the leader of the opposition, would make proper appointments. I believe this would be true. But I also share a good deal of the feelings of hon. gentlemen in the other corner of the house who do not support either of these hon. gentlemen and who have pointed out, quite properly I think, that both the occupants of these offices are now, and as long as we have free government will continue to be, politicians.
If, however, hon. gentlemen opposite really believe what they said-and I do not say they do not; I believe they do-about the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition acting in this capacity, surely all of us in every quarter of the house would at all times be ready to trust the one officer of this house elected by us all, who is called the Speaker of the House of Commons because he is our voice when we go to the other place, the man who speaks for us, who has a duty to be impartial, who has that duty imposed upon him and who-I might remind hon. gentlemen-is the chairman of all four commissions in the United Kingdom. So it does seem to me that this would be an even better method of resolving the problem than any that has yet been suggested.
I would hope that this solution-which commends itself very much to me, I may say, as a good solution and one that would stand the test of time-might commend itself to all hon. members in every quarter of the house. I think there is one thing we can be sure of; that there would never be any criticism outside this chamber of the appointments that would be made by the presiding officer of this chamber. The only place where there could possibly be any criticism arise would be within our own ranks-and I would hope there would be none here. For that reason I am suggesting that if there was a consensus
Electoral Boundaries Commissions -I do not say universal approval, because you hardly ever get that in an assembly like this-on the part of hon. members that this would be a good solution, I would be very glad, if the hon. member's amendment should not carry, to put this forward as an amendment in the hope that it would carry. I am sure all hon. members will respect my feelings in this when I say that I would not wish it to be put forward unless there were a reasonable assurance that it would commend itself to the committee generally. I do not think we should do that in those circumstances, having regard to the office of the Speaker; and unless we are generally prepared to support this amendment I would not wish to put it forward at all.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the minister mentioned a moment ago a suggestion from Hon. C. G. Power. What was that suggestion? I think the hon. gentleman was getting away from it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think perhaps this would be an appropriate time to deal with it and perhaps the best way to deal with it would be to refer to it directly, just as did the hon. member for York-Sunbury some time ago.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think it was the hon. member for Royal.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it was the hon. member for Royal; I thought of Fredericton and got just a little confused. The suggestion was that there should be two assessors for each province, one of whom should be appointed on the recommendation of the leader of the opposition in the House of Commons and the other on the recommendation of the leader for the time being holding the majority in the House of Commons. That was the suggestion made in this particular bill. There was also another suggestion in an earlier bill that there should be two members, one appointed by the leader of the government and one by the leader of the opposition after consultation with the leaders of other parties in the house. They were the suggestions.
This brings me to the other alternative which also occurred to me.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Before you get into that would you just answer this question. The minister did say that the Speaker in consultation with other members would make the appointment. Before the hon. gentleman leaves that phase of it, what has he in mind by consultation with other members?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not have in mind that the amendment would contain anything about

Electoral Boundaries Commissions consultation with anyone. I said, as is the case in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, I understand, that there would in fact be consultation, but that I did not think we should attempt to prescribe consultation in the legislation. I think we should leave to the judgment of the Speaker what he should do about this matter, knowing that he will exercise his judgment in a sensible and practical manner.
The alternative suggestion which I had put forward was this, that we should leave the present bill as it is so far as the appointment of the commissions go.


Mr. Thomas:: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: But I suggested we provide -and I hope the hon. gentleman will continue to say "Hear, hear"-that the leaders of other recognized parties in the house should have the right to appoint witnesses or assessors to be present at all the meetings of the commissions. Personally, I do not like this nearly as much but I am trying to think of every possible way in which we can do this so that it will at any rate definitely be open and aboveboard.
I recognize the force of the arguments used by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others associated with him, by the hon. member for Fraser Valley and by some other hon. members earlier in this debate. They, too, represent in this house large bodies of electors, and it is only natural that they should feel that the heads of other political parties should not have a power of appointment which, even if it did not give them any advantage, would seem to exclude other hon. members who were equally elected to this house by the people of Canada.
If the amendment of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is not acceptable, I would hope that one or other of the amendments or a variant of them will be acceptable. Personally, I think that if we really mean what we have said on second reading the neatest, the simplest and the fairest method to remove these appointments completely from the partisan arena would be to accept the suggestion that these two appointments be made by the Speaker. It seems to me there could be no criticism of that by anybody in any quarter. If we trust the Speaker to preside over our deliberations, to preserve impartiality and to do all these things which he takes an oath to do, we can surely trust him to discharge this function and to discharge it fairly. To me that would be the

best way. However, I recognize the difficulty that we cannot do it-at least I do not think we can-if a large section of the house does not agree to it, because that would be a reflection on His Honour the Speaker before he even got started. I may say that I had heard, of course, of this suggestion and was aware of the practice in other jurisdictions, but that is what to some extent deterred me from suggesting that it be put in the bill in the first instance.
I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be desirable to have some discussion of these possible alternatives before we come to a vote on the hon. member's motion, and I think I should now take my seat.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, before the minister sits down would he entertain this question. In view of the fact that he has put forward two alternatives in addition to what we have already had and he has suggested that we should now have some discussion, I have always felt that discussion should take place after we have done some thinking. Would the hon. minister who is piloting the bill through be prepared to let us set this matter aside now for a short period so that we can get together as a group and see what we think of it? I think that is reasonable. It seems to me that the first thing is to do some thinking and analysing and then have some discussion.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have read in the public print somewhere some suggestions to the effect that discussions behind closed doors are not altogether desirable all the time, although that was in another context entirely unrelated to parliament. It seems to me that the proper place for debate is right here. I have copies of both these suggestions and some general principles are involved. For one thing, it is not really very difficult to grasp one of the amendments; it is simplicity and clarity itself. The other one, which I admit I do not like so much but which would be satisfactory I think, is somewhat more complicated, but not very much because it preserves essentially what is in the present bill and simply makes the additional provision for what are called in the draft amendment "assessors". In any event I have a few copies of both these documents, and if they could be passed around so that hon. gentlemen can look at them perhaps we might have some discussion at this time.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I will be brief. I should like to follow up the suggestion

I made by way of a question. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat and who is piloting the bill through said that he did not think it desirable that we should sit down and analyse this matter behind closed doors. I think these propositions have some merit. They may be good propositions. Perhaps both of them are good. But surely the thing to do-and with his intellect I am sure the hon. gentleman will appreciate this-is to expose ourselves to the documents in question and analyse them to see whether they are good, and perhaps shorten this debate. I am not trying to get into an argument this afternoon by any means, but sometimes we are accused of filibustering this bill. Surely this is an opportunity to sit down and analyse this as a party. This is, after all, the official opposition. We want to speak as such, and as Conservatives.
Mr. Chairman, I see that the minister is busy with something else at the present moment. This is a very important question and I wish he would listen to what I have to say. This is the suggestion I am making. Perhaps he could set this aside and we could go on with some other business of the house, so that perhaps within 30 minutes or an hour tomorrow we could come to some agreement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We are not sitting tomorrow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is right, we have a holiday tomorrow and I have overlooked that fact. This item of legislation has been set aside since April. While it is true the minister has been in the hospital, it has been left in abeyance since it was set aside. Surely if it was all right to do that, my request that we set it aside for the purpose of analysing it is a reasonable one. The hon. minister has stated that he is not a lawyer, but I have often thought that he comes to grips with many problems as a lawyer might do, and I am sure he will appreciate that a lawyer would never defend an individual, or act for the plaintiff or defendant in a civil action, without briefing his case. You have put forward two propositions. Surely we should have time to analyse the situation, otherwise you will be encouraging talk rather than thought.
I thought the Minister of National Health and Welfare made a remark. I do not intend to reply or become involved in an argument with her, but it seems whenever I say something I do become involved in an argument with her and she then becomes annoyed with me. I do not like her to be annoyed with
Electoral Boundaries Commissions me. I do not like any lady to be annoyed with me.
The minister has been talking about reasonable things. Surely it is reasonable to suggest that we set this aside for a short period of time and go on with another piece of legislation. If the government is caught without having anything for us to consider this afternoon, that may be a source of embarrassment, but I suggest there are many other items that could be considered between now and eight o'clock, or ten o'clock, giving us the opportunity of looking into this matter and, analysing it so that we can come back and say that point A is good but point B is bad. Let us have the opportunity of preparing ourselves. You have hit us with a brand new argument, and a brand new disposition. This is quite a revelation and I am rather surprised. I am impressed by what the hon. member has said this afternoon and am inclined to go along with him, provided we have time to analyse the situation. Otherwise I am afraid I must be suspicious of the whole thing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, at this moment I should just like to say a few words about the procedure that we might follow. First of all may I make it clear that we are prepared to make our comments on the various proposals immediately. I think there is some validity, however, to the request made by the hon. member for Bow River. If there is to be a postponement of this discussion, it might not be inappropriate to have at least an initial statement as to where we stand on these matters. I suggest there are several clauses which are standing, and if I took down the list correctly, the clauses yet to be dealt with are clauses 6, 7, 8, 9, 12 and 13. I realize that the two most difficult ones are clauses 6 and 13, but perhaps we could go on with our consideration of clauses 7, 8, 9 and 12. I am not suggesting that we spend all our time until six o'clock dealing with those clauses, but they might well take some time. Following our consideration of those clauses perhaps we could deal with another piece of legislation.
As I have suggested, we in this party would like to make a brief statement about our view on the matter. I do not want to prejudge the possibility of a further discussion by individuals, but I am not in favour of negotiation behind closed doors.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, as a matter of fact I was about to say that I do not think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bow River is at all unreasonable. If it is the

Electoral Boundaries Commissions desire of the committee to rise now and report progress we will take everyone by surprise, and I suppose the government is not supposed to do this, but there are several measures on the order paper that we would desperately like to complete. Two or three of them are in respect of things which come within my department, such as the harbours board bill and the Canada Shipping Act. This legislation does have to be completed. We must also put through legislation in respect of the annual financing of the C.N.R.
Mr. Chairman, I have just attempted to get in touch with the Department of Finance to find out whether there is someone immediately available to go on with that measure. It is such a routine measure I cannot see any great difficulty involved.


John George Diefenbaker: What measure is that?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am referring to the annual measure for financing the C.N.R. This is something we must get done before this session can conclude, and it would be very helpful to the government to have this done.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre suggested that it would be preferable to receive a brief statement in respect of the measure presently under discussion before putting it aside. I think it would be preferable to put it aside right away, have the consultation required, in one way or another, enabling hon. members to think over the position they want to take. If that is the wish of the committee generally I certainly would not be opposed to it, as long as hon. members opposite do not object to going ahead with some of the other items on the order paper of a non-contentious nature.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister, in regard to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whether we could go ahead with some of the other clauses to be considered, leaving clauses 6 and 13 aside?


Mr. Winkler:: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that some of the clauses might be inter-related, and therefore, should be considered together. Perhaps we can go ahead with our consideration of something else at this time, and set our consideration regarding this measure aside until perhaps eight o'clock, at which time we will know whether or not we can make progress. With the hope that an agreement can be reached I think it would be advisable to follow that course.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I thought someone would put a table in front of me as an indication

that I might receive advice, but unfortunately that has not happened. I am very hesitant, in the company of so many learned gentlemen, being unlearned myself, to talk about these clauses without some assistance. I was afraid some hon. members would suggest that there are some ancillary conditions, such as has been suggested by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce. Clause 12 does not fall within that category, but stands on its own feet. We might consider that clause at this time, but I think it would be neater if we agree to set this measure aside for consideration later.
Before doing that, Mr. Chairman, and this is highly irregular, perhaps we could have some kind of an understanding as to what measure we will next consider. Unfortunately the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance has not yet arrived. Perhaps we could agree to second reading of the harbours bill. I do not think it is contentious.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That would be agreeable.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If that meets with the general approval of this committee I am prepared to move that we rise and report progress.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, before we do that perhaps we could arrive at one other point of agreement. I am willing to withdraw my suggestion about an initial statement, but I am advising the minister that he must have a better argument before we come back to this, but can we also fix the time when we will come back to it-for instance eight o'clock this evening?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like the committee to consider this measure this evening, if the time left between now and eight o'clock is sufficient for hon. members to consider their positions. If not, perhaps we can agree that this will be the first item of business on Thursday.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I do not think we should set this measure aside for a longer period of time than from now until eight o'clock. The first suggestion of the hon. member for Bow River was that he needed half an hour to consider it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Chairman, I am not trying to get into an argument with the hon. gentleman, but what I did say was that we needed some time to consider our positions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Perhaps hon. members could consider these clauses in the three or more hours between now and eight o'clock. If we do not get on with it this evening, we will be

dealing with estimates on Thursday and Friday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We would only take estimates on Thursday if this is completed.


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to speak in a spirit of co-operation. This is a most important matter and we are trying to leave our political considerations at the door. I would like to study these various suggestions and I think this would save a great deal of time. We would know exactly where we were on Thursday, but if we started in tonight I am afraid we would run through until ten o'clock.
I have not seen these suggestions before and am most anxious to assure that we produce something that will be generally accepted. No harm will be suffered by anyone in allowing this to go to Thursday and I would hope that could be agreed to by everyone.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if that is the general consensus. The government feels we should get on with this legislation and get it passed. The right hon. gentleman suggests we would make as much progress on Thursday as we would this evening and Thursday but he cannot speak for the house any more than I can. However, if that is his opinion we shall have to take it into serious consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We felt it would be better to proceed at eight o'clock but we are prepared to have it deferred until Thursday provided it is the first item of business on Thursday.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is quite clearly understood. I may say I have put forward two new suggestions and have had some discussion on them with one or two hon. gentlemen, but there has been no formal consultation.
The parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance is present and he tells me he is ready to go ahead with the resolution regarding the C.N.R. financing, and perhaps we could agree to take that. Then, as soon as it is completed we could take the harbour legislation and then the bill regarding Newfoundland, which is merely a formal matter that has to be dealt with. After that there is the Canada Shipping Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about the Canada labour code?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the Minister of Labour cannot be here this evening. I expected to be here this evening and it would
Canadian National Railways be a great relief to me if we could get all this legislation out of the way.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You might take on some of the items for the Minister of Labour, who did very well for you in your absence.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I happen to be one of the favoured few who received copies of these two drafts, and since we are deferring this until Thursday arrangements should be made for all hon. members to get copies. I do not suggest we should have them incorporated in Hansard, but they could be duplicated.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think there are enough copies for any members who are really interested, and I shall endeavour to have them circulated right away. I take it there is no objection in any quarter to going ahead with the program I have suggested.


Mr. Priliie:: I would like a little more notice before the harbours bill is debated. This is a poor way to handle things.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand the President of the Privy Council gave notice of it last night as one of the items which would be taken if redistribution were completed, and therefore I believe the government has fulfilled all requirements.


Mr. Winch:: I do not remember the Canada Shipping Act being mentioned and I would like at least one day's notice of it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: As there will be three other items preceding it I think it is unlikely we will reach it today. In fact there may be one or two other items of a non-contentious nature that we could clear off the order paper and so give hon. gentlemen in the other place something to do.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to make capital expenditures and to supply the financial requirements of affiliated companies in the year 1964, not exceeding $155,000,000, and to make certain capital expenditures and enter into certain contracts prior to July 1, 1965; to provide for the financial requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines in an amount not exceeding $5,000,000, either by means of loans from Her Majesty to the National company or by means of issues of securities of the National company, authorized and guaranteed as to interest and principal by
9960	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways
Her Majesty, the cash proceeds by either method to be used only for the financial requirements of Trans-Canada Air Lines, the capital needs of the National company itself being met entirely through the sale of preferred stock to Her Majesty and from reserves for depreciation and debt discount; to authorize Her Majesty to continue to purchase until December 31, 1965, Canadian National Company 4 per cent preferred stock in an annual amount not exceeding 3 per cent of the gross revenues of the company; to extend until December 31, 1965, the moratorium on interest on the loan of $100,000,000 to the company authorized by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act of 1952; to authorize Her Majesty to make loans to the Canadian National Railway Company and Trans-Canada Air Lines to meet deficiencies in operating revenues to June 30, 1965, any such loans to be repaid from revenues of the railway company and Trans-Canada Air Lines or, if revenues prove insufficient, by subsequent deficit appropriation by parliament; and to raise the limit on the Canadian National Railway Company's authority to refund matured, maturing and callable securities from the present level of $480,000,000 to $680,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, the more experienced members of the committee will immediately recognize that this resolution is the one which usually precedes the introduction of the Canadian National Railways financing and guarantee bill. I may say that both as to form and substance the resolution is in keeping with the practice followed annually since 1952, with the exception of 1962 and 1963. As hon. members know, in those two years the annual financing and guarantee bills were combined into one bill late last year, but we are now returning to the practice of former years.
The bill which is foreshadowed by this resolution divides itself into seven main purposes and I shall attempt, with the indulgence of the committee, to explain those purposes briefly.
The first is to authorize capital expenditures by the C.N.R. in an amount not exceeding $155 million during the 1964 calendar year. As I understand it, this level of expenditure will run about the same as that incurred in recent years. There will be certain technical provisions within the bill authorizing payments not exceeding $72 million coming due between January 1 and July 1 1965, for capital expenditures incurred prior to 1965, and authorizing the C.N.R. to enter into contracts in an amount not exceeding $36 million for capital expenditures for the period January 1, 1965 and July 1, 1965.
The second main purpose of the bill will be to provide for the continued purchase by the Minister of Finance of the C.N.R.'s 4 per


cent preferred stock through to the end of the calendar year 1965. The 1962-63 financing and guarantee act extended to December 31, 1964, the expiry date of the authority granted by the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act, 1952, for the purchase of such stock up to a limit of 3 per cent of the gross revenue of the railway. In future years this provision and the other provisions of this annual bill might be affected by general railways legislation and a recapitalization of the C.N.R. While these matters are pending the bill recommends that the expiry date of this provision be extended to the end of 1965.
The third purpose of the bill is to extend until 1965 the moratorium on interest on the government loan of $100 million to the railway company authorized by the capital revision act, 1952.
The fourth purpose of the bill is a provision to increase to $680 million the limitation in the Canadian National Railways Refunding Act, 1955, placed on the authority to refund maturing or matured securities of the railway company. The limit at present is $480 million and it is desirable to increase this limit in order to give the railway company the authority to refund 5-J per cent Canadian National railway bonds maturing on December 15, 1964. These bonds, I might add, were exchangeable at the option of the holders on or before June 15, 1964, into an equal par value of 5J per cent bonds due December 15, 1971. Of these bonds, $190,445,000 were converted, leaving $8,555,000 still outstanding which are due to mature on December 15, of this year.
The last Financing and Guarantee Act extended the Canadian National's debt refunding limit by $250 million in view of the maturity of a like amount of Canadian National bonds on February 1, 1963. This issue was, in fact, refunded by a direct government loan to the Canadian National rather than by a bond issue by the Canadian National. I understand that there are no plans for a C.N.R. bond issue this year. However, it is considered desirable to have the added refunding authority equivalent to both C.N.R. issues in the event that debt management considerations ever pointed again to the advisability of C.N.R. bond issues.
The fifth purpose of the act will be to provide for the interim financing of Trans-Canada Air Lines during the first six months of the calendar year 1965 in an amount not exceeding $5 million.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What body is Trans-Canada Air Lines?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The hon. member for Edmonton West raises an interesting point when he asks me, what body is Trans-Canada Air Lines. I stand subject to correction, but in the interest of precision I felt I ought to refer to it as Trans-Canada Air Lines because I understand it will not become officially Air Canada until the first of the year. However,
I stand to be corrected on this. In the meantime, the hon. member for Edmonton West may check the record, I am indebted to him for doing so because if I am wrong I welcome a correction.
The sixth purpose of the bill is, as in previous years, to provide authority for the government to make temporary loans to Canadian National Railways and Trans-Canada Air Lines to meet deficiencies in operating revenues up to June 30, 1965. Any such loan is repaid later from the revenues of Canadian National and Trans-Canada Air Lines or if these prove insufficient, then the loans are written off through parliamentary appropriation.
I come to the seventh, and final purpose of the bill, which is to provide for the appointment of the firm of Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart, of the cities of Toronto and Montreal, chartered accountants, as auditors of the Canadian National for the calendar year 1965. I think, for the interest of members, I should add that last year there was a provision authorizing the auditors by a separate act, and this is just returning to the custom that had persisted for many years prior to that date.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that outlines briefly the main purposes of the resolution now engaging the attention of the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I want to thank the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, for his explanation. It is necessarily brief so far as the resolution is concerned, but perhaps when we get to the bill we will be given more details. I am particularly concerned with the phraseology, "certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National". I think we should get an indication if there is a departure from a certain program that Canadian National Railways have undertaken. I feel the committee is entitled to know the nature of this capital spending program and what would be the type of complex it intends to enter into prior to July 1, 1965. An additional consideration is this $5 million for Trans-Canada Air Lines, or Air Canada. I am not going to indulge in a legal dissertation on the name because perhaps the corporation is riding two horses at the moment.
Canadian National Railways However I think we should know why it requires this $5 million.
One matter of concern, and perhaps the parliamentary secretary can tell us this, is whether, in the light of the proposed amendments to the Railway Act before the house at the moment, there have been any discussions or possible decisions regarding the refinancing of the whole Canadian National Railways debt structure? We are now getting up into the astronomical figure of $680 million as the limit for refinancing. I know it may be premature to discuss this question, but I think our attention has been drawn to what has been advocated by the railway management for some time, that is that the position of the Canadian National in relation to its debt structure should be subjected to a practical examination to ascertain whether or not it should be completely overhauled, and the railway given a chance to operate on the basis of current operations without having the albatross of these great losses of past years around its neck, which are related to the time when the system was welded together from a number of bankrupt lines. It is true that we have had this condition existing for 45 years, since Canadian National was organized. There must come before parliament a realistic appraisal of Canadian National Railways financial structure in order to eliminate this past debt.
Now, with regard to the appointment of auditors, that was gone into at some length last time. I do not suppose it really warrants anything being said on this occasion. I believe the auditors who have been appointed are competent people and that they were competent at all times. The less said at this time about what happened last year, the better. Unfortunately, I believe it left a nasty taste in the mouths of a lot of people, and I suppose was a matter of political retribution. We look forward to seeing the bill. Perhaps at that time the parliamentary secretary will be in a position to give more detail about some of the things that are sketched in in rather general terms in the resolution.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The measure before us is a routine one and there is no intention on my part of taking up a great deal of time or raising a variety of subjects. I would point out that the debate on this particular matter in previous years has on occasions been perfunctory and very brief, though at other times it has ranged widely, depending on the currency of interest in certain topics related to the Canadian National Railways and the C.P.R.
9962	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways The parliamentary secretary indicated to us that the whole question of debt reorganization is still up in the air. I think ministers of transport in governments since 1962 have been, 1 will not say less than candid, but less than informative about the attitude and intentions of the administration in this regard. I know the Minister of Transport was in the railway committee when this issue was raised last summer, and he gave a general indication that the government was considering favourably the proposals which had been put forward. He may recall that I put on the record of that committee some very strong criticisms by the C.P.R. and some of the trucking associations of the proposal for refinancing put forward by Canadian National. In doing so I had no intention of supporting this criticism. It was done, rather, to elicit from the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Gordon, a public rebuttal, if you will, of the C.P.R. charges. The C.P.R. feels of course that in any financing of the C.N., and any refinancing in particular, its main competitor is being given a tremendous advantage.
It has been my contention that whatever his merits in some areas as president of the Canadian National Railways, Mr. Donald Gordon has failed in the financial sphere of railway management. I have made this point before, but I will bring it up again. When the royal commission on transportation made its recommendations in the early '50's, Mr. Gordon was convinced that with the refinancing of the C.N.R. the railway would very soon be in a surplus position and would never have to worry again about the size of its debt structure, or about the repayment of those debts and the meeting of its other obligations from year to year. The position of the C.N.R. did improve and there were a couple of years when the railway did show a surplus; in one year it was a big one; in another it was not so big. The other cry was that the whole railway had to be rehabilitated; there had to be central traffic control and new equipment of all kinds.
It was in those years of the middle '50's that the annual bill which came before us began to escalate. It is almost fantastic, when you begin to consider it in detail, the massive capital expenditure by Canadian National since 1954. Mr. Gordon was wrong in his opinion that the refinancing which followed the report of the royal commission on transportation in 1950 would put the C.N.R. in a viable economic position vis-a-vis its competitors. He was wrong again when he argued


that the rehabilitation of the physical structure of the C.N.R. and the use of the most modern transportation methods would put the railway into a viable economic position and enable it to carry its debt.
Despite an increase in productivity, despite the decreasing cost of moving freight a ton mile which has resulted from all this tremendous expenditure, the position of the C.N.R. has really not improved. And so, after being wrong twice, Mr. Gordon comes up with his third major proposition since he became president of the C.N.R., namely that the debt structure should be completely reorganized. Figures have been mentioned running all the way from $690 million to $850 million. He has been most thorough in the proposition he has put forward. He elaborated it fully and clearly as long ago as 1961. He did so with particular thoroughness in 1962 and there were repetitions in 1963 and 1964. With all the discredit one may wish to place on the House of Commons, and the hesitation which a government may feel about trying to get a complicated measure such as this before parliament, this is a very bad show on the part of the administrators in the Department of Finance and the Department of Transport, and on the part of ministers over the last three or four years. It is a reflection upon them that it has taken so long for this debt reorganization to be handled and dealt with. In a sense, the kind of measure we have here would never have been necessary, or necessary in this particular form, if action had been taken on this more fundamental question.
I think it is our duty as members of the opposition to carp about this state of affairs, to criticize, to suggest that if Mr. Gordon has a case for debt reorganization, surely he has made it and made it again and again in the course of the last few years. I am very interested in this because the subject of debt reorganization fits into a much wider context. Recently there was a brouhaha in connection with run-throughs on the Canadian National, All across the country there was editorial criticism. Writers of editorials talked about "getting in the way of efficiency" on the part of the C.N.R. Well, if objection to a run-through affecting tiny little places like Nakina and Wainwright is getting in the way of efficiency, what about holding up of a question involving between $600 million and $850 million by the Departments of Finance and Transport?
How are those of us in politics who are aware that the C.N.R. is a crown agency to

react when we seem to be dealing on the level of $10,000 or $50,000 saved here or there in the name of efficiency while, at the same time, we have this kind of ball-up? And 1 think it is one, when the highest paid head of our largest government agency makes a serious and detailed proposition repeatedly, within the general context of tremendous change in the industry, change which affects the workers; within the context of other changes promulgated by the Railway Act which has been placed before us, which would alter the whole structure of freight rates in this country, something which would change the sacred cow and its ramifications in western Canada, which would lead to a massive abandonment program and which carries within it subsidies amounting to more than $1 billion in ten years. Nothing is done to deal with those important recommendations. Once again we come up with the traditional bill and we do not have the story before us relative to this question of the debt reorganization of the C.N.R.
I am not trying to put this out of focus or to distort it. But this is a very serious thing. I have heard all this nonsense-I like to call it garbage-about the MacPherson commission taking an over-all look at the railway picture. Damn it all, Mr. Chairman; it did not. There were a number of things it was specifically excluded from looking at, and it was not an over-all look at the transportation picture or an over-all look at all the railway problems.
I am not quarrelling with many of the recommendations, particularly the recommendation that a national transport council should be created. I think it attempted to prescribe, in the main, for the problems that the railways face; but it did not go into this whole question of the debt reorganization of Canadian National Railways; it did not go into the relationship of Canadian National Railways to the government or to the House of Commons. This bill, and the way these measures sort of march in in part and are delayed and held up, is an indication to me that we very, very badly need a good minister of transport. Maybe we have got one; I don't know. Maybe the present minister is the one we need. But surely we need a minister of transport who could get on top of all these matters, somehow get them into the House of Commons in some correlation and get them through in a complete legislative program-if you want, a session devoted to transportation problems. But it seems to me we peck here and pick there and get a
Canadian National Railways little bit, and always it seems we are behind, in legislative terms, as to what the railways, the shippers and everybody else seem to want and need out in the country.
This is true not only for the railways but it is true for air. You know, Mr. Chairman, the fandango we have had over air transport policy in the last while, including colourful little gallops across the television screen with the present Minister of Transport, and charges here and charges there. One minute we feel T.C.A. and C.P.A. might amalgamate and the next minute we are getting balloons,
I suppose, lifting with suggestions that no, it is a new kind of co-operation; and lately we have had the balloon that really in the air transport field the private carrier and private enterprise seem to be the answer. All I can say is that there is a considerable element of confusion, particularly in policy terms. This is not a major bill. We support it. In many ways we are not capable of arguing a great deal against it; but that is largely where it stands.
I have one suggestion to make, Mr. Chairman, that is not relevant to the bill but is directed to the Minister of Transport and the representatives of the Department of Finance. It is that in future, if we have to have more bills of this kind, they be sent to the public accounts committee where we would have the advice and guidance of the Auditor General. It is quite apparent that the Auditor General has views in this regard. I do not know how far he would like his arm to reach in assisting parliamentarians, but I have certainly had the impression from his comments about the C.B.C. and other crown agencies that he feels-and I certainly have felt, as a member of the committee at the times I have been a member of it-that the committee and the Auditor General together can do a good job in taking a look at these financial requirements of great agencies: I think this bill in particular is one that could go to the public accounts committee, be handled there very quickly and come back with more intelligent treatment, analysis, comment and recommendations than we can provide in this chamber, with the way the bill moves through it.
The last point I wanted to make in connection with the bill relates to the position of Air Canada as it seems to be involved in the C.N.R., with the C.N.R. as the financing agency. It is a very minor point, but it seems to me it is about time, in terms of the maturity of Air Canada as a company and because of its financial abilities, and that at least in the
9964	HOUSE OF
Canadian National Railways foreseeable future it seems to have a revenue possibility that is excellent, the government considered allowing it to make its own financial arrangements completely by itself, rather than operating through Canadian National Railways. I know that at the present time this is just a service that is offered by Canadian National Railways and there are no strings to this; but it seems to me that in the interests of clearness, even if it is just to stop the annual question in our parliamentary committee that examines the C.N.R. and T.C.A.-which indicates the confusion of all members of parliament about this-we might achieve something by making that separation.
There is one point about Canadian National Railways and all other crown agencies of this kind that has always bothered me, and I know the Minister of Transport has spoken about it a number of times. I refer to the boundary line between administration and policy, and the whole question of what rights or responsibilities fall upon the House of Commons and its members with regard to the crown agencies. The difficulty we have is to ascertain where administration stops and policy begins; there is a grey area here. The minister reports for Canadian National Railways and reports to Canadian National Railways when issues are raised in the house. The railway reports to him when it has certain matters to raise aside from the financing. Yet we are never very sure what the position of the House of Commons itself is with regard to this question. I can underline this point by the fact that it does not seem to matter, when we review the annual report of the C.N.R., whether any report comes back to the house from the committee with any recommendations. It just seems to be a routine that we go through, which recognizes that there should be provided some sort of a talk forum where we can probe the president of Canadian National Railways; but it suggests to me that we actually have no real power to make recommendations with regard to policy; that all we can do, in a sense, is advance ideas and we really cannot put forward policy recommendations.
I would suggest that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Transport between them -particularly in connection with very large expenditures such as are covered in this bill and those they bring forward regularly- might consider this problem and see if they cannot provide us with a clear indication as to the rights of the House of Commons, or parliament, if you want, as an institution to examine, scrutinize and recommend in connection with these two very important


agencies, C.N.R. and T.C.A. I hope the bill has a speedy passage today, Mr. Chairman, and I hope that at least one or two of my comments may have found some response or echo with the Minister of Transport. As I say, it is not his bill; but some of us are living in hopes that he may be that good Minister of Transport that we have dreamed about.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, every year a bill is introduced to authorize the Canadian National Railways to make certain capital expenditures allowing them to provide for some financial needs. The amount for the year 1964 is $155 million. As the year 1964 is almost ended, even though the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) asks us to accept this expenditure for 1964,1 believe that the greater part of this amount has already been spent and that we are only called upon to approve it in principle.
On the other hand, the farmers throughout this country will not even receive the sum of $80 million in subsidies. None the less, we know that agriculture constitutes an urgent problem. I quote those figures in order to point out that the federal government should spend the money of Canadian taxpayers more judiciously.
We are not told why those $155 million are needed. Naturally, only the total amount is mentioned; but I am somewhat concerned about the fact that this amount of money is handed over to the Canadian National Railways which can spend it in any way it chooses, while we know that for some years the C.N.R. has been invading a field of operations for which it was not intended in Canada. Let us examine more specifically its intrusion in the field of trucking.
There is in Canada a very well organized industry, which carries on business efficiently, gives work to thousands and even tens of thousands of Canadian citizens who pay income tax, which allows Ottawa to collect substantial amounts in company profits; it is the trucking industry. The Canadian National Railways, and not the "truckers", were intended to weld the various sections of the country. The C.N.R. has in the last few years gone into the trucking business, while private industry was well able to give adequate service in this field.
It is thanks to government income taxes, the citizens' income taxes and also taxes levied on trucking concerns, that the C.N.R. has started to compete with the trucking industry. Taxes collected from the trucking industry are handed over to the C.N.R., which uses

that money to compete with the trucking industry which was operating to the satisfaction of all.
Out of the funds which we are now asked to vote, what amount will be used by the C.N.R. to purchase trucks and to set up truck routes throughout Canada, in other words, to compete with the Canadian trucking industry?
It would certainly be interesting to know that, because if we are asked to vote millions of dollars to enable the C.N.R. to compete with private enterprise, the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance might as well know that we cannot go along with that. However, if the Canadian National Railways intend to use those funds to improve other services they operate exclusively, then it will be more acceptable.
The C.N.R. have a deficit of approximately $60 million a year and in addition, they get an additional amount of about $88 million during the year in the form of subsidies and grants of all kinds. But since subsidies are being paid to the C.N.R. for the transportation of feed grain under the pretext of enabling farmers to pay less, why not pay the same subsidies to the trucking industry? As a matter of fact, for instance, a farmer of the Saguenay-Lake St. John district who wants to buy feed grain will have to get it in Montreal in order to take advantage of the grants paid to the C.N.R. to reduce his cost price, because there are no trains running between Montreal and Lake St. John, and the trucks serving this run do not get similar subsidies. Then, the farmer will pay more for his feed grain because subsidies are only granted to assist one and not all transport companies.
I should like to submit to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who proposes resolutions to approve C.N.R. expenditures, that the C.N.R. has an important role to play, that of linking together the various parts of the country. This is very important. The C.N.R. could be a determining factor in the economic development of our country but it would not be desirable that every action be taken to the prejudice of private enterprise or other segments of our economy, as is the case today, for instance, against the trucking industry.
It is true that the Minister of Transport has not been at the head of that department for very long, but I think that he should delve more deeply into the matter when discussing the part the C.N.R. should play and its
Canadian National Railways possible illogical competition with private enterprise in various fields.
This is what I heard the president of the C.N.R., Mr. Donald Gordon, say at a sessional railway committee meeting; "As president of the Canadian National Railways, whenever I am able to make a 5 per cent profit, I shall do so." That is an excellent aim, because this is a crown company for which he is trying to make as much profit as he can. He is working in the best interests of Canadian citizens as a whole. On the other hand, it must be said that this should not be done at the expense of other areas of our economy, because it does not make sense to improve one field to the detriment of another.
It is the responsibility of the Department of Transport to make sure that improvements in certain sectors are not made to the prejudice of others, but that as much co-operation is given to each of them.
That is not what is happening today. The Canadian National Railways compete strongly with the trucking industry as well as with the hotels and travel agencies, etc.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister should ask the directors of the Canadian National Railways to stick as much as possible to the aims for which they were established and to stop meddling ceaselessly into fields over which they do not necessarily have jurisdiction.
The proposed resolution mentions also:
-and to raise the limit on the Canadian National Railway Company's authority to refund matured, maturing and callable securities from the present level of $480,000,000 to $680,000,000.
I am of the opinion that this is an indication of the refinancing of the debt of the Canadian National Railways of which Mr. Donald Gordon, the president of the company, told us about for quite a while.
In this connection, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) or the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Pennell) if, prior to going ahead with this refinancing, the whole matter will be referring to the railway committee.
Mr. Chairman, I think the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance did not hear my question as he was talking with the member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette). I would draw the attention of the member for Lotbiniere to the fact that this is no time to ask for patronage from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance; he should let him listen to all the questions we are putting to him.

Canadian National Railways
Mr. Chairman, my question was this: Could the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance tell us if before undertaking the refinancing of the C.N.R. we will have an opportunity of discussing the refinancing procedure in the standing committee on railways, or any sessional committee, so that we may hear witnesses who are interested in this refinancing or affected by the effects it would entail?
We are being asked today to approve an increase in the C.N.R. appropriations when we know that the money, or at least a large part of it, has been spent and that C.N.R. deficits are met, in one way or another, by the government. Although this approval is only a technicality, an approval after the fait accompli, I would nevertheless ask the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance to tell the president of the C.N.R. that even if we are voting money in this way, without knowing why, we would still like to have some assurance that this money will not be spent on trucking facilities to compete with a private Canadian industry which is doing quite well.
Mr. Chairman, even if we allow the C.N.R. to increase by $200 million the maximum amount of securities due or to become due which it may redeem, we think the matter should nevertheless be referred to a committee before C.N.R. refinancing begins.

Resolution reported and concurred in.


George James McIlraith: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-137, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system for the period from the 1st day of January, 1964 to the 30th day of June, 1965, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When shall the said bill read a second time; now?


Gilles Grégoire: At the next sitting.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, is it the wish of hon. members that we go ahead with this?


Gilles Grégoire: We have not seen the bill as yet.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, we have not seen this bill.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the bill could be read a second time at the next sitting of the house or later this day, as the case may be.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, in this regard I should like to point out that there were certain questions raised at the resolution stage. I think the parliamentary secretary should answer these questions at the second reading stage. Since we do not have the bill it would be useless for us to go ahead at this stage.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking hon. members to go ahead now, I am merely asking that second reading be ordered for the next sitting of the house or later this day, as the case may be.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to that suggestion in view of the fact that we have not seen the bill. We have not had any opportunity to consider the bill, and there are certain questions to be answered by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance. I think second reading should be given at the next sitting of the house. We have completed two stages already today.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. member does not understand the effect of the procedure I requested. He is saying the same thing I said. I asked that the bill be read a second time at the next sitting of the house or later this day, as the case may be. If it is agreeable to hon. members we might call it later today, but that probably will not be the case.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Is it
agreed that the bill be read a second time at the next sitting of the house or later this day, as the case may be?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



SHIPPING


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-40, to repeal certain acts of the province of Newfoundland respecting harbours and pilotage.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I might say that the only purpose of this bill is to carry out

one of the terms of union. It was felt that certain Newfoundland statutes should be carried on for a period of time. That was provided for in the terms of union. It was felt that in due course they would be repealed. I think it would be much easier if we go into committee to explain one or two small details by way of answers to questions asked by hon. members.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Repeal of the outport pilots and pilotage acts.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I think we should follow the procedures outlined in the amendments to the rules, that when a bill calls for merely a short title-I am sorry, I thought there was a short title.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no short title; in fact it has no title at all.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport one question in this regard. I think I know the answer to my question but I should like to have it recorded. Has the province of Newfoundland agreed to all of these changes?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I have
done my best to ascertain that, and it is my understanding that there is no objection at all. When this legislation has been passed, as hon. members will see by reading the last clause, it will be brought into force by proclamation after consultation not only with the provincial authority, but with any individuals who must necessarily be consulted in order to make the transition. This bill simply makes the ordinary laws of Canada apply to Newfoundland, as they now apply to other provinces.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask one question for clarification. I freely admit that I have not gone into this matter very deeply. It is a matter that affects the minister more closely than perhaps it would someone from the west coast. I recall being on a committee a number of years ago which considered circumstances surrounding the certification of masters and other deck officers of ships in the coasting trade. One aspect of our discussion at that time had to do with the advisability of the length of the transitional period with which certain individuals might have to comply as a result of the application of the general laws of Canada.
Newfoundland Shipping Acts
As I recall it, the committee finally came to agreement and parliament later took the appropriate action. It continued under the general laws of Canada provision for certain differences in respect to certain qualifications and other matters covering those engaged in the coastal trade in Newfoundland.
I notice this bill makes particular reference to the pilotage authorities. I am wondering whether it will abolish any such arrangements or whether there may be any question of the desirability of the continuance, under special provision of the laws of parliament, of arrangements with respect to people acting in that capacity in Newfoundland.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Of course certificates for masters and mates would come under the Canada Shipping Act, and not under this legislation which applies only to pilots.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This may be merely a legal quibble, but could the minister tell us when the outports, pilots and pilotage act, being chapter 215 of the statutes of Newfoundland, was passed? This is not an act which was passed by the Newfoundland legislature since 1949. It is one which predates confederation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: They have revised all their statutes since confederation and they had to re-enact, as we do when we revise our statutes, all those that were still in operation; and if they had not included this one in their revised statutes there would not be any law on this. This is a layman's interpretation but I think I am right. My hon. friend from St. John's West is here. He is a learned lawyer and will correct me if I am wrong.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The purpose of my question was to make sure that we are not, by inadvertence, repealing an act of that legislature which was passed since confederation.


Mr. Cashin:: Under term 18 of the union of Newfoundland with Canada those acts prior to confederation remained in force. Certain acts came under federal jurisdiction, and it was suggested in the other place that it may have been inappropriate for the provincial government to have re-enacted these statutes in 1952 because the authority in this field lies with this parliament and not with the provincial government.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Does this parliament have authority to repeal an act passed by the legislature of Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: This relates to the constitution, and it is quite clear that any

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company provincial statute which falls within the ambit of section 91 of the B.N.A. Act could only be repealed by this parliament. We had an example last session when the Newfoundland Savings Bank Act had to be repealed. The bank was sold to one of the chartered banks and we were told that for some legal reasons the act had to be repealed. It could not be repealed by the provincial legislature, and since harbours and pilotage are matters which come exclusively within the jurisdiction of this parliament it is only this parliament which could alter such statutes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-33, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.
He said: Mr. Speaker, if the house will agree, I have asked my hon. friend, the member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) to speak on this bill because the terminal is to be located in his constituency. He has familiarized himself with the bill and I know he could give a better explanation than I.


Mr. Paul Tardif (Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I wish I were as familiar with the bill to the extent the minister has given me credit. Not necessarily because of my efforts, but because it is logical that these improvements be placed in a proper setting, the new terminal will be located in my riding.
The purpose of the bill is to implement, with regard to the incorporation of a terminal railway company, the agreement for the relocation of railways in the Ottawa area dated October 17, 1963, between the national capital commission, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company. I think it would be wise to give a few brief historic notes of how this came about.
The first commission that was appointed for the purpose of studying the railway problem in the capital city was established about 60 years ago when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prime minister of Canada. At that time it was thought necessary to make plans to relocate
fMr. Pickersgill.]

the railways and to eliminate the circulation of railroads in and out of the centre of Ottawa, if the capital were to grow as it should. For that purpose a report was prepared by a commission in 1899. It was called the Ottawa improvement commission and, though it did not make a final plan it did make some recommendations that were incorporated in the last plan submitted to the national capital commission and the federal parliament. The plan I refer to is one involving the relocation of railway lines and their terminal.
In 1915 what is know as the Holt report was made, and confirmed what had originally been reported. Unfortunately the first world war stopped the implementation of this report and the plan was postponed for a period of about 20 years. At that time the national capital commission, which was interested in the development of a federal area, revised the plan because of the problem caused by the added traffic of railways in and out of the city, and again recommended to the federal government that the recommendations included in the original report be implemented. The railway and terminal facilities serving the city of Ottawa created many problems and at that time it was found that it would be logical to cure these things by implementing the report that had been made.
I know that hon. members who are here regularly, and who probably have been here longer this session than they have been before, realize that there are many problems created by the Ottawa river, the Rideau river, the Rideau canal and the fact that the city of Hull which is separated from the city of Ottawa uses these facilities provided by the central station. Not only do the comings and goings of trains in greater numbers create problems, but also depressed areas are created surrounding the tracks. About 1938 it was decided we should go about implementing this plan with greater speed. However, the second world war intervened and again delayed the implementation of the plan.

I hope members of parliament will understand, as I do, that even at this late date it is better to start immediately.
For this reason an agreement has been reached by the national capital commission, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National Railways so that the construction of the projected terminus may be started right away.
Specifications are ready. The ground is being prepared. Nothing, therefore, could

prevent the carrying out of this program so that the necessary agreements may be signed by January 1, 1965.

I know hon. members will realize it is imperative that this be done as quickly as possible if we are going to cure some of the problems that now exist and which should have been cured many years ago. These plans have been delayed because of wars and other happenings. The relocation plan is now progressing. The Canadian Pacific and Canadian National Railways are going to be shareholders in this new terminal. It is planned that this terminal will be situated about a quarter of a mile from Hurdman's bridge and about two miles from the parliament buildings. It is planned also to construct a route with four or six lanes, I am not sure which, from the new terminal to the Chateau Laurier or the centre of the city. If we are going to have the terminal constructed according to the schedule that has been decided upon, it is important that this bill be passed by the house. I would ask hon. members to do so now.


Douglas Mason Fisher: The concern I have with the bill is really the objections that have been raised to it by the trucking interests. I do not know what substance there is in them, but I assume the minister or the hon. member for Russell have seen those objections and have a clear answer for us. I think the general assumption would be that this would be a non-contentious bill in that it is really a follow-up on the consultations for the creation of industry and transport and for the betterment of our national capital's appearance.
According to the truckers, if this new terminal company is given the powers which seem to be apparent in one of the clauses, the terminal company can initiate trucking and transfer services and provide total warehouse services. One can understand their concern. I think perhaps we can see this most clearly, not because the Canadian National is in the trucking business in various lines, not because the Canadian Pacific is in the trucking business in various lines, but because under this measure they are operating together in a terminal. The truckers feel that if this presages a co-operative move on the part of the two railways using the Ottawa terminal, with the very great rights given to them by this bill, then in effect the Ottawa operation, according to the truckers' interpretation, could become the centre of a com-
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company pletely new kind of trucking operation and terminal operation that has no precedent in Canada.
This is the only question I wanted to raise particularly with regard to the bill. It does seem to me there is a problem here that we might have to explore. We have heard from the minister that he intends to repeal, or he has introduced a bill that will repeal the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act, which is a form of co-operative bill that was supposed to set up the framework for cooperation. Now, it seems, since we understand that repeal is coming, we have a bill that brings the two of them together in concert again in this Ottawa terminal. I just wondered whether any consideration was given at any time to putting the terminal company, in terms of management, directly into the hands of one company or the other.
The minister may wonder why I bring this up. Perhaps he will recall the situation in connection with the hotel Vancouver. Mr. Gordon himself has told us in committee about that co-operative operation and said that it did not work because the terms had altered with the years. Again, I should like to have some indication from the minister as to what consideration was given in drawing up this bill to possible difficulties between the two companies, and whether there had been any consideration given to perhaps making the Ottawa terminal railway company an offshoot of Canadian National with some regulations carried in the bill to give Canadian Pacific a place. This is one of the things I would be interested in hearing from the minister that we were not given by the hon. member for Russell-and I am not trying to be critical of him. The other thing about which I would like to hear from the minister relates to the disposal of the assets that already exist, and what relationship they may have to his new organization and to the government.
I hope these do not seem like pettifogging questions, but I thought they would be worth raising now, and then we could go into the individual clauses of the bill very quickly.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I wonder if there would be a disposition to give second reading to the bill so we could study it in committee this evening? I am grateful to the hon. gentleman for raising these questions, but I would really need someone in front of me to assist me in dealing with them.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I think I should like to say a few words on this bill. It is one of the bills

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company about which I think I am right on my procedure.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then, I imagine it is six o'clock, sir.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this day is as follows: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox; veterans affairs-announcement of increase in pensions and allowances.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pickersgill for the second reading of Bill No. S-33, to incorporate the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company.
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There are a couple of points I should like to make in connection with the bill before us at this stage. The first has some connection with a point which was made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher). I refer to the powers which are granted to the company to provide terminal facilities.
The railways have been slipping into certain practices in terminals in various cities in Canada which have had a serious effect on local cartage companies. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the railways have got into the road transportation side of distribution to a considerable extent. Not only have they got into interprovincial, long range trucking but they also carry on local trucking operations. I am aware of instances where the railways have engaged in what might be called loss leader practices by offering to distribute goods arriving at terminals at rates which are much lower than the economic rates in effect through the local cartage companies. The rail-


ways are in a position to do this, because in their entire operations these cartage losses boil up into a general soup of losses against which are provided certain subsidies. True enough, the C.P.R. does not operate at a loss but it is able to offset losses connected with some of its terminal activities through subsidies which exist for freight rate equalization and so on.
I am wondering whether this bill will not encourage the practice to which I have just referred. Clause 10 of the bill gives authority for the provision of terminal facilities and there are any number of powers granted in this connection. I should like the minister to tell us whether it is the intention of the railway companies to engage in this practice of undercutting through the use of terminal facilities. The local cartage companies would be most surprised if they were suddenly to find that the Ottawa Railway Terminal Company had turned into one of their chief competitors to such an extent that they were losing a large proportion of their business.
After all, we should seek to ensure that local businesses are strong and flourishing. There is no point in granting large companies the power to engage in certain activities just for the satisfaction of putting local enterprises out of business. I know there is a very arguable case for the railways endeavouring to run an efficient operation. We all say three cheers to that. But what is the over-all price we shall be asked to pay to create this efficient framework, this efficient operation? The purchase price may be somewhat too high.
This is the main observation I have to make. Perhaps as we go along, as we get to clause 10, we can get some further information.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: There are one or two points I wish to make. First we should like to know how much this relocation of the terminal in Ottawa will cost the federal government, and ultimately the taxpayers of Canada. This question has been asked before, and I presume the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) is prepared to answer it.
I do not really have any objection to the setting up of this Ottawa Terminal Railway Company for the purpose of relocating the railway terminal, in other words moving it from the downtown area to a location somewhere in the constituency of the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif). But if the House of Commons decides this is a desirable action to take, the government should be prepared

to offer at least some kind of co-operation to those other cities in Canada which want to do exactly the same thing. I know that the city of Calgary has been attempting to enter into negotiations with the Canadian Pacific Railway to move its terminal from the downtown area to the outskirts of the city, thereby making available for commercial and industrial exploitation a very large area which is now being used for switch yards, freight terminals and so on.
I think the three prairie provinces, which are now handicapped because of the provisions of the statute of 1881 exempting the railways from paying taxes on their main lines, are entitled to equal consideration when they wish to proceed with this kind of redevelopment within their city limits. After all, the provisions of this bill, if you read the memorandum of understanding made between the national capital commission, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railway Company, require under clause 22 of the memorandum of understanding:
The commission will pay all costs and expenses incurred by the National Railways, Pacific Railway and Terminal Railway
(a) in development and preparation of plans, specifications, deeds, surveys, descriptions, applications and agreements;
The commission will also be required to pay all the costs in effecting the transfers of land referred to in this memorandum, including registration fees, land transfer taxes and municipal taxes that have been paid for any period after the land has been vacated or operations thereon abandoned by the railway, whichever is the earlier. The national commission is also required to pay all the costs in carrying out any other work that the railway companies may be required to do as a result of this memorandum or that the commission may lawfully require the railway companies to perform. We know that the national capital commission gets most, if not all, of its funds from the federal government, and it certainly seems to me that because the federal parliament is now disposed to paying huge sums of money-we do not know exactly how much it would cost, but I presume it would cost several millions of dollars to relocate the railway terminal in Ottawa to, if I may put it this way, dress up the city and make the downtown area more attractive, perhaps to have a more efficient and attractive railway terminal some place away from the downtown area in Ottawa-the federal government
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company should also be disposed to taking the kind of action that would be necessary in order that some of the cities in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta may also do this.
We know that because of this statute of 1881 the railways have acquired certain lands that are classified as main lines within the downtown area of cities in these three provinces, which gives the C.P.R., and I presume also the C.N.R., a very strong bargaining position in effecting any transfers of land with the end result of enhancing downtown areas. I do not want to speak for very long on this matter but, as is well known to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), to the government and particularly, I might say, to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), the premiers of the three western provinces have made representations to the Minister of Finance and to the government to have this statute of 1881 repealed so they can be on equal ground, if you want to call it that, and can bargain from a position equal to that of the railways. We know there has not been any action taken by the government to give effect to the representations that have been made. As a matter of fact the premiers of the three western provinces have made at least one, and I think more than one, trip to Ottawa to meet with the government and lay their case before them; and so far no action has been taken.
It seems to me that to be fair these three provinces ought to have some action taken by the federal government to remove this discriminatory statute that does in fact exempt the main line of the railways in only those three provinces; because after all, in all the other parts of Canada railways do have to pay taxes on their main lines. I believe that if we are prepared to spend several millions of dollars to remove this terminal from the downtown area in Ottawa to some place on the outskirts, we ought at least to ask the government to take the necessary action so that those three western provinces may also proceed in their negotiations with the railway company, and do exactly the same thing in some of the cities where there has been an expressed desire to enhance the downtown area by moving out the railway terminal and some of the side tracks that are there. When we get to the committee stage, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask some more questions along this line, but I raise these points now so that the minister may prepare himself to answer some of them.

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I know there are reasons why the station in Ottawa should be moved out into the country, and perhaps not the best one is the fact that the hon. member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) represents the new location of that station. But I wonder if we have really weighed the reasons for moving this station and whether it is to the advantage of members of parliament, people who deal with the government of the nation, or even the people of Ottawa themselves. We all know that people going to Montreal today-and I am told that most members are well aware of this; maybe they will not say anything

very seldom fly to that city. It takes longer to go to the airport here and from the airport at the other end than it does to get on the train a block from the parliament buildings and arrive downtown in the heart of Montreal. People coming into this national capital can come in one of three ways. If they wish to fly, they land at Uplands airport, a number of miles out of town, and find themselves, after a long, very rough taxi ride, in the downtown area. Those that come by car of course have many ways in which to get into what is a confused city for tourists; but they eventually find their way downtown to where they wish to do business, particularly those interested in the government aspect of this city. But those who come by train do not have any trouble in getting to the downtown part of Ottawa and usually-and fortunately, compared with most other cities-are able to leave the station and be in the downtown section or this area in a short period of time.
I am well aware that Charlotte Whitton wants to use this little area down here for a theatre; she has said so on numerous occasions. But I really could not care less what she wants to do with it. I, as a traveller coming into Ottawa for many, many years, have always been very happy with the fact that the railroad went downtown; that it was in the major section of the city, and I have always considered this to be a big advantage to anyone coming into Ottawa to do government business. It is not difficult to explain to people how to get to the parliament buildings if they arrive by train, because when one walks out of the station he can see them. I am quite well aware that we are going to have a new edifice out on Industrial avenue,


but to get to Industrial avenue means a long bus ride or, if one is coming to the city, a very confused trip by taxi or other means to get downtown to the business section.
I would be opposed to the railway moving the station out of this area. In my opinion they have some responsibility to the public that travels on the railroad, although there has certainly been less regard for the travelling public over the last few years than there has been to other revenue inducing parts of their enterprise. I am doubly surprised at this bill and I think I have support across the country in violently opposing a move to make the Canadian public pay for closing down the station in the downtown section of Ottawa, where it has been located since it was constructed, and relocating it out in the country. I cannot think of anything more silly than having one of our major transportation connection lines moved from a very advantageous position as far as the seat of the national parliament is concerned-it is only about a block away-to some place a great many miles out in the country. There is no point in talking about the roads which will connect it to the city because anyone who has driven on the roads in that area knows that a small car almost disappears during the course of the journey.
I am sure very little consideration has been given to the wishes of the Canadian public in this matter, particularly those of the public who travel by rail. If hon. members refer to the memorandum attached to the bill they will find the commission felt that in the interest of the national capital commission development plan it was advisable to relocate the station. I have discussed this matter with several members of the national capital commission when I have attended certain functions and have been able to raise the matter, and they just laugh and say there is nothing anyone can do about it. And I think that is true. I do not think there is a thing in the world that I can do about this and I do not think there is anything the Minister of Transport can do about it either. I think this move has been in contemplation for some time and probably it will come to pass. However, I do suggest that those who in their wisdom many years ago brought the railroads into the heart of the city were providing a service to the travelling public which we are not giving consideration to now.
I realize that the railway could not care less about its passengers. Anyone who has travelled on the C.N.R. finds that the accom-

modation is lousy. He will find that sometimes there is no one on the train who can tell why the train is running six or seven hours late, which happens periodically. It is matters like this which illustrate that the convenience of the travelling public is not given any consideration. However, let me just say that personally I am violently opposed to the relocation of the station from where it is now to somewhere out in the country. I would think that every hon. member of this house would have a hole in his head to vote for something which is not in his interest, is not in the interest of his constituents who may be using this facility, and no hon. member should be stupid enough to provide the money to make such a transfer.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, to adopt some well worn words, I did not intend to take part in this debate. But since the opportunity has arisen I do want to take a few minutes to express my views on this particular bill.
I have found myself wondering during the past two or three years whether this plan to relocate the union station away from the central part of Ottawa is a good and sound plan in its present context. I think there is no doubt that ten or 15 years ago, when railway trains were hauled by steam engines which were generally considered to be dirty for a downtown section of any city, because of the coal dust and other deposits they blew into the air, and with their noisy whistles disturbing people in the downtown section, there was a very good argument for relocating a railway station somewhere else than the centre of a city. However, there has been quite a change since then. Diesels are now used 100 per cent on all railways which use this station. These diesels are quiet and they are clean, so I think that the objection based on that particular approach, if there ever was one, has now disappeared. I wonder whether second thoughts might have been given to the situation which existed five or ten years ago when the plan was originally formulated.
The second matter I want to raise is this. It is a fact that the present location of the station is very convenient for the travelling public, not only for those who handle freight and express but for passengers who come into the city and find themselves immediately in the downtown section. I should not be surprised if not very many years hence we were wishing we had this station right down in the centre part of the city of Ottawa. There is everything to be said for keeping it where
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company it is, although objection might be taken to the appearance of the station. Frankly I do not see where relocation of the railway tracks will be of any benefit. At present they run along a natural break in the landscape, just by the canal to a large extent. There does not seem to be any logical reason for this change, except the fact that a larger and probably more desirable complex of buildings could be constructed further out.
When this plan was first proposed some years ago, somewhere around the time I first came here, I saw the plan which had been prepared by the national capital commission. At that time it looked like a good thing to get this dirty railway station and all the railway trains out of the downtown section. But those who travel by air know that it is becoming more and more inconvenient to get to airports and similar facilities on the outskirts of cities.
I am not going to go as far as the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and vote against this bill. I am not an Ottawan, except to the extent that one becomes more or less a citizen of Ottawa after being here for a few years. Nevertheless I do express some very serious doubts about the necessity for establishing a whole new complex in a location which will require us to make use of buses, taxis and other less convenient methods of transport in order to reach it. I am not talking so much about the welfare of members of parliament here, because I do not think that those of us who are here should concern ourselves about this slight amount of inconvenience. However, this city is the focal point of the travels of a good many people in diplomatic service, industry, and commerce of all kinds, and I think we should do something to make it less inconvenient for them when they are called upon to use the station. Therefore I express this very slight protest at this entire situation.
I assume that serious consideration has been given to this proposal. Also there may be other factors of which I am not aware. But I think that if the present building were put in good shape we would be no worse off because we have railway tracks running alongside the canal than we would be by having a road, which I do not think would be any more convenient.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say only a few words about this bill. This seems to be another step on the part of the railroad industry to, in one way or another, reduce services to the public at an

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company increased cost, without any real benefit to the transportation system. By accepting figures presented by railroad officials we are in the position of not knowing their goals, or even the direction in which they are moving.
Mr. Speaker, the various acts in respect of railway operations would lead us to believe that railway companies are established to provide services. That is apparently their main and ultimate aim. Officials of the C.N.R., in particular, have said on many occasions that they believe the only profit making part of their operations is the moving of bulk cargoes. When the situation reaches the point where that is the actual fact, I am sure these same officials will tell us that even that side of their operations is no longer profitable.
The ultimate result of the measure now under discussion will be the transporting of fewer and fewer passengers from and to the terminal facilities in Ottawa. I suggest that is the apparent present day trend throughout the country. It has appeared to the general public for a number of years that the aim of railway companies is to cut down on costs, and to effect increased savings, with the inevitable result of a lessening in the number of services provided. This move has led to proportionate reductions in revenue. At the same time the railway companies decrease their costs, services and general expenditures, they increase their capital outlays.
In relation to the present measure before us, the terminal is being moved from the centre of the city, causing a complete rerouting of present line facilities, and creating increased capital costs and decreased services, with the net result of a decrease in passenger revenue. I should like to know where this trend is likely to end. We as legislators must ask ourselves this kind of question. I do not have a bone to pick in respect of railway services provided here in Ottawa, but my contention is that this measure is just one more example of what railway companies have been doing during the past five, six and even ten years.
What do the officials of railway companies expect to accomplish by expending a great deal of money for rerouting present lines, and relocating terminals? Is the provision of a new decentralized elaborate rail transportation terminal going to increase passenger travel and passenger revenue? Will the measure now before us bring about a new agreement as to the use of the Ottawa terminal by the two railway systems now servicing Ottawa? Will the two railway systems be able to economize as a result of the adoption of this measure?

Mr. Speaker, the only logical answer to the questions I have posed is that this measure will accomplish none of these things. It may enhance the city of Ottawa in an aesthetic way. It will undoubtedly cause the removal of some unsightly track locations in the downtown area. Surely these unsightly locations could be improved without the necessity of a huge capital expenditure to move the passenger terminal from the centre of the city. Surely the same result could be obtained by a different and less costly method.
We have been told that the C.N.R. passenger traffic, particularly, and we assume this is at least partially true of the Canadian Pacific Railway, is decreasing, yet we are proposing under this measure to establish a railway terminal company which will be allowed to spend a huge sum on capital acquisition for the handling of passenger traffic to and from Ottawa. This is a small measure, but in view of these facts I think it should be considered seriously. It should be considered in light of the general trend on the part of transportation companies to cut down on service facilities in order to effect certain economies.
Mr. Speaker, many royal commissions have studied the question of railway operating costs. I do not intend to discuss this subject in depth at this stage, as it is very complicated and involves formulae in respect of costing maintenance and per mile passenger operations. The present measure is a perfect example of another means by which the railway companies generally feel they can cut down on costs. By moving their terminals to outlying areas I suggest they will lose revenue as the result of the loss of passenger travel because of the inconvenience and loss of service.
This result has been apparent time and time again in the case of highway construction on the fringe of towns and cities, and the decentralization of air terminals. One can visit almost any part of Canada and observe the construction of highways and airport terminals in areas some distance removed from the centre of cities. These decentralization operations are in time accompanied by a general move of other services from the centre of cities. In the case now under consideration I suggest it is only a matter of time before the new terminal is surrounded by housing and industrial developments. Time and time again we observe the construction of highways at the edge of small towns and cities, only to observe within a very few years that they are again bordered and surrounded by communities which have moved from original

downtown locations. I suggest in the present case within a short period of time the new Ottawa terminal will be encompassed by a heavy build-up of homes and industries.
The officials of the railways may believe that they are accomplishing something by this present measure, but I suggest they will accomplish very little as a result of the expenditure of this large amount of money, and I support my contention by the words of the officials of the company concerned. They tell us their passenger revenues are decreasing. Do they expect to increase passenger revenue by increasing the inconvenience to passengers and decreasing services?
Mr. Speaker, I have very little more to say about this measure, but I should like to point out as a warning that the present transitional trend on the part of railway companies, which is particularly apparent in the prairies, where rail line abandonments are being considered, will in one way or another cut down on services, thereby decreasing revenues generally to the point where it is no longer feasible to continue any attempt to provide these decreased services. I am wondering whether this situation is not once again evident in the case presently being considered.


Mr. J. E. Lloyd (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I shall only take a few minutes to present my views on this subject. The hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) made reference to exemptions from taxation in respect of certain railway properties at certain locations in Canada. He made reference to the fact that no uniform policy is followed. I think we are all aware of this. I cannot find the exact provision in the bill but I understand that this particular company will be paying municipal taxes to the municipalities in which these properties are located.
In the Atlantic provinces the railways only acknowledge a liability on a sort of voluntary grant basis equal to 50 per cent of the real property tax in the Atlantic region. They do so on the ground that the I.C.R. was a crown corporation and therefore enjoyed the protection of those provisions of the B.N.A. Act which exempt crown property from taxation. Here we have a railway company, a crown corporation, engaging in a venture with a private railway company, the Canadian Pacific, and jointly they will undertake certain developments. It is true that the national capital commission has certain responsibilities in the matter but the fact still remains that municipal taxation is a liability of this new company.
9975
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company
Recently when the operations of Canadian National Railways were being reviewed by the railway committee I endeavoured to obtain from Mr. Donald Gordon, president and general manager of the C.N.R., an undertaking that they would supply us with a general statement of the different reasons across the nation for the differing kinds of municipal tax liabilities which they have undertaken to discharge and meet. The president of the company felt this was a matter that concerned the railway company and the municipalities involved and I believe he took the view that as a crown company he was in much the same position as a private company and should not be disclosing any helpful information to the railway committee with regard to this matter.
The result is that those of us who seek a correction of this inequality in municipal taxation, so far as the railways are concerned, are compelled to come to the house and seek assurances from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) that correction of this inequity will be undertaken under the provisions of Bill No. C-120 if not at this time under this bill. 1 should like to know whether it is a fact that the properties to be held under the provisions of this bill by the Ottawa Terminal Railway Company will in fact be liable to municipal taxation. If so, does this mean that the fundamental law under which the C.N.R. denies liability for taxation in the Atlantic provinces is to be changed?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If the minister speaks now he will close the debate. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks lest it be regarded that objections to location of the terminal are of a partisan nature. I for one endorse relocation because I feel that the present location, especially the appearance of the railway station, is deplorable for a capital city. The station is almost a barnlike structure and I should like to pose this question to members for their consideration. Do any passengers really live in the station? With the exception of those who want to go to the Chateau Laurier, almost everyone else has to travel somewhere by taxicab and so far as ingress and egress are concerned there is an almost impossible situation at rush periods when one train after another is arriving.
I feel that to rebuild the station in its present location would require the acquisition of a good deal of expensive property and it seems to me that it makes a good deal of sense to relocate the station in an area where there is other land available. I doubt that relocation

9976	HOUSE OF
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company will make the new terminal much more than a 10 minute ride from downtown or parliament hill.


Edward Nasserden: Mr. Speaker, there is only one question that arises in my mind, namely what is going to happen to the pigeons? I wonder whether the pigeons down at the old station are Liberal pigeons.


George James McIlraith: They are liberal in some respects.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, as the house is well aware it was not anticipated that we would have this bill before us today, and I think all members realize it is a bill with a lot of interest and significance. As I recall, a number of years ago there was a good deal of discussion in the house in respect of the whole question of the suitable development of the national capital and in particular the heart of the capital area. I listened to quite a number of speeches at that time in which the idea was put forward that it would be desirable to eliminate from the area of the Rideau canal in the central part of the city what some people considered to be rather unsightly railway trackage. However, as far as I can recall this subject has not really had any great attention either in the present parliament or the one immediately preceding. I take it that in the meantime the national capital commission has proceeded with the development of certain plans and that one of the fruits of their planning is the proposal we have before us tonight.
Apparently these plans have now been brought to a formal conclusion as far as the capital commission and the railway companies are concerned, but I am wondering whether they have really kept pace with some of the developments that have been taking place in the interval. I assume that the original idea of eliminating the railways from the heart of the city and building a new terminal was developed at a time when we were still in the steam age so far as railway transportation was concerned. In addition, I would also assume that the large volume of freight and the necessary space required for freight car trackage were factors in the desire to take steps to beautify the central part of the city.
I was somewhat impressed by some of the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), and as he was speaking something else came to my mind, namely the conditions that exist in relation to the new terminal development in the city
(Mr. Enns.]
of Montreal, where one can arrive comfortably by train in the heart of the city and have ready access to the places he may wish to visit either on business or on pleasure. Inasmuch as I have the feeling that the present members of the house have not really given any detailed consideration to this matter, I wonder whether it would not be desirable to have a thorough parliamentary review of this whole question before the bill receives final passage by the house. I think we realize it has been considered in the other place and that if we take action upon it here that will in effect be the end of the matter. There are, I think, a good many considerations involved about which this house should be satisfied before that kind of action is taken.
I do not know what the minister may have in mind with regard to the further stages in the consideration of this bill. It does seem to me, however, there would be no harm in this bill being given a proper consideration by the members of this particular house. I know this subject matter was given careful consideration by many members of previous parliaments over a considerable period of time. It is with that thought in mind that I should like to place before the house, for its consideration, a motion which would ensure that sort of review by members of this house.
I should like to move:
That this bill be not now read a second time, but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before Your Honour formally puts that motion, I wonder if the hon. member would consider the possibilities of having the bill referred after second reading? I think the hon. gentleman knows that if his motion is carried, this kills the bill under our rules. I do not know if that is his objective. If it is, of course, the government would have to oppose this motion. We would have to ring the bells and have a division. I do not believe that is what the hon. gentleman really wants. I believe he just wants to have this bill reviewed. If there were any general disposition in the house to have it reviewed, as soon as second reading is given I would move to have it referred to the committee on railways, at which time officials could be called and examined.
If the hon. gentleman feels that he must persist in his motion then, because his motion is one of want of confidence in the government, we would have no choice but to oppose it. I suggest to him that he be satisfied to have

Ottawa Terminal Railway Company
it referred after second reading. Several questions have been raised, and I would be glad to have the bill go to the committee where the officials from the national capital commission can be properly examined, and I really believe that would satisfy everything the hon. gentleman has in mind.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if you would permit me-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order; I understood that the hon. member had already spoken on the amendment and I presume the minister was speaking on the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, sir, I was really speaking to a point of order. I hope there will be indulgence to treat the matter that way so we will not get into a procedural difficulty.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni also speak on the point of order.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder if, in doing so, I could speak to the point of order by putting a question to the minister? The point of order relates to whether or not I formally put my amendment before the house and forwarded it to Your Honour. The question of order relates also to the consideration of what is involved in the passage of second reading of a bill. It is, in essence, approval in principle. Now, a question arises immediately in my mind as to whether the minister would be prepared to have this bill go before a committee of the house, where witnesses could be called and where such a review as members might wish of the subject matter could be properly made, and if it should develop that it was the considered view of the committee that some of the features of the plan were outdated or not applicable or should be altered in such a way as to comply with the suggestions that have been made concerning access for passengers to the heart of the city, would the government be willing to give the proper weight to that view of the committee? If that were so, I might be prepared-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can assure the hon. gentleman that any reasonable proposal from the committee will be considered most seriously. There is no question about that. I do urge him not to press the suggested amendment because it is a motion of want of confidence in the government which we would have to resist. I do not believe that is what the hon. gentleman wants to accomplish at all. I believe the hon. gentleman wants to send this bill to a place where he can get information 20220-631J
from people much more competent than I am to give information. If they cannot satisfy him, he can oppose certain features of the bill, with the knowledge of what the considerations are with respect to it. I can assure him the government is not hidebound about this matter at all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I just say one thing more on the question of the point of order? I agree with the minister that this subject matter, so far as I know, never has been nor do I think it should be, a matter of want of confidence in the government. Generally it has been a non-partisan matter in the sense that we are concerned with the future of the capital of Canada. Perhaps on these grounds, with the kind of understanding the minister has given to us as to the approach which he and his colleagues would be prepared to take to committee consideration, I might be prepared not to press my amendment in its present form, on the understanding the minister will take the initiative in referring it to the committee.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, I must say we would not support any such amendment. In fact, if the government wishes to maintain the bill in the house, we are quite satisfied. We are prepared to deal with the issues here. In so far as whether or not it goes to a committee, I may say frankly we are quite prepared to deal with it in the house as it now stands.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I want to thank both hon. members. While I am speaking, perhaps the whips could confer and if I am told when second reading is over there is a general desire to have this bill go to a committee, there will be no question about it: It will go. I will make a motion to have it go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, is the minister now closing the debate?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I don't know, sir; I thought I was speaking to the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, I suggest that the procedure has been a bit irregular and I feel we should now attempt to make the procedure conform to the rules. If the minister speaks now, he will close the debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: On the point of order, has the amendment been withdrawn?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: My understanding is that the amendment has not been put formally. However, to clarify the situation I suggest that unanimous consent be given to
9978	HOUSE OF
Ottawa Terminal Railway Company the hon. member to withdraw the amendment to the extent that it had been put to the house.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to deal with the points that have been raised by various hon. members. The hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) and the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), raised points which I think could be discussed more properly when the bill is before the committee. Quite frankly, I should not like to attempt to answer them at this stage.
There is one point of a general character that I should like to make right now, particularly if the bill is to go to a committee. The powers that it is proposed to confer upon this terminal company, which is a company to be owned jointly by the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific, are powers that these two railways have separately and which they can exercise separately, I am advised, even if they were not given to the terminal company. They would not give the terminal company any power to engage in any general trucking or other services, but only deliveries from the terminal.
I think this is the point. It was suggested in the other place, I believe, that this terminal company should not be declared a work for the general advantage of Canada in respect of these particular services. My department took the view that it was sensible that these things should not be separated-that you should not put delivery services under provincial jurisdiction and the rest of the terminal under federal jurisdiction. And we were able to convince the hon. gentlemen of the other place of the soundness of this view.
Those are the main points with which I should like to deal, now. The others would be better considered in committee where we could be more precise about them. As to the points raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) and by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), it is true that in most parts of the country the Canadian Pacific and the C.N.R., in respect to those lines of theirs which were once privately owned, are taxable, except that the Canadian Pacific has a statutory exemption from certain kinds of taxes in the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, conferred by this parliament, and I believe in parts of Manitoba, conferred by the legislation of that province. It is also true that the premiers of those three provinces came to


Ottawa some time ago and made representations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and myself seeking to have these privileges removed from the railways. We are giving the most earnest, I might almost say anguished, consideration to this particular matter at the present time and while this consideration is being given I do not think it would be very helpful for me to go beyond what I have said.
As for the question raised by the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Lloyd), the government owned railways were the property of the crown and, as such, under the constitution were not taxable by any other taxation authority. The companies have made some ex gratia payments in place of taxes but I know there has been a good deal of dissatisfaction about this matter. I have no doubt whatever it will be reviewed when we come to deal with the big railway bill. Having said that, I do not think I should go beyond it because I am sure hon. members will agree that it is not really relevant to the measure before us, though I do not blame either of the two hon. members for taking advantage of this opportunity to raise the point.
Other speakers have given the benefit of their views on this bill, either pro or con. The hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) was pro. I am not sure which side the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) was on. The others were con. The station is, of course, to be moved to a new site in the area where my hon. friend from Russell (Mr. Tardif) lives and which, he tells me, he can reach without any trouble in ten minutes, though it often takes 15 minutes to get from here to the station in a taxi. I know from experience that this more rapid movement is due to the Queensway, and even this will be much improved when the station is moved.
I think some of us have forgotten that the basic decision to move the railway was taken in a previous parliament and under a previous government. The decision was made and the house voted money for it over the years. Most of the tracks have been moved already and if we now decided that a wrong decision had been made we would have to reverse a process upon which parliament decided a long time ago. All this particular bill does is to establish a terminal company to carry out a decision made long ago by parliament. If we had not wanted that decision to be taken, we should have resisted it a long time back.
The first decisions in this connection were made before I was a member of the govern-

ment, and that goes back 11 years. At that time I did not think much of the idea. But the decision was made and a great deal of money has since been spent to carry it out. This bill represents, if not a final stage, then at least one of the later stages in that process. If we were to be tempted at this late stage to reverse that early decision we would want to look very carefully at what the cost would be, and I doubt whether many members, when they were in possession of all the facts, would wish now to follow a different course.
The whole question of relocation could more properly be discussed on the estimates of the national capital commission, but I do not see, if this bill is to go to a committee, why there should not be some examination of it there, too. In fairness to the railways-I am not their apologist but I do think one should have some regard for the facts in these matters-let me point out that the railways did not want to move at all. A lot of persuasion, a lot of arm twisting had to be applied to both railways before the move was agreed upon. The railways were conscious of the point raised by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that it was probably easier to get passengers if they were located in the middle of the town. It was the town planners of the governments of the day, both the St. Laurent government and the Diefen-baker government, and this parliament which decided the railways ought to do this. And it was quite a hard job to get them to do it.


George James McIlraith: And it took a long time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, it took a long time. Any idea that this bill is the result of some conspiracy on the part of the railways to get an advantage is just unhistorical, that is all. I think we should look at the facts as they are.
I do not think there is anything more I have to say about the main points raised. Any other points could be dealt with in committee of the whole or in the railway committee, if members would prefer to have this bill referred to that committee. Perhaps I could have some indication of what I should do.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: The minister referred to an estimate of the length of time the member for Russell (Mr. Tardif) says it takes him to go there by taxi-


John Whitney Pickersgill: In his own car.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can give us an assurance that the hon. member for Russell is prepared to
Canada Shipping Act
pay our taxi fares between the House of Commons and the station.


Paul Tardif: Just in case my hon. friend agrees to that, perhaps you would allow me, Mr. Speaker, to tell the minister that this is one thing I do not want to undertake.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have a notion there will be a very good bus service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Do I understand it is the desire of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni that we should send this bill to a committee? If it is, he having withdrawn his amendment, I will make the necessary motion right now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is my desire.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Then I move:
That Bill No. S-33 be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I could say a word. I believe there was some consultation at six o'clock or just before six o'clock and there was an understanding among the various parties that because of the nature of Bill S-7 and because if I may say so, no discussion of principle is involved-it is one of those bills amending a lot of sections of the act

if I made a very brief statement we would give it second reading. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch), who was consulted about it, agreed to this. It was also agreed that I would then move that it be sent to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, with a distinct understanding that when it came back here, if there was any desire for any general debate on clause 1, the government would not in any way seek to restrict any proper debate.



CANADA SHIPPING ACT


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-7, to amend the Canada Shipping Act.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of the minister that this bill will be referred to a committee, I will not make the remarks which I was otherwise going to make. But I do want to say that I do not think this is an unprincipled bill; there are a number of very important principles involved. All I want to

Harbour Commissions
say is that in the bill are principles which were included in a bill introduced in a previous session, and those sections were withdrawn by the then minister because the marine engineers on both the western and eastern coasts had not had an opportunity of appearing before the committee and making their representations. Could we have the assurance from the minister that there will be a sufficient period of time in order that all those concerned on both coasts may have time to have their representations made here, and that they will be notified as to the date of the meeting of the committee?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be very happy indeed, Mr. Speaker, to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: the second reading of Bill No. S-10, to provide for the establishment of harbour commissions.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am going to do something that I do not think I have ever done before in the house, and I hope I will never do it again. I am going to follow my notes pretty closely in dealing with second reading of this bill, because I had rather expected that my colleague and parliamentary secretary would be doing it, and he had to be absent this evening. While I think I have a pretty fair idea of the contents of the bill itself, I would like to put a little historical material on the record which I perhaps would not get absolutely right if I did not follow the notes rather closely.
There are, as hon. members know, three kinds of harbours in this country. A number of our greatest harbours are under the national harbours board. There are a great number of harbours that are under the direct jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. In between these two categories there are a certain number of harbours which are governed by harbour commissions, which could only in the past and up to the present be set up by separate acts of parliament. There are 11 harbours administered by harbour commissioners, appointed under individual acts of the federal parliament. These are Port Al-berni, Nanaimo, North Fraser, New West-
[Mr. Winch.)
minster, Winnipeg and St. Boniface, one of our greatest harbours-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -Lakehead, Windsor,
Hamilton, Toronto, Oshawa and Belleville. The original legislation setting up the harbour commissions at Toronto, Hamilton, New Westminster, North Fraser, Winnipeg and St. Boniface dates from the period 1911 to 1914; the remainder were set up at various dates between 1947 and 1960. This latter group of acts follows a more or less standard form, but it has been found that even the more recent acts need to be revised if certain policies which it has now been considered desirable to follow-and I think there has been nothing partisan about this-are to be applied.
The harbour commissions carry out functions which are initially the responsibility of the federal government and substantial financial contributions are made by the Department of Public Works to these harbour commissions through construction of facilities and dredging. In the course of improving surveillance and control of these commission harbours, it has been found by the Department of Transport that the old legislation needed to be modernized to take into account the increased pace of development of the last few years. In the case of the older acts, this is partly due to changed circumstances and changes in the pattern of shipping practices and freight handling. Certain changes in administration policy are necessary as a result of ad hoc arrangements made in the past, different treatment in different parts of the country, and some confusion and misunderstanding which has arisen once in a while in the management of these harbours. A consistent policy has now been evolved, particularly in relation to the sharing of costs of works in proportion to the ability of an individual harbour commission to contribute to its own development.
The more recent acts prohibit the use of revenue for capital works, although the commissioners may borrow for this purpose with the approval of the governor in council. This makes awkward the carrying out of the policy for the sharing of the costs of capital works. The authority of a commission with respect to harbour development requires more precise definition. The award of annual "surplus profits" to municipalities under the early acts, and to the federal government under more recent acts, has been found to militate against the initiative and enthusiasm of the local commissioners which is so necessary to an

effective harbour advancement and development. The ultimate goal of a harbour commission is complete financial independence with all administration, maintenance and construction being financed from harbour revenues.
For these reasons, it is proposed to enact a new standard act which would correct these flaws and which would permit the Department of Transport to exercise a reasonable degree of control over these commissions while maintaining as far as possible the advantage of local administration and local initiative for which these commissions are especially valuable. The bill provides for the creation of new harbour commissions by order in council which would also define the limits of the harbour and the authorities having power to appoint the members of a commission. Similarly existing harbour commissions listed in the schedule to this act could be brought under the standard act as circumstances warrant. This is the procedure now used to create or amend public harbours under the Canada Shipping Act.
It seems to me, sir, that this is the general explanation, but I should like to say a word about application. It is proposed initially to make this act applicable to new harbours but it is also considered that some of the existing harbour commissions will wish to come under the provisions of this standard act. I think, however, that entering into detail of that kind would be much more appropriate in the committee. I think I should make one general observation. I know hon. members are always somewhat reluctant to confer upon the governor in council the power to do things that in the past have been done by parliament; but I do really think this is one case where parliament can very well be relieved of a power which has often been shirked by governments in the past. Because these bills, being of a local nature, did not command priority and often got put off from year to year, these harbours were not developed as rapidly as they might have been had more speedy action been taken. The parliamentary control is completely maintained because the governor in council may not depart from the standard provisions; so that there is no power that can be given these harbour commissions which is not conferred by the act itself.
In addition, I may say that very exhaustive examination was given this bill in the committee in the other place. I appeared there and I think the representatives of all the harbour commissions interested also appeared and got a very good hearing. Several changes were
Harbour Commissions
made in the bill in the other place to meet the representations which were made, and to the best of my knowledge there is no feeling now on the part of any existing harbour commission that its position would be in any way affected adversely by the passage of the present bill.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, and because I would not like to get a state of constipation, if I may put it that way, in the railway committee, I would hope that we could deal with this bill in committee of the whole and dispose of it this evening.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, on the surface this bill does appear to be somewhat arbitrary in giving the government power to take over the operation of any of the 300 harbours which might be affected, with the exception of the three taken out during the course of the bill's consideration in the Senate-namely, Toronto, Hamilton and Winnipeg-St. Boniface. The bill also permits the taking over of those commissions which are set out in the schedule to the bill. However, in assuming control of these harbours, if the government sees fit to take control, they also bear a certain amount of cost as well. Therefore it is fair to assume that the government will not rush in unnecessarily to take control of various harbours where the expenditure of money is involved.
There was a very long discussion of this particular bill in the Senate. In fact, the same bill was before the other place in the previous session as bill S-38, but never left the other place in the last session, after the exhaustive discussion which resulted in the harbour of the city of Toronto being excluded. The former bill died at prorogation of the last session.
Under the new bill now before us the harbours at Hamilton and Winnipeg-St. Boniface are also excluded. As the minister said, exhaustive consideration was given the bill in committee in the other place. That is true not only of Bill S-10 but also of the previous bill S-38. All the municipalities which wished to appear and all the harbour commissions had full opportunity to go through the provisions of this bill. Therefore, in spite of this initial reservation that perhaps there is too much arbitrary control, I think most of the objections to the principle and the detail have been settled and we will not oppose the passage of this bill.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill, or at least one part of it, caused a bit of a sensation last year when

Harbour Commissions
to the surprise of most of us, while it was before the Senate telegrams and letters suddenly began to rain upon us complaining about the bill. I remember that I spent two mornings or afternoons sitting in the Senate committee listening to complaints from Hamilton and Oshawa, and to representations from my own area regarding the views of the lakehead municipalities. I think that these objections have been met. Certainly at the time I could not really see what these people were worrying about, including the representatives of Hamilton and Toronto, but I assume they managed to convince the government that they were in a special kind of situation which should keep them free of the powers resting with the government, in this particular case with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill).
There are two comments I want to make about the bill and about the harbour commissions. One concerns conflict of interest and political partisanship in relation to the commissioners themselves. The other is the matter of the revenues which a commission raises.
The conflict of interest is something which is extremely difficult to determine, but it does seem to me that it is something which needs to be kept very much in mind by the governor in council when making appointments. I want to give the minister an example. The Canadian National Railways, as the minister knows, is an agency to which he has some relationship, as well perhaps as having some power and influence over it. We had a situation where one of the government appointees to the commission at Port Arthur was an employee of the Canadian National Railways; at least that was my understanding. I am not saying there was anything wrong here, but there was only one commissioner there who did not have some interest in connection with the harbour. One was the head of the shipyards. Another was the head of an elevator company which was involved. Another was an employee of the Canadian National Railways, a very able engineer. Because of their backgrounds and, you might say skills, these men were excellent people from one point of view to have on the commission, but the suspicion was raised in more than my mind that it was rather unfair that these men should be there.
For example, there was a controversy at the lakehead over who should bear the cost of icebreaking in the slips and around the harbour. One of the solutions seems to have been worked out as the result of a visit by

the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), representing the grain interests, and I think the matter has now been resolved. But one of the matters which caused a great deal of questioning and bitterness on the local scene was the fact if the lakehead harbour commission had become more deeply involved in financing and in paying for this particular form of icebreaking it would immediately have thrown suspicion on the representative of the grain trade who was on the commission, because naturally it was the grain trade who stood to benefit most.
I have tried to think of an amendment to the bill which would so limit the appointments, but it would be almost impossible to rule out the appointment of this sort of person. Yet this is a matter which must be kept very much in mind, particularly in terms of balance. From the experience on the lake-head scene, which I am sure is duplicated in other harbours which tend to have the same interest, I would say you are caught between the fact that such men do tend to have the most knowledge to bring to bear, but they also have the most interest in what is involved. It seems to me that a special onus is left on the government when making these appointments.
One of the other problems which arises in connection with appointments is the political affiliation or interest of the people who are appointed. The federal government cannot be sure as to what may be the politics of municipal appointees, but it is very obvious from experience both under a Conservative government and under a Liberal government that this is looked upon as some kind of minor reward or recognition for a party man. As a politician I have no objection to that on principle, but I would put it to the minister that this, along with the conflict of interest, adds to the view that people tend to look upon harbour commissions as a political agency of the government or as an arm of the government identified with the ruling party. If you are not in that party or the government you can take some comfort from this, because it is not a very pleasant situation for the Department of Transport to be in- that a local agency, with which it has such intimate connections, is looked upon as being a partisan group. Again, you cannot spirit it away with any kind of amendment.
I should like to put to the minister one of the things, judging by the situation at the lakehead and at several other communities of which I am aware, which would help matters considerably for the minister-al-

though I suppose it is his deputy, with some kind of political connection, who ferrets out people for appointment. The minister should deliberately try to make sure that the people chosen are not those who have a glaring, open or marked reputation for being political partisans. I do not want to leave the impression that I think, because individuals support a party, or are particularly loyal to a party, this leaves them with a bar sinister, but the fact remains that a member of practically any other party can probably see these difficulties and dangers more clearly than anyone else.
This is the kind of an agency or commission we cannot get at as members of parliament, acting as either individuals in our constituencies or as members in the House of Commons. We have really no power of scrutiny. All we can do is sound off with criticisms. It is for that reason I think the whole practice with regard to appointments of harbours commissioners should be considered very seriously by the present minister and his deputy in an attempt to see whether they can establish, perhaps not any fixed rule, and certainly no regulations, but some sort of policy to take care of this conflict of interest in this partisan aspect. I do not know how possible such a thing is, but we know the present minister is not the least partisan of people, and I suppose his deputy, just as a result of the fact he has been at his job for so long, is both adept at and inured to compromise with a sort of a political reality, but I suggest to the minister that this might be at least an aspiration. I suggest that he examine this conflict of interest and this question of political appointment to see whether the difficulties that surround them can be circumvented by the appointment of people who have no conflict of interest and are not partisan.
The last topic I want to touch upon, Mr. Speaker, is the subject of revenues. Having read the lakehead harbours bill and this bill, I am not clear in my mind just how much freedom the local harbour commissions have to raise money. I do not know what is the pattern of their financing. Perhaps one thing we might gain by having this bill sent to a committee is some indication of the record of financing problems. I know there are financing problems and that the harbour commissions must obtain money. Since much of the money that has gone into harbours has come from the federal government, the federal government should have some control. I should like to know how much latitude exists for harbour commissions to make unilateral decisions, for 20220-632
Harbour Commissions
example that they are going to raise the fees for the use of the harbours without previous consultations with the government. It seems to me that the actual situation which exists is that tacitly, despite the powers given by the bill, commissions tend to look for and accept the advice of the minister of transport.
Again because this is not spelled out clearly, it seems to me that there may be a certain hypocrisy in the bill, in that the great powers for raising money which exist in the general and particular powers are really not as strong or powerful as we may think when we pass the bill.
The question I should like to leave with the minister is, since this is an over-all bill bringing a number of harbour commissions in this country within a single framework, whether it would be possible out of this single pattern to establish some kind of annual publishing of the reports of these commissions in some detail so that we will have a picture of their operations. I happen to know that these commissions publish their own statements, but it seems to me there should be a common format indicating statistics of revenue, traffic and expenditures, with a budget for the coming year. This might be very useful and should in no way inconvenience the commissions in doing the jobs which the powers given to them by the bill would indicate they are doing. That is really the only substantial request I make to the minister. Would he consider whether it might not be possible to have some kind of publishing of a common nature carried out. This may involve an extra cost upon the Department of Transport through the queen's printer, but it seems to me it would be a most useful thing.
One of the difficulties in trying to analyse harbour needs in this country is that the report of the national harbours board gives specific data only for so many harbours, and then only general data in respect of all the rest. I think the minister will recognize that the dominion bureau of statistics does not really pick up the slack and give a ready picture of the kinds of traffic, a summary of the facilities and revenue, and a general plan of the capital expenditure for various harbours. This would be something hon. members would find useful. Certainly I would find this very useful, as it would enable me to follow from year to year what is taking place.
It seems to me there is always some question in our minds when we have three or four patterns of administration of similar facilities such as harbours. We have the na-

Harbour Commissions
tional harbours board, and we are now going to have this schedule of harbours under this act. There are other ports which have harbour commissions but which will remain outside.
One of the questions repeatedly occurring has to do with a scale of expenditures, and the kind of facilities which should be provided. The minister may remember the controversy over who was going to pay for the provisions to extend the grain handling facilities at both the lakehead and Vancouver. One was under this kind of a commission and the other was under the national harbours board. The relationship of the government's role with respect to expenditures in this particular area has never really been settled clearly. I do not know where there is a more primary responsibility upon the government in relation to a harbour under the national harbours board than in respect of a harbour under this particular act, but certainly they are treated differently in relation to administration and financing, and their relations with the department are different.
I suppose we should really be asking whether it might not be practical to look forward to some future time when the national harbours board is the general administrator of all harbours. As long as there are three different kinds of harbours which handle a substantial amount of traffic there may always be the possibility of some kind of rationalization of the whole relationship of the federal government to them. I think the previous minister of transport deserves some congratulations for the fact that all the objections to this bill, which were many, disappeared a few months ago while he was still in charge of the department. I can only assume that since it took place under his regime he played some part in allaying the suspicions, and since we have not been congratulating him too much lately it might not be amiss to do so now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a few remarks I should like to add to those made by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) in connection with the bill. My first reaction was somewhat similar to that expressed earlier by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), namely that we should look rather carefully at the suggestion that we put into the hands of the governor in council powers which heretofore have been exercised only through an act of parliament. However, I was satisfied at least partially by the explanation of the

Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), that one of the results of the passage of this measure might be to facilitate the establishment of harbour commissions where otherwise they might not be established.
I should like to say to the minister that one thing for which I am always on the lookout is the development of a government policy to provide for a more satisfactory method of administering smaller ports than in my view has heretofore been devised. If the passage of this bill will help to facilitate that kind of development I want to say here and now that I am all for it, although I do not actually see anything in the bill to indicate definitely that its provisions contain the kind of solution which I should like to see brought about in respect of the administration of many of the smaller harbours.
I have only one harbour in my constituency which is administered by a harbour commission, the harbour of Port Alberni. If I may say so, this is one of the more important harbours on the west coast of Canada. In fact, according to some claims I have seen recently it is British Columbia's second harbour from the point of view of tonnage shipped, although I believe that the harbour commission in the constituency of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) is inclined to challenge that claim.
Nevertheless, what I really want to say is that I have discussed the possible effect of the bill with the Port Alberni harbour commission and my understanding is that they are satisfied its terms will not adversely affect the operation of that harbour. There are one or two matters in connection with the provisions of the bill that I may wish to question when we get to the committee stage.
One of the advantages I have always felt arose out of the operation of harbour commissions established by an act of parliament, as has been the case up till now, was that out of their revenue surplus they did have certain funds, usually not too large in the cases that have come to my attention, which could be spent entirely at their own discretion. There have been certain advantages in this situation. I know that some works in the harbour of Port Alberni have been constructed in this way which might not have been constructed if they had required a vote out of public funds at the federal level. Nevertheless these works have added to the usefulness of the harbour.
I think I understood the minister correctly that in the future any harbour commission which is operating within the framework of

this legislation will have no such surplus funds, because any such funds will automatically go into the consolidated revenue fund after certain operating expenses and so on have been taken care of. This particular aspect of the bill raises some questions in my mind which I may wish to pursue further in the committee stage.
If I may sum up, Mr. Speaker, I hope we are moving in a direction which will facilitate the more adequate administration of smaller harbours. In my experience they have largely been left out of the picture from the point of view of creating an efficient mechanism for local administration. The result has been that there have been many headaches for the administrative officers of the Department of Transport, inasmuch as these habours are in most cases isolated from any direct, day to day supervision by these officials.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Clauses 2 and 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Contents of proclamation establishing commission.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I should like to inquire about the thinking of the government in proposing that the number of members of a commission shall in all cases be not less than three and not more than five. There is nothing unusual in this proposal in itself but I raise the question because of the point I mentioned earlier when we were at the second reading stage with respect to the administration of smaller harbours. So far as the administration of smaller harbours is concerned, has any consideration been given to the possibility of setting up a modified form of harbour commission involving a single commissioner? There might not always be three suitable people available. Has the minister any comment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I can make a very brief comment on that point. I think that a harbour that can be administered by one person should not have a harbour commission at all but should be in the third class of harbours I have mentioned. Unless a harbour is of sufficient importance and magnitude to warrant at least three persons being appointed, it does not seem to me there would be any advantage to be gained at all in removing it from the class of harbours 20220-632i
Harbour Commissions
which includes the great majority in Canada and which are administered directly by the Department of Transport.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I will not quarrel with the minister on that point but I raise it because
I	think there is need for the development of a better mechanism for the administration of smaller harbours than I have seen up to the present time. I hope further consideration will be given to this matter.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I only wish to ask the minister if there is any intention on the part of the government to make these harbour commissions responsible for more harbours than the
II	he mentioned at the outset of the resolution stage?


John Whitney Pickersgill: As a matter of fact, it was thought when we were waiting for action on this legislation, we might put the harbour at St. John's, Newfoundland under a harbour commission under this legislation. Then we had requests from the provincial government, the city of St. John's, the board of trade, the longshoremen and all interested parties in the harbour that it should be brought under the national harbours board. The government decided that since that seemed to be the general wish of the community, that should be done. I do not know of any other that is in immediate contemplation, but there are one or two that have made some approaches to us.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 8 inclusive, agreed to.
On clause 9-Jurisdiction within harbour.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, in connection with clauses 9, 10 and 11, but particularly 10, is it the intention that the government shall acquire the harbour facilities, that is the land, buildings and so forth, and transfer them to the commission or is it the intention that in most cases, the commission will merely administer the assets that are physically there?


John Whitney Pickersgill: There is no question of anything being taken over. In the case of existing commissions, the commission does own works in the harbour. In the case of any new commissions that would be established, I would assume any federal works in the area would be turned over to the commission.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Is it the intention to take over property from a municipal corporation which had previously been operating a harbour? If not, would the government have power of expropriation of municipal assets?

Harbour Commissions


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand it has been the usual practice where there was property owned by a municipality in a harbour, when a harbour commission is set up the municipality puts its properties under the commission as does the federal government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 10 to 12 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 13-Bylaws.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I want to raise a question with the minister in connection with the powers, particularly under paragraph (h). The minister may recall that there have been some proceedings against ships for dumping waste oil and other refuse. I understand these proceedings have been taken under the Criminal Code, although the harbour authorities may have provided the information for the charge. I want to find out whether this power under paragraph (h), and under the authority to establish police, could be used more effectively than seems to be the situation at the present time in relation to the few examples we have seen where the scale of fines against these shipping masters and shipping companies that have been dumping oil have amounted more or less to a pat on the wrist.
I wonder if the minister could tell us if there has been enough experience with this kind of harbour commission, with the problem of policing, discipline and good conduct of harbours, to indicate that they should assume more of the powers this section would seem to give them? I know I am getting rather indefinite, but what I am really asking is, does the practice up to now indicate there should be a limitation upon the policing and, if you like, the punishment powers of the commission in the sense of the present reality as against what seems to be the sweeping powers that are given under this particular clause?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think it is the general rule that commissions which are set up under a statute can exercise only the powers the statute itself confers. A commission could not make criminal law-at least I defer to the lawyers here, but I would think this most unlikely. They could only create the kind of offences that relate to the specific powers given to them. This is one reason their bylaws would have to be examined by the governor in council, so the Department of Justice would have a chance to look at them and make sure they were not purporting to make bylaws which could not have any legal validity be-

cause they had not had conferred upon them the power necessary to make the bylaw.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I appreciate that comment. We have had two matters locally in which the commission has been involved and, in the opinion of some people, regrettably not sufficiently involved; one was the question of oil and the other relates to the right of the harbour commission police to deal with duck shooting and the carrying of firearms in the harbour area. One of the consequences in terms of public opinion on the local scene that I encountered with each of these instances was that the harbour commission and its police were damned if they did and damned if they did not. They were damned by some people for interfering with the shooting of ducks, and they were damned by other people because they had not taken sufficiently strong action in connection with the release of waste oil.
The point I really wanted to make to the minister hinged on how much encouragement, despite the fact of perhaps because of the fact, the government retains the scrutiny of bylaws, will be given to harbour commissions to sort of police and, in that sense, punish, the people who commit these actions? I suppose in the context of what we are doing here, this is a fruitless question. I am quite prepared to allow the clause to pass, but I should like to remind the minister and his officials there is a problem here that I am sure will be cropping up again and again.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It does crop up a great deal. There are some very difficult questions because, as the hon. gentleman knows, sometimes the dividing line between what is regarded as property and civil rights and what is regarded as shipping is not an easy one to draw. I have just taken two examples at random. I understand it is the desire, as much as possible, to encourage these harbour commissions to maintain good order in their harbours, to see that everything that is properly within their powers is done and to avoid things like pollution, the dumping of garbage or anything of that sort.
I wonder, sir, if you could avoid seeing the clock if that were the wish of hon. members, for a few minutes so that perhaps we might conclude this matter.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Commission may borrow and issue debentures therefor.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask one or two questions in connection with clause 14.

They may be related to clauses 14 and 15 which have to do with the powers of the commission in connection with the expenditure of money for capital and operating purposes. One of the questions which occurs to me is whether the passage of this bill will alter the pattern that has existed in the past in relation to the policy of smaller harbour commissions to make arrangements for capital expenditures by appropriations from the Department of Public Works for the construction of certain works such as wharves, breakwaters and so on. Second, what would be the effect of the operation of these two clauses on the ability of the commissions to construct minor capital improvements within their harbours without having to go cap in hand to parliament for an appropriation, or having to borrow money under terms which would involve payment of interest?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I can deal with those points very briefly. I should like to deal first of all with the points the hon. member raised on second reading; I am sure it might create a certain amount of misgiving if we were just to read the last three lines of clause 15. Perhaps I could deal with the relevant clauses together, as the hon. member did. It is not the intention of the governor in council to insist that any surplus which might be left over each year should be paid to the receiver general. Paragraph (b) of clause 15 (2) refers to the appropriation to the funded reserves of the commission of such amounts as may be approved; it is intended that these harbours should build up funds from their revenues and have them available for their own use. However, it is thought that if the funds become so large, and if they are based on capital works originally paid for by the taxpayers, the surplus, if it is to go to anyone, should go back to the exchequer which provided the capital in the first place. There is no thought whatever of trying to make large profits out of these harbours. As far as capital works are concerned, where revenue is sufficient the commissions are not restricted from carrying out capital works of their own; they do not need to come to us for permission. But many of these harbours are not self-supporting and are not likely to be. In these cases the Department of Public Works will share, with the harbour commission in providing the kind of works which would be provided in harbours of that kind if there were not a harbour commission.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Let me be clear on this question of funded reserves. I took that expression to mean reserves to pay off the bonded in-
Harbour Commissions
debtedness of the commission. But a commission could build up a reserve out of which it could undertake direct capital works made possible by accumulated surpluses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is my understanding that that is also true. In fact it is for both purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 15 to 18 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 19-Expropriation.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is just one question I wish to raise with regard to this clause. I may have a technical mind, but there seems to me to be a problem here in connection with expropriation. The assumption is that anyone is prepared to sell for a price. The clause says:
A commission may.. .take or acquire lands... without the consent of the owner where it is unable to agree with the owner as to the price to be paid therefor-
The question which arises in my mind is this: Suppose the owner does not wish to sell at all, and there is no argument at all about the price. Would the clause be operative in these circumstances? It would seem that the words "as to the price to be paid" would be surplus. Someone might say merely "I will not sell", and there would be no power of expropriation.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that the provision of the Railway Act which is applied by reference here is that the expropriation would only be legal if the property expropriated was essential for the railway. A railway could not expropriate for any other purpose. Therefore, by analogy it would have to be clearly needed for the harbour before this power could be exercised; and of course in case of dispute the courts would decide wheher it really was needed. Moreover, if any such expropriation can of course only be done with the consent of the governor in council. I think the hon. gentleman knows that there is always likely to be pretty strong opposition in this house, which would be very likely to bring up the grievance of anyone who really felt aggrieved in this matter, and that the governor in council would not act lightly.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I do not think my point was understood. My point is that the power of expropriation that the commission has is limited by the words "as to the price to be paid therefor". As I say, what is the situation where someone says in effect, "I do not want to sell"? There is no power

Harbour Commissions
of expropriation in such a case. That is my point. If there is an argument about the price, the commission may expropriate. If there is no argument about the price, and if the man just says. "I am not going to sell," there is no power of expropriation. This is the point that is not made clear in the bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask that this clause stand for a moment, in the hope of getting some legal advice from on high, while we go on with the other clauses. I have not any lawyers in front of me; I am not a lawyer, and I would not like to go very far in this field without advice. Perhaps we could stand clause 19.


Lucien Lamoureux: Clause 19 stands.
Clauses 20 to 29 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 30-Procedure for bringing existing commission under act.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, in respect of clause 30 I have been asked to have it made clear on the record whether or not the harbour commissions as listed in the schedule to the bill will remain free to continue under their present charters as established by the various acts of parliament unless there is agreement as to the provisions of both paragraphs (a) and (b) of subclause 2. In this connection I would think it appropriate that the minister, particularly because as I understand it in most, if not all cases a majority of the members of the harbour commissions are appointed by the government, should say whether or not it is the intention of the government to exert any influence upon the existing harbour commissions, either directly or indirectly, as to what action they should take to bring themselves under the terms of this bill; and, in reference to that section that has to do with municipalities, whether the government intends to make any representations, directly or otherwise, to the municipal authorities in connection with bringing existing harbour commissions within the framework of this bill.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I can say, first of all, that I gave an assurance to the committee of the other place-if it is permissible to say that- that there would be no pressure whatsoever brought on any of these harbour commissions. They have acts of parliament. Unless they see some advantage in coming under this legislation there is nothing we can do for them. I do not think there is anything we should try to do to coerce them in any way. We feel that it will be apparent that there are certain advantages to them in coming under this legislation, but that is for them

to decide and not us. As for trying to influence municipalities either to establish harbour commissions or not establish them, I think that is something about which I have to be a little cautious in answering.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, may I say that I did not ask the minister about influencing municipalities in order to establish new harbour commissions. I was referring to asking the municipalities to co-operate in establishing-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, let me just say that that would be in an infringement of provincial rights which no Liberal government would contemplate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In the case of one of the listed harbour commissions appearing in the schedule, I hope it will not be a condition of the provision of certain capital installations through, say, the Department of Public Works that it would be necessary to pass the appropriate bylaws and come under the great controls.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I really do not think there would be any particular advantage to the federal government in doing that, even if we had any thought of doing it. The only thing is that there might be in some of these other statutes-I have not gone over them carefully in comparison with this bill-certain things we could not do for them under their existing legislation which we could do for them under the present legislation. There might be some advantages there. However, I do not think we would hesitate to point that out to them. Otherwise it is not our desire to try and impose any uniformity at all. We think this legislation is rather better than any of the existing acts and rather better from the point of view of the commissions, but that is for them to decide.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 31 agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
Lucien Lamoureux: Shall we revert to clause 19?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
On clause 19-Expropriation.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Chairman, I have had some discussion on clause 19 and I still have some reservations about the power of expropriation. However, the President of the Privy Council is satisfied that there will be no difficulty in expropriating whether the problem concerns price or whether it concerns the question of

selling. Under those circumstances I will withdraw my objection, because it really concerned the limitation, as I saw it, of the power to expropriate. The government is satisfied that the clause is sufficient so I will not object further.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, would you allow me to break the rules to thank hon. gentlemen opposite for their consideration of me today. I do appreciate the chance to get through all these smaller bills as far as we have gone, and I am genuinely grateful.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, we have clearly demonstrated today that this is a very cooperative house. Some people misinterpret
Business of the House what goes on in the House of Commons, but we have shown what can be done.
May we hear about the business for Thursday and Friday?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On Thursday we will begin the redistribution bill, in accordance with the arrangements made this afternoon. At the conclusion of our consideration of that bill we will, for the remainder of Thursday and Friday, take up estimates. The estimates we propose to submit are first, the estimates of the Secretary of State, followed by the estimates of the Minister of Forestry, the estimates of the Minister of Public Works and the estimates of the Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 2, this house stands adjourned until Thursday next at two thirty o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
It being fifteen minutes after ten o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, November 12, 1964