1964-09-14

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller of stationery OTTAWA, 1964

1. / A	[DOT]	[DOT] /.
[Stage Direction]

	* f ) :
	
	
	
	
	
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 14, 1964

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister)
presented the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
The Governor General transmits to the House of Commons a certified copy of an order in council appointing Hon. John Robert Nicholson, Postmaster General, Hon. Maurice Sauve, Minister of Forestry and Hon. William Moore Benidickson, Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys, to act with Hon. George James Mcllraith, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and the Speaker of the House of Commons as commissioners for the purposes and under the provisions of the one hundred and forty third chapter of the Revised Statutes of Canada, 1952, intituled: An Act respecting the House of Commons.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated on Thursday that I would make a short statement today on motions in regard to the business for the next few weeks.
Today, as the house knows, we will be dealing with certain farm legislation, and if that should be completed provision has been made for the rest of the day. After this legislation we will deal with the legislation regarding redistribution. I said on May 15 that we as a House of Commons, would be in default if we failed to provide for redistribution, now long overdue, in accordance with the census taken some three years ago.
After the redistribution legislation, Mr. Speaker, we will introduce legislation arising out of the report of the royal commission on transportation. This is a very important and complex matter and we are anxious to get it to a committee as quickly as possible.
Then, Mr. Speaker, we will introduce legislation to establish a Canada pension plan. A draft of the bill for this purpose is ready. This is one of the most important and complicated legislative measures, I think, ever introduced into this House of Commons. It deals with a new problem, to provide for
a federal pension plan which, in conjunction with provincial legislation and with provincial co-operation, can operate as one nation-wide pension system. A careful review of every single clause of this legislation is essential, and careful consultation with the provinces in respect of all these clauses is going on, but the bill will be ready and the review completed when we get to it in the house after the legislation I have mentioned.
Then, Mr. Speaker, from time to time we will have to interrupt the legislative program to deal with supply. By the end of this month we will be half way through the financial year. On Thursday and Friday of this week, therefore, we will deal with estimates. Next Monday there will be a supply motion which will take up Monday and Tuesday, with the one remaining supply motion to be brought forward a week or two later. A week from Thursday and Friday, the 24th and 25th of this month, we will be on estimates again.
Some time in October, if not earlier, the report of the flag committee will be received; that report will be submitted to the house without delay, and a decision will be taken on this matter.
That is the program ahead, always subject, of course, to change if an emergency makes such change necessary.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, this is the first occasion on which the house has received a report as to the legislation that will be brought before it. I was Interested in the reference to redistribution, and I welcome the announcement. However, it is not in accordance with the report that was given by the premier of Saskatchewan to the effect that after having talked over this matter with the Prime Minister, he had been assured that redistribution would not be in effect for the next general election.
In so far as the pension plan is concerned, I think it is rather regrettable that it will not be introduced a little earlier so that a committee of the house could be set up and sit while the house is sitting. As to the question of the calling of supply, certainly that is most desirable. Indeed, when interim supply was asked for in June it was Her Majesty's

Business of the House
loyal opposition that asked that the period of interim supply, fixed at the request of the government at two months, should be increased to three months.
There is the matter of the visit of Her Majesty the Queen, who will be in Ottawa while the house is still in session. Is it intended to have Her Majesty speak to the two houses of parliament? I think this would be a desirable course to follow provided the Queen would not find it unnecessarily tiring and that it would be in keeping with her wishes.
With respect to the flag committee, the Prime Minister has stated that its report will be received in October and the house will then proceed with the matter. I am sure that last evening Canadians as a whole were disturbed by the statement by the Prime Minister in which he predicted that the flag would be one with a maple leaf on it. That is a very strange prediction from a Prime Minister who had just agreed to the setting up of the committee that was to be objective and not dominated in any way. Yet the Prime Minister saw fit to say that he knew what the committee would recommend, apparently knowing in advance the stand to be taken by the Liberal members on that committee.
I think his statement last night in which he announced what the committee would decide before the committee has been constituted was a serious dereliction. It is far removed from what we understood the committee was to be, when the Prime Minister announces in advance to the people of Canada that the committee is going to be set up and that there will be a flag before Christmas. He said that with fervor. He said that it would have a maple leaf thereon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: I am glad to note the degree of applause that comes from the government side of the house. It indicates that this committee, which we had hoped would be impartial, has already been directed by the Prime Minister in so far as the Liberal members are concerned. I protest this very strongly.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: We are glad to have this outline of legislation which the Prime Minister has placed before the house. There is one slight difference compared with what was announced by the house leader on Friday, who indicated we would be taking the transportation legislation dealing with railway abandonment and railway rationalization before redistribution. It is im-

material to us which order the government wants to follow in dealing with this legislation, but certainly our understanding from the statement of the Minister of Justice on Friday was that the railway legislation would come first. If the government decides to proceed with redistribution before railway legislation, however, we have no objection.
We do not feel we ought to raise the question as to when the flag committee is going to report, nor to join in the battle. We shall leave that fight for the committee rather than have it here in the house. However, we do hope the committee's report will not be introduced until some important matters which need to be dealt with have been passed by the house. We have particular reference to the Canada pension plan, which should be completed, and the national labour code which the Minister of Labour promised to introduce. We hope these matters will be dealt with before we get into a protracted debate on the flag question, in the event that the committee is not able to come up with a virtually unanimous selection of a flag design.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: At this time, Mr. Speaker, I believe it is sufficient to say we welcome the work program announced to us by the Prime Minister. I do not believe it matters too much whether the order in which this work is to be accomplished is the order we had expected. Each of the items mentioned is important so far as our responsibilities in the house are concerned. We welcome the fact that we are going to be able to get at some of them instead of carrying on as we have these past weeks. Rather than enter into any discussion regarding the topics or their order of presentation, I would just say we will be happy to co-operate in every way possible to further the business of this house.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapoinle):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to take some 30 seconds to congratulate and thank those who took part in the translation of Beauchesne's which was distributed a few days ago. Unfortunately, I was not in Ottawa at that time, as I only came back yesterday. I must also commend the government on what they did to supply us with the French translation of Beauchesne's. We hope that while it helps us to a better understanding of the rules of the house your task will be made easier and everybody will be satisfied.

As for the business of the house proposed to us, it was suggested that we should discuss first the resolution on farm improvement loans. We are quite prepared to help farmers, but we think that the first legislation to be discussed and the only one we should like to have added to the list of priority measures is the one concerning the establishment of a department of agriculture for the east. We believe that such legislation is most urgent and that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) should add it to the priority legislation of the government.
We support the establishment of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada because even if farm loans are being improved, one must realize that there are practically no loans granted in eastern Canada, since this government's farm policy is conceived in terms of western rather than eastern farm needs.
Therefore, if that legislation is to be really useful, we think that to assist farmers the first thing would be to discuss and pass the legislation concerning the setting up of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada, in accordance with the resolution which has been on the order paper for almost two years, that is since the coming to office of this government.
As far as the flag issue is concerned, I must admit that I have been away for four weeks and 250 supposedly intelligent members discussed the question during that time. On my return, four weeks later, I find that nothing has been done. In fact, not only has nothing been done but the issue has been shelved, since it has been referred to a committee. Absolutely nothing has been done during my four weeks of absence.
You will agree that some Canadians must find it surprising, like I do, that no progress has been made in that field and that after two whole months-


Mr. Rheaume:: We didn't miss you either. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I have not been missed in the house but I can assure you that I did not miss the Conservative speeches on the flag issue.
Since the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was allowed to digress, I should like to point out to the house that even in England-and one could hardly find a person more English than the English there- several people asked me: "That man called Baker-many of them did not even know
Business of the House
his full name-why does he take so much time to discuss the flag issue?"
The English themselves were surprised by the attitude taken in that connection and were wondering which hon. members were talking like that. They thought it was the French speaking members.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition was the first one to digress, since he was allowed to do so. However, I have completed my remarks on this matter.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if it would be possible to include the resolution on the establishment of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada on the list of priority measures?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in order to clear up one point which may have led to some misunderstanding about the relation of the redistribution legislation to the transportation legislation, I said arrangements had been made on Friday for dealing with the rest of the day, that is Monday, in case the farm improvement loans legislation passed the resolution stage, namely that we would go on with the transportation legislation; and tomorrow, Tuesday, we would go back to other farm legislation, and if all the farm legislation passed tomorrow we would then go on to the redistribution measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to that order of business. I simply point out that as recorded at page 7932 of Hansard for Friday last the Minister of Justice indicated that the transportation legislation would follow the farm improvement loans legislation.


Mr. Pickersgill:: That is what we are doing. [Later:]
On the orders of the day:


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a week ago last Friday the Minister of Labour promised that the national labour code legislation would be on the order paper this month, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister made no reference to it in his line-up of business, can he assure us that the labour code has priority along with the other items he mentioned today?

Report on World Finance Meetings


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is in the priority list, Mr. Speaker. The fact that I did not refer to it today should not be taken to indicate that we have reduced it in priority in any way.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
Does the resolution concerning the establishment of a department of agriculture for eastern Canada also appear on the priority list?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we hope to deal with that in the autumn session.



FINANCE


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement regarding the annual meetings of the World Bank and international monetary fund which I attended last week in Tokyo. This is the statement which I promised on August 10 in connection with the release, internationally, of two important studies of world liquidity; the annual report of the monetary fund and the special report of the so-called group of ten.
At the meetings of the monetary fund in Tokyo, discussion centred on the question of world liquidity; that is to say, whether the supplies of gold and foreign exchange available in the form of reserves to governments and central banks are and will continue to be adequate, and whether short and medium term credit arrangements are also satisfactory. In brief, are the basic financial facilities adequate and appropriate to support continuing growth in world trade, investment and employment?
As the representative of Canada I voted in favour of a resolution calling for an enlargement of the international monetary fund. This enlargement would chiefly consist of an equal proportionate increase in the quotas of all member countries. It would also include additional increases in the quotas of a few individual countries which could claim them on the basis of above average increases in their own trade and economic activity.
Canada's quota would, of course, be increased on the first count and in all probability on the second as well. I should remind the house that, in the fund, a country's


quota plays a triple role; it is a measure of its access to credit from the fund in time of need; it is a measure of its financial contribution to the fund, and it is a measure of its voting strength in the organization.
It seems likely that the general increase in quotas will be 25 per cent. While this would be acceptable to us we would, as I said in the meeting, have preferred a higher figure. I pointed out in Tokyo that the growth of the fund since its inception has not kept pace with the growth of world trade and payments. The proposed increase would do no more than reduce the gap. Our present quota is $550 million in terms of U.S. dollars. An enlargement of 25 per cent would involve us in a contribution of $137.5 million. Of this, one quarter or $34.4 million would be payable in gold out of our existing gold reserves. These have been rising recently and amounted to $948.8 million at the end of July. The remaining three quarters, amounting to $103.1 million, would be paid in noninterest bearing demand notes of the government of Canada.
I should draw the attention of hon. members to two points. First, our enlarged contribution to the fund will not involve us in any budgetary charge. Second, the approval of parliament will be sought by means of an amendment of the Bretton Woods Agreements Act. The necessary legislation will probably be introduced early next year. We shall, however, await detailed proposals from the executive directors of the fund in Washington, who have been instructed to make a report on the size, timing and method of payment of the quota increases.
This discussion in Tokyo on the subject of world liquidity was both vigorous and illuminating. Depending on their national backgrounds and recent experiences, governments tend to take differing views of the outlook for world liquidity arrangements. However, there seemed to be general agreement on the enlargement of the monetary fund along the lines indicated, also that further studies which are already in hand should be proceeded with. Of particular interest is a study, under the auspices of the group of ten, of the various processes through which international reserve assets, other than gold, are or could be created. These reserve assets can take the form of reserve currencies such as U.S. dollars and sterling, or claims on the monetary fund, or, as some are urging, forms that are entirely new. Canada will continue to be an active participant in this study.

Hon. members will, I know, welcome this forward looking exercise. At the same time they will appreciate that if any new and far reaching powers were going to be bestowed on some international agency, we should have to be very sure of the political acceptability as well as the financial integrity of the agency in question. Canada, with a great stake in international trade and finance, is deeply concerned that international arrangements shall respond fully and adequately to the demands made upon them.
Before concluding may I add a few words about the annual meetings of the world bank. These were also held in Tokyo last week. This bank is the largest single channel of aid to the less developed countries of the world. It raises most of its funds from world capital markets, under the collective guarantee of all the member governments, and re-lends these funds at a slightly higher interest rate. The bank has since its inception been efficiently managed. Although its charges are quite small, its total profits have over the years become substantial. Last year its profits were nearly $100 million.
In Tokyo last week I joined with others in approving a proposal that $50 million of these profits should be turned over as a grant to a subsidiary of the bank known as the international development association. This body makes loans to needy countries on highly concessional terms. In the past all the funds for the I.D.A. have been contributed by 17 of the member governments, including Canada. It is very welcome to have a large subscription from another quarter.
The I.D.A. was founded in response to the growing need of many of the less developed countries for capital from abroad on terms that do not materially add to their balance of payments problems. In this connection I was glad to be able to call the attention of the Tokyo meeting to the terms on which Canadian external aid is now being provided, as outlined in the house by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on November 14 last.
Some minor amendments to the constitution of the world bank were agreed to in Tokyo. In so far as Canada is concerned, these may require amendments in the Bret-ton Woods Agreements Act. This question will be referred to the Department of Justice and the appropriate amendments, if required, will be introduced into the house at the same time as the amendment relating to the enlargement of our quota in the international monetary fund.
Report on World Finance Meetings
In the biennial elections of the executive directors of both the bank and fund we nominated Mr. A. F. W. Plumptre, assistance deputy minister of finance, and he was reelected. In addition, he was selected by the officials of the group of ten to be their vice chairman for the following year.


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure those of us who have taken some interest in this problem of international liquidity will be very glad to hear the statement of the minister today. I recall that last year on behalf of the Canadian delegation to the interparliamentary union in Belgrade I raised this question; and the gathering there, representing some 60 or 70 countries, gave unanimous support to the demand that there should be a study of this problem.
I note the minister suggests that there has been a certain amount of caution, as is usually the case at any gathering of central bankers, and I can only hope that they are not too cautious as they have often been in the past; because although at the present time it appears that an immediate crisis with regard to international liquidity is not developing as some had feared it might, I think there is every possibility that it will if the world embarks on the sort of development program which it is going to have to embark upon if we are to solve the problem of the gap between the have and the have not countries.
I hope Canada and Canada's representatives will give all support possible to any proposals toward developing a new unit of international exchange when the group of ten have completed their studies. Undoubtedly they will come up with some mechanism in this respect, and I would hope to see Canada in the forefront supporting the proposal.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if Canada contributes approximately $137 million to the world bank to support international liquidity and if three quarters of those $137 million come from demand notes of the government of Canada, that does not represent much of a commitment on our part inasmuch as it does not cost the Minister of Finance anything whatever to sign new government demand notes.
As for the remaining 25 per cent, simply made up of gold standard representations, that is but a transfer of gold bricks which do

Proposed Legislation
not even circulate across the country. The cost to the government, then, is not such a great deal.
But there is one thing though which might make us much more cautious. The Minister of Finance must know it, since the matter has been mentioned in this house. The secret intention of the group of ten is to head more and more toward an international monetary unit. This can be a good thing in itself, if it is used only for international trade. But the consequence is also that only the powerful countries in the field of finance will be able to control this international monetary unit, always at the expense of the small countries which revolve around those powerful nations. Canada is one of them and it should be one of the first to endeavour to protect itself against the creation of an international monetary unit.
We had the opportunity before to warn the Minister of Finance against this danger.
So we are informed that there will be an amendment to the act already passed by the House of Commons and approving those agreements. We are told that this will have to be passed by parliament and it is at that moment that we can try and convince the Minister of Finance to take the necessary steps, especially in view of the agreements which have just been reached in Tokyo, in order to prevent this creation of an international monetary unit which would only result in enabling, even more than today, foreign capitalist countries and big financial interests to have more control over the natural resources of this country.



FARM MACHINERY


Hon. Maurice Sauve (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the extension of credit to farm machinery syndicates for the purchase of farm machinery and for the terms and conditions of such loans, the amount of a loan not to exceed 80 per cent of the actual price to the farm machinery syndicate of the farm machinery to be purchased with the loan: and to provide also for the establishment in the consolidated revenue fund of a special account not to exceed $25,000,000 to which shall be charged advances made to the Farm Credit Corporation and to which shall be credited all moneys paid to the Receiver General by the corporation and
[Mr. Gregoire.)
for other financial provisions in relation to the said fund in connection with the administration of the measure.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Barnett: 1.	What, for each of the fiscal years commencing with 1920-21, are expenditures made by the marine services branch of the Department of Transport on the seacoast of British Columbia for aids to navigation, including capital and operating costs of visual aids and the operation and servicing of harbour facilities and the provision and maintenance of sea rescue services?
2.	What, for each of the fiscal years commencing with 1920-21, are expenditures made by the Department of Transport for the provision and operation of electronic aids to navigation on the sea-coast of British Columbia?
3.	What, for each of the fiscal years commencing with 1920-21, are expenditures made for the sea-coast of British Columbia for the provision and operation of services under the marine regulations branch of the Department of Transport?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Aids to navigation and sea rescue
service:
1945-46	$ 517,000
1946-47	707,000
1947-48	728,000
1948-49	763,000
1949-50	1,767,000
1950-51	1,289,000
1951-52	934,000
1952-53	1,037,000
1953-54	1,302,000
1954-55	1,200,000
1955-56	2,012,000
1956-57	2,170,000
1957-58	3,032,000
1958-59	4,966,000
1959-60	5,258,000
1960-61	2,303,000
1961-62	3,751,000
1962-63	4,052,000
1963-64	4,233,000
The above figures include the operating and capital costs of aids to navigation and Canadian coastguard vessels, excluding weather ships, based at Victoria and Prince Rupert marine agencies. The details of expenditures for prior years are not available.
2.	Radio aids to marine navigation:
1945- 46	$ 434,000
1946- 47	253,000

The details of expenditures are not available.	for prior
3. Marine regulations branch:	
1945-46	$ 77,000
1946-47	79,000
1947-48	89,000
1948-49	123,000
1949-50	174,000
1950-51	287,000
1951-52	273,000
1952-53	259,000
1953-54	251,000
1954-55	315,000
1955-56	318,000
1956-57	275,000
1957-58	265,000
1958-59	294,000
1959-60	343,000
1960-61	421,000
1961-62	457,000
1962-63	471,000
1963-64	471,000
The details of expenditures for prior years are not available.


FREIGHT HANDLING, NORTH SYDNEY  PORT AUX BASQUES FERRY
Mr. Scott: 1.	With regard to the new freight ferry service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques, has the government decided whether or not the transfer of freight will be made at the North Sydney end of the ferry or at the Port aux Basques end of the ferry and, if so, what were the considerations which influenced the decision of the government?
2.	Has the government made a study as to the economic effects of such decision on the economies of North Sydney and Port aux Basques and, if so, what were the natures of such studies and their conclusions?
20220-504i
Questions
3.	If the decision in paragraph 1 referred to has not been made, when does the government expect to be able to make an announcement of
such decision?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1, 2 and 3. A consequence of the decision to improve the present freight service between North Sydney and Port aux Basques by the substitution of a rail car ferry for existing methods will be the elimination of transfer operations at one of the two ports. Technical and operating considerations strongly favour the use of Port aux Basques for the transfer operations.
Since the difference in gauge is not sufficient to permit an additional narrow-gauge track on the ferry, transfer at Port aux Basques will make possible greater carriage of freight in the vessel by use of the larger gauge equipment. Moreover, Port aux Basques is not subject to ice conditions and is thus accessible in all seasons. Development and use of an alternative mainland port with the transfer facilities involved for use during severe ice conditions would be extremely costly and inefficient. With transfer at Port aux Basques all that is required at an alternative port is the facilities to move the cars on board ship. It is also the case that transfer of freight to Newfoundland coastal service vessels at Port aux Basques can be done directly from mainland cars, thus eliminating the double transfer that would otherwise take place.
The effect on employment would be approximately the same at either port. Since the community of Port aux Basques is almost totally dependant for its existence upon the operations of the ferry service, and since a greater variety of employment is available at North Sydney this additional consideration reinforces the strong technical advantages of making the transfers at Port aux Basques.
The government and the Canadian National Railways are investigating the probable impact of these changes on employment in North Sydney with a view to considering what steps might usefully be taken to ease the effects of the transition which is not expected to take place until 1967, at which time it is expected at least three other ferries will be operating out of North Sydney.


SEAPLANE BASE, ROCKCLIFFE AIRPORT, OTTAWA
Mr. Thompson: Does the Department of National Defence intend to retain Rockcliffe airport as a seaplane base?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: No. Arrangements are be-

Questions
ing made to have the seaplane base at Rock-cliffe transferred to the Department of Transport.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION CONTRACTS TO ENAMEL HEATING AND PRODUCTS
Mr. Coales: 1.	What was the dollar value of contracts awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Enamel Heating and Products Limited, for the fiscal years 1959-60, 1960-61, 1961-62, 1962-63, 1963-64 and the estimated value of contracts for 1964-65?
2.	What was the employment figure for the above years?
3.	What is the present employment at the plant located at Amherst, N.S.?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	The dollar values of prime contracts awarded by the head office and district offices of the Department of Defence Production to Enamel Heating and Products Limited are as
follows:
1959-	60	$1,431,4921960-	61	66,9521961-	62	2,558,5361962-	63	378,2101963-	64	1,177,6531964-	65 (April-July 31)	350,583*
'Information on the value of contracts placed in 1964/65 is available only to the end of July. An estimate of the value of contracts placed to the end of the current fiscal year cannot be made since it is the policy of the department to award contracts as the result of competitive tender, wherever possible.
2.	The following are the average employment figures for these fiscal years:
1959-60	227
1960-61	235
1961-62	214
1962-63	218
1963-64	234
1964-65	204
(Average for 5 month period April 1 to August 31, 1964).
3.	The present employment figure is 180.


C. A. BILLETT-EMPLOYMENT AT H.M.C. &quot;DOCKYARD&quot;, ESQUIMALT
Mr. Chailerton: 1.	What were the exact periods of employment of Mr. Clarence A. Billett in H.M.C. Dockyard, Esquimau, since May, 1954?
2.	Did Commodore W. A. Winnett send a registered letter dated December 28, 1962, to Mr. Billett stating that Mr. Billett had used up his sick leave, annual leave and 30 days without pay and, if so (a) as of December 28, 1962, how many days sick leave and annual leave did Mr. Billett

have to his credit and how many days of each had he actually used up (b) on December 28, 1962, how many days of leave without pay had Mr. Billett used up?
3.	Did Mr. Billett lose his seniority between August 29, 1962 and January 21, 1963 and, if so, on what date and for what reason?
4.	(a) What are the names of the persons who were present at Mr. Billett's initial hearing on June 17, 1963 (b) which of these persons gave evidence on Mr. Billett's case, and which of such persons gave evidence under oath (c) how many written statements were filed at the hearing with respect to the charge against Mr. Billett and by whom (d) which of such statements were duly sworn to (e) was Mr. Billett given the chance to cross examine any of the witnesses and, if not, for what reason?
5.	(a) What are the names of the persons who were present during the investigation of Mr. Billett's case on June 20, 1963 (b) which of these persons gave evidence on Mr. Billett's case (c) which of such persons gave evidence under oath (d) was Mr. Billett given the chance to cross examine the witnesses and, if not, for what reason?
6.	Did Mr. Billett file an appeal against his suspension or dismissal in June, 1963 and, if so (a) before whom was the appeal heard (b) was sworn evidence given during this appeal and by whom (c) was Mr. Billett given the opportunity of being present when his appeal was being considered and, if not, for what reason?
7.	Did Mr. Billett file proper grievance papers with respect to his suspension or dismissal in June, 1963 and, if so, what detailed action was taken on his grievance?
8.	Have any written adverse reports been filed on Mr. Billett's employment in the dockyard since May, 1954 and, if so (a) on what dates were such reports filed and what was the nature of such adverse reports (b) was Mr. Billett informed as to the contents of any adverse reports and, if so, on what dates; if not, for what reason?
9.	(a) What was the reason for Mr. Billett being struck off strength of the dockyard in June, 1963 (b) was Mr. Billett advised in writing as to the reason for such dismissal (c) what was Mr. Billett's status as to seniority in the dockyard in June 1963?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. 29 March, 1954 to 26 June, 1958, (Released-absent over 30 days); 24 April, 1959 to 26 June, 1959, (Laid off- lack of work); 21 July, 1959 to 22 April, 1959, (Laid off-lack of work); 7 September, 1960 to 27 October, 1960, (Laid off-lack of work); 13 December, 1960 to 4 April, 1961, (Laid off-lack of work); 5 January, 1962 to 30 March, 1962, (Laid off-lack of work); 1 May, 1962 to 30 May, 1962, (Laid off-lack of work); 13 August, 1962 to 29 August, 1962, (Laid off-lack of work); 21 January, 1963 to 27 June, 1963, (Laid off-lack of work).
2.	Commodore Winnett sent a letter to Mr. Billett on 28 December, 1962, advising him that he had used all his sick leave, annual leave, and, in addition, 30 days leave without pay prior to his release on 26 June, 1958. This letter was not registered, (a) Nil.

146 hours sick leave credits and 13J hours annual leave, (b) At least 30 days.
3.	No. In accordance with departmental regulations, Mr. Billett was not entitled to seniority commencing 29 August, 1962. The pertinent regulation states that a casual employee must have at least six months continuous service immediately preceding release.
4.	(a) Commander H. B. Bolus, production officer; Mr. A. Francis, a/prod. (Hull); Mr. J. Eriksen, foreman (shop 15); Mr. R. Green, shop steward (shop 15); Mr. D. L. McLarty, scaler and cleaner.
(b)	No oral evidence was given, however, sworn statements including one from Mr. D. L. McLarty were read.
(c)	4. Mr. J. E. Austin, commissionnaire; Mr. D. L. McLarty, scaler and cleaner; Mr. J. E. Armour, Victoria machinery depot employee; Mr. H. Hardy, Victoria machinery depot employee.
(d)	All.
(e)	Yes.
5.	(a) Captain E. Revfem, manager ship repair; Mr. A. C. N. Smith, manager civilian personnel; Mr. J. Wolfenden, master attendant; Mr. A. Francis, a/prod. (Hull); Mr. R. Green, shop steward (shop 15); Mr. J. E. Austin, commissionaire; Mr. J. E. Armour, Victoria machinery depot employee; Mr. H. Hardy, Victoria machinery depot employee; Mr. C. A. Billett, Mr. D. L. McLarty, scaler and cleaner.
(b)	Written evidence was given by: Mr. J. E. Austin, commissionaire; Mr. D. L. McLarty, scaler and cleaner; Mr. J. E. Armour, Victoria machinery depot employee; Mr. H. Hardy, Victoria machinery depot employee.
(c)	None, as the evidence was presented in the form of sworn statements.
(d)	Yes.
6.	Yes. By letter 24 June, 1963 to commodore superintendent Pacific coast asking for reconsideration and stating that if no reconsideration was given, he (Mr. Billett) intended to take his appeal to Ottawa, (a) (b) and (c). Mr. Billett was advised by letter 27 June, 1963 that the suspension would stand and he was informed that if he intended to appeal the case to the naval secretary, national defence headquarters, he should submit relevant grounds by letter to the commodore superintendent Pacific coast for onward transmittal.
7.	No.
8.	Yes.
(a)	The employee efficiency rating reports completed on 4 September, 1962 and 2 July,
Questions
1963 reflected a low average; (b) No, as he had been laid off.
9.	(a) Lack of work; (b) Mr. Billett was not dismissed; (c) Mr. Billett did not possess seniority status in June 1963 as he did not have six months unbroken service immediately preceding his release.


* TRAINING COURSES FOR T.C.A. STEWARDESSES
Mr. Valade: 1.	Are the training courses given to prospective air stewardesses of T.C.A. given in English only and, if so, for what reason?
2.	If courses are given in both languages, on what date did this practice commence?


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The
management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
1 and 2. The instruction of stewardess trainees is normally conducted in English with, however, such additional instruction in French as individual cases may require. This has been the practice for the past three years. [Text]


* GRADUATION OF T.C.A. STEWARDESSES, MAY, 1964
Mr. Valade: 1.	At the graduation of air stewardesses in May, 1964, did T.C.A. have "O Canada" sung in English only?
2.	How many air stewardesses graduated on that occasion and of that number (a) how many were French speaking (b) how many were English speaking (c) how many were bilingual?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The management of Trans-Canada Air Lines advise as follows:
1.	The members of the stewardess class which graduated on May 23, 1964, sang "O Canada" in English.
2.	Seventy three stewardesses graduated from training on May 23, 1964. All graduates were bilingual.


ARMED FORCES DISPLAY, CENTRAL CANADA EXHIBITION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What was the total cost to the government of the armed forces display at the central Canada exhibition of August 1964?
2.	How many members of the armed forces were employed at the armed forces display?
3.	How many civilians were so employed?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Cost of moving and in-

Questions
stalling display aircraft, transportation and temporary duty for personnel manning the display, $1,162.33.
2.	42.
3.	Nil.


HAMILTON, ONT.    FOOD DISTRIBUTION AND PRICING BOARD
Mr. Howe (Hamilton South): 1.	What are the names of the members of the food distribution and pricing board appointed in Hamilton, Ontario under the Department of Defence Production?
2.	What are the qualifications of each of these men?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1
and 2. There is no organization in Hamilton, Ontario, associated with the Department of Defence Production and known as the "food distribution and pricing board". However, in that area to date, persons have been recruited on a stand-by basis to the war supplies agency by the Department of Defence Production to have responsibilities in the event of a nuclear war for the distribution, rationing and price control of food. The individuals concerned have requested that their names not be disclosed.


RECEIVING STATION FOR U.S. WEATHER SATELLITE
Mr. Maiher: Is consideration being given to locating a receiving station for the new U.S. weather satellite in British Columbia?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No.


GRANTS TO MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What assistance, financial or otherwise, has been provided by the federal government to the Canadian mental health association in each of the last five years?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The assistance provided the Canadian mental health association by the Department of National Health and Welfare consists of formal and informal consultation and collaboration as well as regular financial assistance. The chief of the department's mental health division is a member of the scientific planning council of the association and the public information officer of the division participates as an observer at these meetings. In addition to this technical and scientific assistance, there is collaboration in the production of materials for use by the association in its public education program.
An annual grant of $15,000 is made to this organization.


HOSPITAL CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
In each province, what federal construction grants have been made to hospitals in each of the last five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Under the national health grants program, the following hospital construction grants were made to the provinces in the fiscal years 1959-64:
Province	1959-60 $
Nfld.	199,479
P.E.I.	132,196
N.S.	89,249
N.B.	210,259
Que.	4,685,615
Ont.	6,613,966
Man.	535,782
Sask.	642,009
Alta.	402,333
B.C.	1,429,274
N.W.T.	418
Yukon	$14,940,580
Fiscal Year
1960-61	1961-62
$	$
71,350	592,489
169,579	17,583
1,322,765	1,139,928
396,529	350,710
4,955,941	4,988,422
6,998,643	7,620,395
1,200,971	1,191,392
803,333	761,446
322,083	1,328,445
1,354,008	1,009,186
$17,595,202	$18,999,996
1962-63	1963-64
$	$
633,404	958,929
133,667	80,498
1,319,249	1,136,907
700,200	1,092,846
5,785,907	5,882,671
6,558,364	7,500,482
825,066	957,816
880,777	1,510,470
1,694,021	1,973,652
1,463,459	880,632
5,886	21,895
-	3,202
$20,000,000	$22,000,000


GRANTS TO HEALTH LEAGUE
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What assistance, financial or otherwise, has been provided by the federal government to the health league of Canada in each of the last five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare co-operate with the health league of Canada by providing, on request, data on certain aspects of illness and health in Canada and by suggesting sources of additional information. The department also assists the league in publicizing special programs, such as health week and immunization week, through the publication of appropriate items in departmental periodicals, such as "Canada's Health and Welfare", "Canada's Mental Health" and the "Health Education Bulletin."
An annual grant of $15,000 is made to this organization.


GRANTS TO ASSOCIATION FOR RETARDED CHILDREN
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What assistance, financial or otherwise, has been provided by the federal government to the Canadian association for retarded children in each of the last five years?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: The Canadian association for retarded children is assisted by the Department of National Health and Welfare in several ways. There is formal and informal consultation on matters such as research and public information. Officers of the mental health and child and maternal health divisions of the department have served regularly on the association's scientific research advisory board.
Since 1959-60 an annual grant has been made to this organization of $5,000. The estimates for the current year provide for an increase in this grant to $15,000.


GRANT TO COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,839
Mr. Websfer:: 1.	Does the federal government make a contribution to the Canadian council for research in education and, if so, how much?
2.	Who has been appointed to organize the scientific secretariat announced on April 30, 1964, by the Prime Minister and how large a staff has been appointed to assist him?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy
Council): 1. No.
2. Professor F. A. Forward assumed the duties of director of the scientific secretariat
Questions
effective July 1, 1964. To date no other staff has been appointed apart from the provision of a secretary to the director.


LICENSING OF CONTRACTORS FOR INDUSTRIAL RADIOGRAPHY
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
1.	What action is the atomic energy control board taking to control the qualifications and licensing of outside industrial contractors for industrial radiography?
2.	What safety regulations does the atomic energy control board prescribe for such contractors?
3.	Are these safety regulations enforced and, if so, how are they enforced?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Under the atomic energy control regulations no person may obtain or use radioactive materials in Canada without a licence from the atomic energy control board. A licence is not granted to an industrial contractor to use radioactive materials for radiography purposes until the board's advisers in the federal and provincial health departments are satisfied that he has suitable radiography and protective equipment and is experienced in the safe handling of radioactive materials. Moreover, any licence issued contains the condition that no employee be permitted to carry out radiography operations unsupervised until he has received adequate training in the fundamentals of radiation protection and the use of protective equipment as well as training in the use and maintenance of radiography equipment. The board and its advisers accept the Canadian government standards certification as proof of such training and the contractors concerned have been notified that the board will shortly require all radiographers, except those in training, to have such certification.
2.	A radiography licence issued by the board requires the licensee to comply with the health and safety provisions of the atomic energy control regulations as well as additional safety precautions recommended by the board's health advisers.
3.	These regulations and additional requirements are enforced by officers of the Department of National Health and Welfare, provincial departments of health and provincial departments of labour acting as board inspectors. In addition, the Department of National Revenue (customs) assists the board by preventing the importation of radioactive materials by other than board licensees.

Questions


DESIGNATED AREAS UNDER TAX INCENTIVE PROGRAM
Mr. Lessard (Lake St.: John):
1.	What are the 23 designated areas where new industries have been established?
2.	What is the type of industry in each?
3.	What is the amount invested in each case?
4.	How many jobs were created in each case?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The 23 designated areas in which 119 firms have signified their intention of establishing in such a manner as to benefit from the federal tax incentives program are as follows: Brantford, Chatham, Cornwall, Pembroke, Timmins, Wallaceburg, Windsor, Causapscal, Louiseville, Matane, Mont Lau-rier, Rouyn, St. Jean, Shawinigan, Val d'Or, Campbellton, Minto, St. Stephen, Sussex, Amherst, New Glasgow, Springhill, Blair-more.
These represent a total planned investment of about $280 million and an estimated total employment of 10,344 people.
2. The government is aware of the following types of new industries, grouped by designated area and standard industrial classification, which have started production in reasonable commercial quantities:
Type of industry according
Designated	to standard industrial
Area	classification
Brantford	Metal fabrication Machinery Transportation equipment Electrical products Non-metallic minerals Miscellaneous
Cornwall	Miscellaneous
Timmins	Wood
Windsor	Metal fabrication Electrical Transportation equipment
Matane	Transportation equipment
Mont Laurier	Non-metallic minerals
Rouyn	Metal fabrication
St. Jean	Knitted goods
Shawinigan	Textiles Paper Chemicals Miscellaneous
Val d'Or	Wood
Campbellton	Chemicals
St. Stephen	Textiles
Amherst	Clothing
New Glasgow	Wood
Springhill	Food
3 and 4. The	government is aware of 28
new industries which have started production 	
in reasonable commercial quantities. These have estimated the following capital investment and employment:
Estimated capital investment

Estimated
employment
52
12
930
5 4
125
100
60
18
13 39 25
6 8 9
42
14 80 14 75
1,827


ROADS TO RESOURCES AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	When will the present roads to resources agreement between Canada and the province of Nova Scotia terminate?
2.	What, if any, routes in Guysborough county, N.S., other than the Goldboro Loop road, were proposed by the province for inclusion under this program?
3.	What are the routes, in Nova Scotia, constructed or to be constructed under the program?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. March 31, 1966.
2.	None.
3.	The following routes are contained in the roads to resources agreement with the province of Nova Scotia:
(1)	(a) The Cabot Trail, (i) reconstruction from the trans-Canada highway near Hun-

ter's Mount to Findlay son, approximately 12 miles, completed; (ii) reconstruction from the boundary of Cape Breton Highlands national park through Pleasant bay to the boundary of Cape Breton Highlands national park, approximately two miles completed; (iii) reconstruction from the north boundary of Cape Breton Highlands national park through Cape North to the north boundary of Cape Breton Highlands national park near South Harbour, approximately nine miles, completed; (iv) reconstruction from the present end of pavement at Ingonish Beach through north shore, Bara-chois bridge, North river bridge and St. Ann to the trans-Canada highway near South Haven, approximately 46 miles, completed.
(2)	Peggy's Cove road improvement of road from end of pavement at Peggy's Cove to beginning of pavement at Whites lake approximately 13 miles; completed.
(3)	Yarmouth Light road, from Yarmouth town limit to Yarmouth Light, approximately seven miles; completed.
(4)	Goldboro loop from end of pavement at Goshen through Country Harbour cross roads, Stormont, Goldboro, Seal Harbour, New Harbour and Charo's Cove to highway 16 east of Queensport, approximately 57 miles; not completed.
(5)	Hants county shore road from Union Corner near Brooklyn, through Cheverie, Walton, Noel, Maitland, Urbania and Admiral Rock to Shubenacadie, approximately 70 miles; not completed.
(6)	Tidnish shore road from highway No. 6 near Amherst through Tidnish and Northport and East Lindon to highway 6 near Port Howe, approximately 31 miles completed.
(7)	Arisaig loop from end of pavement near Lismore through Knoydart, McAras Brook, Arisaig, Doctor Brook, Malignant Cove and North Grant to Antigonish town limit, approximately 22 miles; not completed.
(8)	Grand Narrows road from end of pavement at Grand Anse through Dundee, West Bay road, Marble Mountain, Orangedale, Iona, Grand Narrows, Shenacadie, Beaver Cove, Boisdale to Barachois harbour, approximately 81 miles; not completed.
(9)	Kedgemakooge lake road from Lequile near Annapolis Royal through Graywood, South Milford and Maitland bridge to Kempt, approximately 32 miles; completed.
(10)	Long Island road from Freeport to Tiverton, approximately 11 miles; completed.
(11)	Cape Blomidon road from Pereau through Blomidon to Cape Split, approximately nine miles; not completed.
Questions
(12)	Parrsboro shore road from end of pavement at Port Greville to Advocate, approximately 12 miles completed.
(13)	Bay St. Lawrence road from Cape North village through Capstick to Neat Cove, together with a spur to Bay St. Lawrence, approximately 17 miles; not completed.
(14)	Englishtown road from Barachois bridge through Englishtown to the trans-Canada highway, approximately seven miles not completed.
(15)	Blandford loop from East river through Deep Cove, Blandford and Bayswater to end of pavement near Hubbard's, approximately 24 miles; not completed.
(16)	Riverport road from end of pavement at LaHave ferry to highway 3 near Dayspring, approximately eight miles completed.


CONFERENCE ON WATER DESALINATION
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
Has the Canadian government received an invitation from the United States government to participate in the first international symposium on water desalination to be held in Washington in October, 1965 and, if so, has the invitation been accepted?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Yes.
2. Not yet, but departments and other interested private agencies are being consulted.


SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO AGRICULTURE MINISTER
Mr. Millar: Has the Minister of Agriculture engaged a special assistant and, if so (a) what is his name (b) what was his former employment (c) what is his experience and qualifications (d) what are his duties (e) what is his salary (f) what was the date of his engagement?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Yes.
(a)	Don Peacock.
(b)	Reporter in parliamentary press gallery.
(c)	A native of High River, Alberta, Mr. Peacock spent many of his early years in rural Alberta, acquiring a familiarity with agriculture through personal experience as a farm hand. During his 11 years in the parliamentary press gallery, he was at various times responsible for reporting on the activities of the Canada Department of Agriculture and through this acquired background knowledge of its activities.
(d)	His duties are to assist the Minister of Agriculture with the various details in-

Questions
volved in caring for the interests of all Canadians in the efficient, economic and stable production of food in this country.
(e)	$11,800 per annum.
(f)	April 20, 1964.


IMPOUNDING OF CATTLE, SUFFIELD EXPERIMENTAL STATION
Mr. Horner (Acadia): With reference to the impounding of livestock by the defence research board at the Suffield experimental station, what was the reason for the increase or decrease in cattle impounded during (a) 1961 (b) 1962 (c) 1963?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Aerial patrols of the experimental area, which were put into effect in December, 1960 gave more thorough and easier surveillance of the range and resulted in increased pick-ups. It is believed that the decrease is due to the aerial patrols encouraging greater precautions being taken to avoid intrusion of cattle into the restricted area.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, CAPE BRETON HIGHLANDS PARK
Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon: North and Vicloria):
How much has been expended in wages at the Cape Breton Highlands national park for each fiscal year from 1953 to the present time in the following categories (a) civil servants' salaries (b) prevailing rate employees' wages (i) operation and maintenance (ii) construction work?


Arthur Laing: Expenditures in wages at the Cape Breton Highlands national park:
Wages
opera-
Salaries tion and Wages
civil	main-	construcservants	tenance	tion1953-54	31,213	99,191	X1954-55	34,663	95,983	X1955-56	36,788	100,087	X1956-57	41,604	114,377	X1957-58	43,231	121,105	X1958-59	45,731	124,291	X1959-60	50,731	151,300	X1960-61	60,845	159,346	X1961-62	68,373	158,084	X1962-63	75,585	171,739	X1963-64	97,349	176,648	151,3051964-65 Aug. 31/64	40,147	90,616	43,370x-Construction	wages	were not	recorded
separately between 1953-54 and 1962-63 inclusive.


LOW RENTAL HOUSING PROJECT, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: 1.	Was there an agreement between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the town of Yarmouth or Yarmouth Housing Ltd., covering the construction and operation of a low-rental housing community in that town and, if so, was there provision made that these units be rented only to families in a low-income bracket and what would be the income ceiling for admission?
2.	In these agreements entered into by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the housing companies, do these ceilings continue to apply when the occupants' income increases and, if so, is eviction taken by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation or by the housing company?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: 1. There are agreements between Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Yarmouth Housing Limited covering the construction and operation of two projects containing a total of 56 units built for families of low income. The agreements contain provision that the projects are to be leased to families of low income. The income limit for admission in respect of one of the projects is $2,250 and $2,306 in respect of the second project.
2. In these particular agreements, the income ceiling refers only to the income applicable at the time of the commencement of the lease.


FERRY CONSTRUCTION, CAPE TORMENTINE, N.B.-BORDEN, P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean (Queens): 1.	Has the design of the ferry to be constructed for operation by the Canadian National railways between Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick and Borden, Prince Edward Island been completed?
2.	What firm of naval architects have been engaged in this work?
3.	Have tenders been called for the construction of this vessel and, if so (a) what company was the successful bidder (b) where is the ferry being constructed?
4.	What is the target date for completion of this
vessel?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. Yes.
2.	G. T. R. Campbell & Company, Montreal, Que.
3.	Tenders have been called and are due on November 25, 1964.
4.	December 1967.


UNEMPLOYED AGE GROUPS, HAMILTON, ONT.
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What proportion of the following age groups are presently unemployed in Hamilton, Ontario (a) 15 to 24 years (b) 25 to 34 years (c) 35 to 44 years (d) 45 to 54 years (e) 55 to 65 years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Information is not available on the number of unemployed in Hamilton.


UNEMPLOYED AGE GROUPS. CANADA
Mr. Howe (Hamilton: South):
What proportions of the following age groups are presently unemployed in Canada (a)	15 to
24 years (b) 25 to 34 years (c) 35 to 44 years (d) 45 to 54 years (e) 55 to 65 years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Unemployment ratesd) for specified age groups, week ended July 18, 1964, Canada: 15 to 24 years, 7.3; 25 to 34 years, 2.4; 35 to 44 years, 2.0; 45 to 54 years, 2.5; 55 to 64 years, 2.8.
<UThe unemployed as a percentage of the labour force.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MacRae: 1.	For the province of New Brunswick, how many cases of war pensioners (all classifications) were operated on or treated medically outside of Lancaster military hospital for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1963 and for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1964?
2.	What was the diagnosis and treatment: in what hospital did it take place; and who was the surgeon and attending physician?
3.	How were these cases dealt with by the treatment officer and under what rule and regulation was the case accepted or turned down?
4.	Who were the treatment officers involved in each case?
5.	How many cases were paid for as an emergency and how many were paid who had prior authorization for the so-called elective admission?
6.	In how many cases was authorization given after so-called elective admission?
Return tabled.


PUBLIC SERVICE APPOINTMENTS BY ORDER IN COUNCIL
Mr. MacRae: 1.	Who are the employees of the public service appointed by order in council in receipt of a salary in excess of $18,000 per annum?
2.	What is the exact salary of each?
3.	What is the position that each fills?
Return tabled.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think I will direct
Inquiries of the Ministry this question to the Prime Minister. It arises out of an article which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail entitled "Baby seal killing", and so forth. The article deals with a full page story in the German newspaper Weekend circulated in many countries, entitled "This scandal should shock the world". The article suggests that the killing of seals is so cruel and inhumane that action should be taken and that, among other things, letters should be directed to the Prime Minister and to myself in this connection.
I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has not received almost an avalanche of letters on this question; and whether under the circumstances, in view of the statement as far back as May last, in answer to questions by myself and other members, that amendments would be made to the law to put an end to this practice which, as described, is dastardly cruel. Among the matters that will be introduced before this session ends will there be legislation to bring about an end to this practice and to improve Canada's image, which cannot but be seriously damaged in this regard.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the article in question in the German Weekend magazine, though I will take steps to get a copy of it. My right hon. friend knows that the Minister of Fisheries made a statement in the house, I think it was last week, in which he indicated that action was going to be taken in respect of this matter and that he would make a report to the house shortly in regard to that action. I will be glad to look into the matter along the lines suggested by my right hon. friend.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I then ask the Minister of Fisheries, now that four or five months have passed since he undertook, in answer to the hon. member for Ontario, to bring in legislation, whether this legislation will be introduced so that this practice which seriously defaces Canada's image will at least be subject to punishment.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisier of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as I have stated on numerous occasions in this house, the government and this department are concerned with the practice which has been going on for a number of years in respect of the killing of seals. As I stated in reply to a question by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam last Thursday, I believe it was, the regulations respecting the killing of seals in Atlantic

Inquiries of the Ministry waters are under revision, and amendments will be made to the present regulations. For the information of the right hon. gentleman I may say that no legislation is required in this house to amend such regulations; this can be done by order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in so far as these offences are committed within Canada's territorial waters, is the Criminal Code sufficient in the opinion of the minister; and if so, why has not action been taken under the Criminal Code?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: As I have just said, Mr. Speaker, this practice has been going on for a number of years, and this year was the first occasion on which the government made special representations to the industry and to those concerned, and ordered a special survey in order to determine the extent of the excesses which were going on. This matter does not come under the Criminal Code but under fisheries regulations and, as I have said and want to repeat, the regulations will be amended to control the killing of seals, before the opening of the 1965 season.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence regarding the answer he gave to a question asked by my colleague the hon. member for Hamilton South, in connection with the actions of the R.C.A.F. police at La Macaza during certain peace demonstrations there.
In his answer last Friday the minister said that the allegations contained in a certain newspaper article were false. I should like to ask the minister who made this investigation, since I have in my hand a report from persons who participated. The information is that in the first charge by the 100 guards against some 23 demonstrators at the main gate, one young man was dragged by his hair along the road, a girl was kicked between the legs and a number of people were cruelly seized by the chin and by the back of the neck; that in the second attack several persons were kicked in the side, and one young man who participated said "I was jerked about by six guards, stretched out and then literally tossed up into the air over the ditch, and I heard the sergeant in charge of the guards say to the other guards


'This is your last chance to throw them off the road so make it good.' ". Also, those who took part in this demonstration say that the R.C.A.F. police endeavoured to stop pictures being taken of this demonstration and of the attack which they claim was inexcusably brutal.
I therefore want to ask the associate minister who made this investigation, as a result of which he told the house that the statements contained in the article were utterly false.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot name the exact persons who made the inquiry, but an inquiry was made of the commanding officer at the station, La Macaza From the reports that we have, Mr. Speaker it was quite evident that there had to be at some periods, some contact between the R.C.A.F. police and the demonstrators.
As you perhaps know, what the demonstrators did was to lie in the middle of the road and try to block incoming traffic. Of course the R.C.A.F. police had to pick the people up from the ground, these people automatically went limp, and the police had to take them away from the road. This happened on perhaps two or three occasions when trucks were to come into the station, and in order to bring the number of contacts to the least number possible most of the traffic was directed so that it would come in through the back entrance of the station. Only thre or four trucks or vehicles, if my information is correct, came through the front entrance where the demonstrators were F'rom all the reports we have received, all possible precaution was taken to make sure that none of these demonstrators were hurt.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question. If, as claimed by those who took part, there was inexcusable brutality, one would hardly expect this to be reported to the minister by those in charge of the station and who were responsible for the guards' actions. I would therefore like to ask, as a supplementary question to the Prime Minister, whether he is prepared to order an investigation by individuals outside the depart-record to protect, in order that those who ment, who have no actions to hide and no claim to have been mishandled will have an opportunity to state their case and we will have an opportunity to see whether or not the kind of brutal treatment which is alleged actually took place, or whether it is purely a figment of somebody's imagination. I hope

the Prime Minister will agree to such an investigation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into the matter, Mr. Speaker.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am sure the minister joins all of us in this house in our concern for the safety of Canadians who are presently in the Stanleyville area of the communist backed rebel regime in the eastern Congo, particularly those of us who know some of the people personally. Does the minister have any information for us about the safety of the five members of the McMillan family and other Canadians who may be held by rebels in the area?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the house shares my hon. friend's concern about the safety of Canadians in this particular area. This morning the Canadian embassy in Leopoldville reported, in response to a telegram sent from the Department of External Affairs on Saturday, that the local representative in Leopoldville of the mission of which Rev. Mr. McMillan is a member, reports that to the best of his organization's knowledge Mr. and Mrs. McMillan and their six children are all in Boyulu, a mission post about 100 miles east of Stanleyville. The embassies of the United States and Great Britain are both assuming from these reports that the entire McMillan family is still in this community. None of these sources is aware of the information contained in the radio report of last Saturday. That is the only information I have at the moment.


VIET NAM
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the deteriorating political situation in Viet Nam and the very recent communication the minister has had with the secretary of state of the United States, can he give the house a report on just what the situation is there?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend
Inquiries of the Ministry the member for New Westminster gave me notice of his intention to ask a similar question. I can only say that the events of the past week end have, of course, been of great concern. On the basis of recent information it would appear that General Khanh's government has successfully overcome the recent challenge to his authority, and that this has taken place without bloodshed, loss of life or violence. I had the opportunity of discussing this matter with Mr. Rusk when he kindly visited me this morning in Windsor, but I do not believe there is anything more that I can publicly state now.


REPORTED DIFFICULTY IN TRANSPORTING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs could say a word about the situation in Cyprus. There is a good deal of concern about the fact that there appears to be a blockade with regard to Turkish Cypriots, so that the United Nations are having to use helicopters to get Turkish Red Cross supplies to the people in Kokkina. In view of the fact that a short time ago the Canadian government made money available for Red Cross supplies for the people of Cyprus, are the Red Cross continuing to experience difficulty in getting freedom of movement and freedom of access so that Red Cross supplies can be taken to needy people whether they are Turkish Cypriots or Greek Cypriots?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I have not been informed that the Red Cross have had continuing difficulty. There have been occasions when the Red Cross and other bodies have encountered difficulty, but this has generally been corrected.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice. Can the minister tell the house whether any date has yet been set for the meeting between himself and the attorneys general of the provinces to discuss the repatriation of the Canadian constitution?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the dates of the 1st and 2nd of October have been set aside for that purpose.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister assure the house that before the conference meets the house will be informed of the formula for the amendment of the constitution in Canada that the government will put before the provincial representatives?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I shall consider this suggestion and report to the house on the government's decision in this respect.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister also take into consideration providing an opportunity for the house to express its views on the government's proposals to the attorneys general before they are actually presented, so they might have the benefit of the views of the other parties in this parliament?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, one way in which this could be done, and it is an apt suggestion, would be for my estimates to be called as early as possible, and I shall arrange for them to be called on the occasion of the first supply motion which has been announced by the Prime Minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice?
Could the minister tell us whether the statement made by the hon. member for Drum-mond-Arthabaska to the effect that it would be impossible and dangerous to revise the constitution reflects the principles and policy of this government?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the pleasure of hearing the speech of the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska, but I will be pleased to read it.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Has the minister any information to communicate to the house concerning the whereabouts of Hal Banks, our modern day A1 Capone?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I had proposed to give the house whatever information we may have gathered some time during this week, but I think that
[Mr. Favreau.)
once a week would be quite a good ratio in this respect.


John George Diefenbaker: I might ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister any information on the repatriation of Banks from the United States? Is he now able to answer the question I have asked several times, namely whether he has ascertained from the United States immigration authorities that Mr. Banks left Canada for the United States? And is the minister now in a position to advise whether counsel for the government have given the government the opinion that on the basis of the fact that the charge against Banks for which he is being sought is conspiracy, if Banks is in the United States no extradition is possible?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the last part of the question I must say it is the opinion of the Department of Justice that the offences for which Banks is being prosecuted or has been prosecuted are not extraditable offences. As to the first part of the question, I must say that although we have received full co-operation from the United States authorities the latter have not yet been able to define the whereabouts of Mr. Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: How long ago did the
government of Canada or the Department of Justice realize that once Banks got out on bail on this charge and left Canada, the sole recourse would be the estreatment of the bail bond, and that Banks would have flown and would be entirely free as long as he stayed in the United States?


Raymond Langlois: A supplementary question-


John George Diefenbaker: I want to know. There is gross negligence here somewhere, and I want to find out how long it has existed.


Guy Favreau: In view of the allegation of gross negligence just made by the right hon. gentleman I think I must repeat that at the time Banks asked for bail the department saw to it that counsel objected to any bail at all being granted. When the judge stated it was his intention to grant bail the suggestion was then made that bail ought not to be lower than $50,000. I repeat that everything possible has been done. When the chief justice of the court of appeal exercised his own discretion I think he did so with that sense of honesty and sense of justice for which he is well known.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to say about the honesty and integrity

of the chief justice, and I make that clear. However, I ask the minister this question. Did the law officers of the crown say that if Banks was let out on bail on the conspiracy charge and disappeared in the United States, the crown's only recourse would be the es-treatment of the bail? Did they say that?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman knows or ought to know that the fact that the offences with which the court was concerned at the time the bail was set were not extraditable offences surely was known to the court. I take it that in exercising his discretion the chief justice took all relevant matters into consideration in deciding to fix bail, and the fact that there was strong objection to any bail being set at all is the complete proof and demonstration that all relevant explanations were made to the court at the time.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that does not answer the question. Did the representatives of the crown advise the chief justice that the granting of bail under the circumstances could permit of Banks disappearing and not being subject to punishment? Was the chief justice so advised? After all, judges depend on counsel.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to put my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. A few days ago I asked the minister to set up a commission to inquire into the whole Hal Banks situation, having regard to the rumours going around that some members on the government side and high officials are concerned in the whole Banks mess. Would the minister consider forming a committee of inquiry to clean up the whole thing?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, there was an investigation set up by the previous government, and a report was remitted to the present administration. So far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that all relevant steps have been taken to see that justice is carried out. I do not believe there is cause for setting up a second investigation. However, I am speaking personally, as Minister of Justice, and I am ready to consult my colleagues on the suggestion.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: May I
ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Justice. Can we take it as a fact that Mr. Banks did not appear today in Montreal in connection with the appeal of his conviction and five year sentence which was before the courts today, September 14?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Guy Favreau: Mr. Banks did not appear today, Mr. Speaker. The appeal has been postponed until tomorrow, and if Banks does not appear in court tomorrow for the hearing of his appeal, counsel has been instructed to move for the dismissal of the appeal and to take the necessary steps immediately to have the bond forfeited.



MOOSE JAW, SASK.  OPERATION OF GRAIN DRYING FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: On Friday last the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre directed a question to the Minister of Agriculture, the full context of which is to be found on page 7879 of Hansard. The main part of the question is as follows:
Will the minister take steps to arrange for the operation of the elevator's grain drying facilities at full capacity so that the tough and damp grain can be put into condition for marketing or storing?
The minister replied he would be happy to bring this matter to the attention of the board of grain commissioners, and I am happy to provide on his behalf the following additional information. The movement of grain into the licensed elevator system comes within the jurisdiction of the Canadian wheat board. In the event the Canadian wheat board orders grain into the government elevator at Moose Jaw, or any other Canadian government elevator, the board of grain commissioners is now prepared to handle that grain which will require drying. Facilities will be available to the full extent of drying capacities.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport, and also draw the attention of the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Trade and Commerce to it. Perhaps their officials could take note. A week or more ago I informed the Department of Transport of the urgent need for shipping space for the bean growers in southern Ontario, and requested that action be taken in this regard. Can the minister tell me whether any progress has been made to date or is likely to be made in the immediate future? The bean

Inquiries of the Ministry industry involves over 8,000 growers or about 10,000 acres of well cultivated land in Ontario. The growers are in a position to sell their product to the United Kingdom at a price-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Has the hon. member asked his first question, and is this a second question?


Lewis Elston Cardiff: I have a second question.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I regret to say that I have not received a progress report from my department. I shall be glad to inquire and I hope to give the hon. gentleman a report tomorrow, and to consider very carefully the further representations he was in the process of making, of which he was good enough to give me a copy.



NEW BRUNSWICK


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to answer a question asked on Friday by the hon. member for Cumberland, who asked a similar question somewhat earlier of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister said he would draw it to my attention, and I must apologize to the hon. member for Cumberland for not answering it at the end of last week.
I have given very careful consideration to, and I have discussed with the officials of the Atlantic development board, the question of whether we would be warranted in asking for a reassessment of the decision of the Atlantic development board to assist the Mactaquac power development project in New Brunswick. I might say the board, in its initial examination of the project prior to recommending assistance, considered this project in the context of all potential power sources in the region, having regard to considerations of price, quantity, reliability and the time by which the increased amounts of power could be made available.
The Mactaquac project will come into operation by 1968, by which time the large block that will become available from the project will be urgently required in New Brunswick. It seems to me that in the light of these facts it would be wrong for the Atlantic development board or for this government to take any initiative in this matter, having regard particularly to the fact
[Mr. Cardiff.)
there is no other known source of power that could be available as early as 1968 for use in the area.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: May
I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister of Transport could indicate whether Premier Smallwood has requested the Atlantic development board for assistance or to do anything about the $20 million that has been allocated for assistance for Baie d'Espoir?


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, he has not. I would think, sir, it would be very unwise to have any delay in either of these power projects. We were satisfied, before recommending these very considerable grants, that power from both of them was going to be needed at the time the power would be developed. If the Hamilton scheme should be successful, and I certainly hope it will be, it will depend, of course, upon the export of a very considerable quantity of power to the United States, and the fact that we have this additional power from Baie d'Espoir and Mactaquac will mean we will have that much more developed wealth by that time. X am sure all Canadians, and particularly all members of the house from the Atlantic provinces, will rejoice to know that we will have.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I was going to ask the minister if he had a pleasant visit with the premier of Newfoundland over the week end.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes, I had a very pleasant visit, and I had an opportunity of attending a dinner given by the government of Newfoundland to the general council of the United Church, which was one of the finest functions I have ever attended in my life. However, it hardly seems to be very relevant to the business before the house.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: May I ask a supplementary question on a political rather than a religious note. Is the Atlantic development board assisting in the survey being conducted with regard to the Hamilton Falls project through the maritimes, and if not would the Atlantic development board assist in this survey? I am sure it is costly to Mr. Smallwood, and it might accelerate the survey if the Atlantic development board could be involved because it is a type of project the Atlantic development board was set up for originally.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the Atlantic development board would have been glad to consider a request for assistance for this

purpose, but no request was made. I am reasonably well informed about the survey that is being made. I believe it is being carried out just as rapidly as it is humanly possible for it to be done, and that additional financial assistance could not speed it up in any way. I understand that the fullest cooperation is being given by the power commissions of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and that it is expected that early in October there will be a definite feasibility report, which I must say I hope will be favourable.


Thomas Miller Bell: Does the minister appreciate that my only intention is to try to secure the best I can for Newfoundland?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate that, and I hope the hon. gentleman appreciates I am trying to do the best I can for New Brunswick, too.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: I should like to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Hamilton South with regard to a meeting with Hamilton municipal officials about the Mount Hope airport. Discussions took place on September 10 between senior officials of the department and representatives of the city of Hamilton regarding the future of the Mount Hope airport. These covered such matters as repair work which might be required, standards of operation and future use of the airport.
As a result of questions raised at the meeting, both sides are to exchange certain further information as a means of determining whether in fact the airport which is being given up by the Department of National Defence could be kept in operation by the city.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence I would direct it to the acting minister. It has reference to imports of turkeys into Canada from the United States. I might say I have had a number of telegrams on this matter, and possibly the minister has as well. Will he take immediate
Inquiries of the Ministry action to stop the tremendous importation of turkeys from the United States?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister announced last week that he is having a meeting today or tomorrow with the farmers who raise turkeys, and he will have an announcement to make on his return.


David Vaughan Pugh: As a supplementary, will the acting minister not agree that immediate and decisive action must be taken now, or is he not at all in conversation with the Minister of Agriculture? Time is of the essence on this question, and I think something should be done along the line of the quotas which were imposed by the previous government and taken off last year by the present administration.


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the minister replied to this proposal, saying he did not feel that quotas needed to be re-established right away, and that he was dealing with this problem by meeting with the people concerned with raising turkeys.


David Vaughan Pugh: As a further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me this question was pretty fully answered on Friday or Thursday of last week. The minister is meeting with a delegation today, and it would be as well to wait until he makes a statement on that meeting.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this question should be addressed to the Secretary of State but in his absence may I direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister had a half hour's chat over a national television network last evening with two representatives of the press, and in view of the fact that we understand the Leader of the Opposition is to have the same privilege tonight, may I ask whether similar or proportionate time will be made available by the C.B.C. to the leaders of other parties in the house?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am not of course responsible for the allocation of time by the C.B.C., but I shall be glad to bring my hon. friend's question to their attention at once.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the Prime Minister also make it clear to the C.B.C. that in our view fairness requires that this be done?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to add that observation.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY AS TO SPEECH BY SECRETARY OF STATE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister clarify two points made by the Secretary of State in his speech last Wednesday to the Richelieu club of Quebec? My first question is this. When the Secretary of State said, according to Le Devoir that-
-soon the government of Quebec would benefit from 75 per cent of revenue collected in personal income taxes by the federal government-
-was he announcing government policy? Second, when the Secretary of State said, as reported in Le Devoir, and again I quote:
Mr. Lamontagne admitted, nevertheless, that there had not been up to now a serious study of the economic consequences of the independence of Quebec, and that a federal agency, under the privy council, was given the task of examining this aspect.
[DOT]-may I ask is there a committee of public servants under the direction of the privy council engaged in studying the economic consequences of independence or separation of Quebec, as reported by the Secretary of State?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this is too far reaching a question to be dealt with on orders of the day. I suggest that my hon. friend put it on the order paper or else bring it up when the estimates of the Secretary of State's department are under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when a minister makes a statement outside the house a member is entitled to ask whether it represents government policy. That is the question that was asked.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I lost sight of that particular question in the rather long statement of the hon. gentleman, I apologize. Of course the minister was speaking as a member of the government on this question.


John George Diefenbaker: On government policy.
[Mr. Pearson.)



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister received a letter and a brief from Commander J. Leslie Harries of London, who is president of the Canadian veterans' association of the United Kingdom, urging amendments to the War Veterans Allowance Act that would make it possible for Canadian veterans living in England and their widows and orphans to receive the allowance without returning to Canada for 12 months. If so, is the government giving consideration to this request?
Hon. Roger Teillel (Minister of Veterans
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I certainly received a representation of this type, but it is difficult for me to identify it from memory just at the moment. Consideration is being given to that question.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance. My question is based on a letter from the credit union league of Saskatchewan directed to the Minister of Finance under date of September 10 and dealing with the sanctioning of credit unions as approved lenders under the student loans legislation. Why has there been a delay in sanctioning Saskatchewan credit unions with respect to this act, and will the minister see that this situation is rectified at an early date?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I shall be giad to look into the matter.	,



ONTARIO AND MANITOBA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, last week we directed several questions to the Minister of Finance, through his parliamentary secretary, dealing with alleged red tape slowing down the applications of students in Ontario. Has the minister looked into this, and was there any substance in the charge?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I did look into it, and possibly I may be permitted to answer the questions fully. First of all, early in the first week of September all the documents necessary for provincial education authorities and for the banks to proceed with the student loans plan were distributed from Ottawa. Second, about 300,000 brochures were sent out at the same time, outlining the basic facts about the plan, for distribution to educational institutions and to bank branches across Canada.
Third, the advertising program in the press and on the radio was begun later that week, that is later in the first week of September, as soon as the machinery was in readiness. This was a tight schedule for everybody concerned but the main goal, which was achieved, was to make the loan plan available to students as soon as possible before the start of the academic year.
I think last week the hon. member for Dan-forth referred to an article in the Toronto Daily Star, which I believe was based on a few isolated instances and which drew the conclusion that the plan was not working smoothly, or that it was involved in red tape. My information is quite different, Mr. Speaker. I have been advised by the responsible authorities in Ontario that organization for the administration of this plan is complete and is functioning well. Reports from other provinces are to the same general effect.
While I am dealing with this question, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might refer to a point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, who asked about the form used by the authorities in Manitoba by which the students apply for certificates of eligibility. Under the act the provincial authorities must satisfy themselves that the student has attained a satisfactory scholastic standard and is in need of a student loan. The method and procedures by which the provincial authorities satisfy themselves on these points is quite properly a matter for them to decide, and that was provided for in the legislation.
Because of the pressure of time some provinces are using application forms which had been in use for previously existing provincial student loan plans. In the case of Manitoba it is made clear, I am informed, that the parts of the form dealing with the cosignature or guarantor of a loan is not to be used in the case of loans under the Canada Student Loans Act. A part of the application form in Manitoba deals with the financial status of the student, or of his parents if he
Inquiries of the Ministry is still dependent on them. However, I am informed that in no case is the student required to obtain the approval of his parents under the Canada Student Loans Act.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is there any reason why Manitoba cannot be supplied with copies of the loan application form that appears as schedule B to the regulations under this act, so this confusion can be avoided?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I think this confusion is exaggerated, Mr. Speaker. From the inquiries I have been able to make today I am informed the province has been supplied with these forms.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence and ask him whether the Department of National Defence has decided to close down, within a month, the Royal Canadian Navy university naval training units at St. Dunstan's University, St. Francis Xavier University and Acadia University, as well as three others in other parts of the country?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I announced in the house last fall at the time our estimates were under consideration that there would be a reduction of 50 per cent in the expenditure for university reserve officers of the three services. This is now being implemented, and this report which appeared in the newspapers refers to just part of the reorganization. Perhaps, under the circumstances, I might take the question as notice and give a full statement of the reorganization tomorrow or the next day.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the minister whether in reviewing this situation he will also inform the house how the decision was arrived at as to which units are to be closed down, and whether representations were heard from the universities concerned or from any local representatives.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I think my full statement will satisfy the hon. gentleman, and perhaps we could leave supplementary questions until he has heard it.

Inquiries of the Ministry



ST. HUBERT, QUE.  POSSIBLE USE AS CIVILIAN AIRPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence.
Could the minister tell us if his department intends to use the St. Hubert air force base as a civil airport?
If such is the government's intention, when will the base be made available for public use?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be put on the order paper.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour. Can the parliamentary secretary inform the house whether the unemployment insurance commission has now ruled as to whether the I.T.U. strikers in Toronto are eligible for unemployment insurance?


Mr. J. A. Byrne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member for Danforth I would say I have been informed by the chairman of the unemployment insurance commission that this matter is being actively studied. First they must determine whether the industry has returned to 80 per cent of normal operation; then it must be determined whether the relevant section of the act applies in this case. There will be some definitive action by the middle of this week.


Reid Scott: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This is the story we have been getting for three weeks from this department. When are we going to get some action in this matter? What is the unemployment insurance commission doing to ascertain whether 80 per cent of production has been restored? Frankly, we are fed up with this evasion.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, whether or not my hon. friend is fed up is irrelevant.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
[Mr. Hellyer.l


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Active consideration is taking place and a study is being made to determine whether the industry is back to 80 per cent of normal operation, and then as to whether the act applies in this case. This will be determined by the middle of the week.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the parliamentary secretary why it takes three weeks to make an investigation which any normal commission, with fairly competent people, could make in five days?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I want to give notice of my intention to raise this question at 10.30.



FARM IMPROVEMENT LOANS ACT


Walter Lockhart Gordon: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution: That it is expedient to introduce a measure to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act to increase from $7,500 to $15,000 the maximum amount of any loan that may be made under the act to a borrower together with any amount owing in respect of other guaranteed farm improvement loans, to increase from $400,000,000 to $500,000,000 the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that may be made in the three year loan period ending June 30, 1965, to provide for a further three year loan period ending June 30, 1968, and to provide that the aggregate principal amount of guaranteed loans that may be made in that period shall not exceed $700,000,000.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Batten in the chair.


Mr. Pennell:: Mr. Chairman, this resolution foreshadows proposed amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act which will raise from $7,500 to $15,000 the maximum guaranteed loan amount which a farmer may have outstanding, and will also effect appropriate extensions of the government's guarantee to enable farmers generally to continue to borrow under the act at the same or at an even higher rate than that experienced in recent years. To this end the maximum aggregate amount of loans that may be made under the government guarantee during the current three year lending period, which expires at the end of next June, would be raised from $400 million to $500 million and there would be added a new lending period, from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1968. During this new period the government guarantee would apply to an aggregate maximum volume of guaranteed loans of $700 million.

As hon. members are aware, this legislation was designed to make intermediate term credit more readily available to farmers for the purpose of financing a wide range of capital improvements. To achieve this, the act authorizes the government to guarantee each bank against loss up to 10 per cent of the farm improvement loans made by that bank during a lending period. To limit the government's over-all contingent liability, the act establishes a maximum on the total amount of guaranteed loans which may be made by all the banks during a lending period.
The use that has been made of this act since it came into force in 1945 has shown considerable growth. Whereas about $10 million was lent under the act in 1946 the annual amount of loans has exceeded $100 million since 1960 and grew to $135 million in 1963. Based on the trend in lending established so far this year, 1964 loans are expected to be in excess of $150 million.
During the period of operations under the act, technological advance and the mechanization of farms have been a dominant feature of Canadian farming, and farm improvement loans have played an important role in facilitating those developments. Although loans under the act are made for a wide range of farm improvement projects, they have always been used quite prominently to help finance the purchase of machinery and equipment. In recent years about three out of every four dollars borrowed under the act have been used for the purchase of machinery and equipment.
There has also been over the years, along with an increase in the average size of farming operation, a trend toward the use of heavier and more expensive machinery and equipment. This has been reflected in the size of individual credit needs which have been met under the provisions of the act, and the maximum amount permitted under the act to an individual farmer has been raised from time to time. While a maximum of $3,000, established originally in 1945, served the purposes of the act for many years, this was raised to $4,000 in 1953 and again to $5,000 in 1956. The present maximum of $7,500 has been in effect since 1959.
There has been evidence recently that the maximum was again becoming restrictive in relation to the needs of modern farming. To meet this problem it is now proposed to raise the maximum loan amount to $15,000. This figure has been developed in close collaboration with the Department of Agriculture, and we believe it will help farmers to meet their
Farm Improvement Loans Act credit needs more fully with loans guaranteed under the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
An increase in the maximum loan amount is, of course, likely to accelerate somewhat the present growth rate in lending. Even without taking this factor into account, however, it is possible that loans during the current lending period ending next June will exceed the present limit of $400 million on loans that may be made under the government guarantee. The increase in this limit to $500 million is designed to prevent lending under the act being interrupted as the aggregate volume of loans reaches the current limit.
In the interests of smooth and continuous operations under the act it is also now proposed to add a new lending period which would run from July 1, 1965 to June 30, 1968. Based on current lending trends, a limit of $700 million is proposed on the aggregate amount of loans that may be made by all banks during the new three year period. It is estimated that this will be adequate to help accommodate the credit needs of Canadian farmers during that period.
Hon. members will appreciate that the nature of the proposed amendments is, in a sense, a measure of the success of this legislation. In this the co-operation of the banks deserves recognition. It is a good indication of the soundness of the scheme that on a total loan volume of close to $1.4 billion since inception, accumulated losses during this period have been only slightly above one tenth of one per cent.
In conclusion may I say that the Farm Improvement Loans Act has been an important instrument in helping Canadian farmers to meet their credit needs, and that the amendments to the act now proposed will, I am confident, further contribute to the improvement of living conditions of Canadian farm families and will further encourage the development of Canadian farming.


Mr. Danforlh:: Mr. Chairman, we in the official opposition certainly welcome the introduction of this amendment to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. We had hoped that this resolution might have been brought in at the time of the amendment of the Farm Credit Act and before the debate on the flag took place. We certainly do not wish to quarrel at this time with this laxity on the part of the government, nor do we wish to put this matter into the partisan field. However, we should like to state to the government that our constant pressure to have this

Farm Improvement Loans Act
amendment brought before the house at a much earlier date was due to the fact that we were concerned that the farmers should have this increase available to them in time to be of use in the 1964 season. The fact that this measure has been delayed until this date almost precludes the possibility that this additional finance will help them this year.
The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that this Farm Improvement Loans Act which was enacted in 1945 has been amended from time to time. The legislation began with a maximum loan of $3,000. The act was amended in 1953 and the amount raised to $4,000; in 1956 the maximum was raised to $5,000; in 1959 it was again increased to $7,500, and now the government proposes that the maximum be $15,000.
We have absolutely no quarrel with this. We feel that the trend through the years gives two indications; first, the degree to which each government when in office feels that this industry needs this sort of help and does make the maximum use of it; second, we believe this trend is a sound criterion or indication of the degree to which farm expenses have increased, and forms a yardstick over the years of this drastic increase.
We believe this great industry of agriculture was one of the first industries of this country to feel the pressure of the industrial revolution which has been taking place over the last few years. Agriculture was the first industry which came face to face with the problem of automation. It was the first industry to lose a large proportion of its labourers and their children who left agriculture and migrated to the cities to take advantage of the higher wages offered, with the problems that followed.
There were just two courses of action open to agriculture. First of all, this agriculture industry had to attempt to meet the wage scale provided by heavy industry, which would have meant a drastic increase in expenses and in the price of farm commodities to the Canadian people. Or second, they had to change their entire method of procedure and try to take advantage of the machinery available and copy the industrial change-over to try to find out whether by this means they could increase their production.
When the previous government was in office I believe it assessed correctly that this revolution was in progress, and took direct action to provide the answer and the necessary aid to agriculture. I think it is a credit to the parliament of that time that there was

no great opposition offered by any party in this house to that course of action.
This course of action, sir, followed along three lines. First there was a determination to increase the sale of agricultural products internationally and nationally in order to move the tremendous surpluses that were building up. Second, sir, there was an attempt by the previous government to effect some sort of stabilization of farm prices so that farmers would not be subjected to the extremes of very high and very low prices, which created great havoc both to the economic security of the farmer and his long term farming proposition. The third step taken by the previous government was in the form of farm credits, and there were amendments extending the scope of both the Farm Credit Corporation legislation and the Farm Improvement Loans Act to include all individuals engaged in agriculture, and to directly increase the amount of finance available to the farmers of that day.
It is very interesting to note that the agricultural industry was one of the first to take advantage of government financing to this large degree in an attempt to cope with the drastic problems it was faced with at that time. The loan picture as portrayed by reports of the farm loan board give us a very clear indication of just exactly what is going on. For example, the average loan after this act was passed in 1945 was around $784, and by 1962 the average loan had reached $1,626. This meant that over 90 per cent of the farmers borrowing during those years borrowed far less than the maximum allowed by the act.
It is interesting to note, however, where this money went. To bear out the theory that farmers were turning to large machinery in order to offset the cost of high priced farm labour, in 1962 some $87 million was borrowed by Canadian farmers for the purchase of machinery, which is 73 per cent of the entire amount of money borrowed. In respect of farm buildings $50 million was borrowed; $11 million was borrowed for the purchase of livestock and $3,749,000 was borrowed for other improvements.
Here in Canada we are beginning to experience a drastically changing farm operation. Farmers are moving toward greater specialization. Farms are indeed becoming larger and being run by modem farmers who are today more businesslike than probably their fathers or grandfathers. The farmer is a man who works on a profit and loss column, has an office on his farm

and is particularly aware of his costs in respect of every venture undertaken on his farm. He quickly realizes that in order to make his farm an economic operation in this modern world he must turn to the theory of producing more units with a smaller margin of profit rather than the former conception, fewer units with a large profit. This is necessary in order to compete in foreign markets, and the fact that foreign markets must take a great deal of our produce means that the farmer of today is taking the right course of action.
In order for the farmer to take advantage of this changing trend, today he must have more complicated and expensive machinery. We believe this is the act under which farmers will be provided with the tools necessary to work these new farms. Citizens today in Canada are subjected from time to time to news comments and reports and other sources of criticism, to the effect that governments of the day perhaps coddle this industry of agriculture to the detriment of those in urban centres who have to bear the effects of higher taxes.
Mr. Chairman, I think this is one illustration which points out the fallacy of those particular arguments. The parliamentary secretary has pointed out that we have a maximum of $1,250 million in loans to the farmers of Canada, and that the loss on this tremendous outlay of money is less than one tenth of one per cent. Since the loss is only one tenth of one per cent and the government, and therefore the taxpayers, are only responsible for 10 per cent of these losses, one will see that the government and the taxpayers are only forced to sustain a loss of one one hundredth of one per cent, which is trivial indeed.
These loans do make possible the production of food in this country at a price comparable and in competition with all the nations of the world, and enable the citizens of this country to obtain food of the highest quality and greatest variety. We believe there is only one major gap left now in respect of agriculture which must be corrected, and that has relation to young men without the necessary credit to borrow under this act, but who have expressed the desire and have the ability to be great farmers in Canada today. We feel there is room for action for the benefit of those young individuals, and that they should not be forgotten in the provisions under the Farm Credit Corporation and the Farm Improvement Loans Act; because a farmer wishing to borrow money under this
Farm Improvement Loans Act legislation must possess the necessary assets so that he will not become a liability.
We are in favour of making these funds available to farmers at the earliest date possible. We will wait the provisions to be contained in the new bill, and if there are no startling changes but, as set out by the parliamentary secretary, those acceptable provisions, we see no reason for delay and feel perhaps the committee stage of this measure can be completed by tomorrow. We feel that this is a good measure but, as I say, our only quarrel relates to the regretful delay in its implementation. We propose only to have one speaker at the resolution stage in order to expedite the matter. We feel the department should be complimented for the scope to which they have increased this farm loans legislation.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, I rise on behalf of this party to support the principle of this resolution. Well do I remember members of this party getting up in this house, nearly 20 years ago, reflecting the representations of farmers' organizations, particularly in western Canada, urging the establishment of this type of legislation. We support the principle and purpose of this resolution, which actually is simply a measure to increase the maximum loan available for capital improvements up to $15,000. The very fact that in 1946 the total amount that could be borrowed was $3,000 while today we find it necessary to amend the act to provide for borrowing up to $15,000 is a clear indication that the act has functioned very satisfactorily indeed, and that the need has been proven throughout the years.
Before passing on to a few other general observations I wish to make with respect to agriculture I want to say in passing that I trust the parliamentary secretary will inform the minister of my commendation, because there have been occasions, you know, when I have ribbed him a bit.
I must say I was very pleased to read the minister's remarks as reported in the press concerning the importance of the role of the farmer in our society. I thought they were very down to earth comments indeed about the food producers of this country. Too many fail to realize the contribution to our national life and to Canadian production and income that has been made by those who work on the land and, as the previous speaker mentioned, many people fail to realize how economically they produce the food of the nation. You meet people who actually are under the impression that farming is one of the most

Farm Improvement Loans Act inefficient occupations in this country, and I was very pleased that the minister made these comments.
I also wish to congratulate the minister for organizing the tour of Canada by agriculturalists from the Soviet union. In my opinion this type of association and exchange of ideas between those interested in agriculture in both countries can be most fruitful in the development of friendship between our country and the Soviet union. I have talked to some of those who were on the tour, and I am sure the visit of these Soviet agriculturalists was very worth while indeed. I think it was mutually beneficial and enjoyable.
I compliment the minister particularly as one who comes from a family that believes in free enterprise from here to eternity, because we recognize that he has done a good job in inviting these representatives from a socialist country to look at Canadian agriculture. I hope there was a bit of mellowing on both sides. Possibly we could learn something from them and they could learn something from our way of doing things. I think this is a very good way indeed to develop understanding between two very important groups in the economics of both countries.
I want to say a word or two with respect to the resolution stage of legislation. Years ago there used to be a debate on the resolution before the Speaker left the chair. Then we had the resolution, second reading, committee of the whole and so on. There is a move now to do away with the resolution stage on money bills. I can well understand this, but if the resolution stage were used for the purpose for which it was originally intended it could be a most useful stage in discussion.
I understand that the original purpose of the resolution stage before the introduction of the legislation was so that members on the opposition side could express their views, make observations regarding the circumstances surrounding the legislation, and offer suggestions; and that any wise government would listen to the views expressed by the opposition and after listening to them would very often make changes in the legislation before bringing in the measure. If the resolution stage was used for that purpose and governments did not finally draft their legislation-it would not apply in simple matters, but would in complicated circumstances- until after the debate on the resolution stage had terminated, the government could amend its legislation to take advantage of the views of the opposition without any loss of face, and the country as a whole would benefit. I sug-

gest that consideration be given to that aspect of the resolution stage. Otherwise there is no great value in the debate on the resolution stage unless it is intended, as I said, to have some effect on the government in the drafting of the legislation.
Let me say that we welcome this legislation, which is urgently required at this time to meet the growing need for this type of credit in this field. I have had some experience in this respect. In travelling around I talk to our farmers and discuss their requirements, and I realize there has been a growing need for the amendment proposed in the legislation.
I might also say that we support this type of legislation wholeheartedly because it is right in line with our philosophy and program, which is based on a mixed economy. This involves legitimate private ownership operating in co-operation with government as the result of social capital being invested in our agricultural economy, and still leaving to the individual the opportunity for ownership of the farm, the making of management decisions and so on.
As far as I can ascertain, during the past 150 years our national agricultural policy has had one primary objective, namely the establishment of a rural economy in which independent farmers had complete ownership and control of the land they farmed. As a result the family farm has been the principal type of productive unit in Canadian agriculture to date. However, changing circumstances as the result of our industrial development have aroused widespread concern with regard to the present position of the family farm in Canadian agriculture. The increasing apprehension over the apparently precarious position of the family farm, particularly in some areas of Canada, is somewhat similar to the feeling of insecurity that exists in small business operations, some small industries and other aspects of our economy across Canada.
What is a family farm? In my opinion a family farm is a farm where, first, the farm owner or operator makes all the management decisions; second, where the farmer and the members of his family supply most of the labour required except at seeding and harvest times; and third, where the available farm resources and markets are sufficient to provide the family with an adequate standard of living. That is a family farm.
I might say I also believe in what I term the maintenance farm, because I think it has a role to play in our agricultural economy. Statistics do not always tell the whole story.

We have the economic family farm unit which we take as the basis of our agricultural economy, but in my district I have a lot of what I term maintenance farmers. These are people who on five to ten acres are growing fruit, producing poultry or carrying on dairying on a small scale. Over the year their total returns from a financial point of view do not compare very favourably with the income expected by some other people. They grow fruit, have their own cows, produce their own pork and bacon and do their own canning. They also grow other commodities on the ranch and in most cases are able to produce their own fuel. They burn wood.
In my district I have dozens and dozens of what I call maintenance farmers living on beautiful sites. They have lovely orchards and lawns and nice houses and driveways. From the point of view of some people their standard of living is not high, but from their own point of view they have an adequate standard of living, and a high standard of living so far as the cultural aspects of life are concerned. I believe there is a place for the maintenance farm in our economy. We cannot judge the success of all phases of agriculture by figures only, because figures alone do not tell the whole story.
I am one who believes that in the future we have to look toward decentralizing our cities and their populations and decentralizing industry. Instead of having increasingly larger units which eventually become factory farms and having people who were farming moving to the cities, I think we should be doing everything we can to maintain and develop a healthy, satisfactory rural economy.
I also believe there is a place for part time farming. I find it is being engaged in more and more and I think it should be encouraged. It involves men who are connected with the forest industry, persons who are possibly doing some tree farming, others who are engaged in beekeeping, in fact part time farmers of various kinds. I think the more people we can influence to become interested in the soil in Canada the better it will be for our country, and the healthier and more stable will be our society. I always maintain we should work for the development of these three types of farms, and there is a great deal of research and investigation required before we can come to definite conclusions on some of these matters.
Now, during recent years there has been a development of interest and it relates to the possibilities offered by family company farming. This type of farming will not conflict with the traditional concept of the family farm. In fact, it has several advantages over the 20220-505
Farm Improvement Loans Act single ownership system. For example, where the farming operation is of considerable size or where several members of the family are involved, it offers an excellent arrangement for the handling of such problems as intrafamily ownership and estate planning. This has become a problem so far as many farmers are concerned in recent years. No one would have thought of such a thing 20 years ago- that a farmer would have been worried about the value of his estate, succession duties, and so on. More and more those members who are interested in these questions are finding that farmers are very concerned about this, because of the liquidation of the family enterprise.
In my opinion, the future will see a great increase in the family company type of farming. I do not think it is going to change the picture whatever, but it makes for more efficient farming and assured security of the family interested in the development of the farm itself. However, Mr. Chairman, I do want to say that in my opinion there is a great need for further research and study of the various problems surrounding the development of these various types of farming and ownership, particularly with respect to the financing of the purchase of land. As the previous member said, this is of particular interest to the young people who wish to go into farming. Then there is the question of the purchase of equipment and the provision of housing and other buildings necessary for the operation of a modern farm.
While we have lengthy Canadian experience, very competent federal and provincial staffs, as well as competent agriculture staffs on universities throughout Canada, I think we can still learn from the experience of other countries. I just want to deal briefly with two of them. Let me say this, that Canada has no monopoly whatever on the problems surrounding the maintenance and development of the family farm. This is a very general problem in portions of Europe, Great Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Australia. In Britain, for instance, the government has established what is called a small farmer assistance scheme which is devised to assist small farmers who own not less than 20 acres and no more than 100 acres of crop land. That is a small scale farm compared to some in Canada, but this assistance is in the form of direct grants of up to $3,000 for the improvement of land by tillage, drainage or irrigation, for fertilizers, and so on. This, as I say, is an experiment in Great Britain in an attempt to make it possible for these smaller units

Farm Improvement Loans Act to become economic. Although it has only been in operation a tew years, it has proven to be very successful. Where a farmer has achieved the approved standard of production and income, he receives no further assistance from the scheme. However he is entitled to other grants and loans that are available to him as a bona fide farmer.
I mention this so that we will all realize this problem does not exist only in Canada. It exists also in a country such as the United Kingdom which has had a lengthy experience in agriculture. I think we possibly could leam something from their experience with respect to this problem as a result of their experiment. I think we could learn something also from the experience of the United States. A recent report by the national agricultural advisory commission sets forth a convincing and well documented case for the survival and development of the family farm. I have read this report and I could dwell upon it at length because it is a most interesting one. I am not going to take the time of the committee now. This report was made after considerable investigation by this commission into the circumstances prevailing in agriculture in every state of the union. I call attention to this one paragraph:
The family farm remains the backbone of American agriculture because it has shown remarkable capacity to adapt to new methods and markets in a dynamic economy. The very changes that have enabled it to remain efficient, however have so transformed it in some respects that an erroneous impression sometimes exist that the family farm has disappeared.
The confidence of the commission in the endurance of the family farm is noticeable in the conclusion of this report, and I bring this to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. It is a most interesting document because circumstances in the United States are similar to ours. It is to insure the development of such an environment that this type of legislation is required. I refer to the granting of additional credit.


Lawrence T. Pennell: What was the name of that report again?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The report of the national agricultural advisory commission of the United States. I was going to say that here again, as in the labour field, I think we should be willing to undertake some experiments. I do not believe a constructive person should be critical if we drop one program or modify a program or change a program substantially. It is the only way sound policies are developed. I am thinking of studies in the field of

legislation that covers agriculture production in Canada, particularly relating to the family farm, the maintenance farm, the part time farmer and the family company farm. There is plenty of opportunity to consider these various aspects and to experiment in certain fields in Canada.
Circumstances in the maritimes are different from those in Quebec and Ontario. Conditions on the prairies are very different from those that exist in British Columbia. It is for this reason I say that a complete, satisfactory long term program that meets all the needs of agriculture in the years ahead cannot devised overnight. It is a matter of experimentation and proving things as you go along.
However, it is to ensure the development of such an environment that this type of education is required. This is one aspect of agricultural legislation that is fundamental. To adequately understand the problems facing those on the family farm, we need, in my opinion, an extension of research and educational services for our farmers. I am not belittling the services that are provided at the present time. We need a strengthening of the role of farmer controlled co-operatives, as well as stronger support from governments both federal and provincial. We need a recognition of the special credit needs of agriculture.
Before concluding I want to bring to the attention of the committee two other matters which I feel should receive consideration while we are discussing the matter of farm credit. We need extended opportunities for the training of younger farmers, young men who are looking forward to acquiring land as a result of borrowing from the Farm Credit Corporation or as a result of government guaranteed credit from other sources. We need some new arrangements to assist in building new farm homes. Here is one field where enough has not been done, by any means. As a matter of fact, my reading of reports and inquiries of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation lead me to believe they have not done very much in this field. It appears to me that consideration should be given to this particular problem. I refer to the building of satisfactory farm homes on farm properties. Possibly there should be some common policy and approach devised as the result of consultation between the officials of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Farm Credit Corporation, the Veterans Land Act administration and those who administer this and similar legislation. This is a problem which has not been met satis-

factorily to date and I urge that consideration be given to the question of credit for the building of farm homes, as distinct from the purchase of equipment and machinery and the development of farms themselves.
Some way must be devised of providing security for the loan on the farmhouse without mortgaging the whole farm itself; but that is a problem that can be solved if there is a common approach between these various lending agencies. With these few remarks I look forward to seeing the exact terms of the bill and I may have a few questions to ask at that stage.


Mr. Olson:: Mr. Chairman, my first words in speaking to this resolution must be to commend the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance for his very comprehensive explanation of the proposed amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act. This act, with the amendments that have been made to it over the years, is one of the most useful and effective pieces of legislation we have dealing with agriculture. From personal experience in my own constituency and in many other parts of Canada I know that its provisions have been used extensively, and in its application there has been a disposition on the part of the bankers, who for the most part administer the act, to be very co-operative in recognizing the needs of farmers when they make application for credit. Certainly the act has met with a high level of acceptance by farmers from one end of the country to the other.
It is also worth mentioning that many other people besides farmers have benefited from this act. I am thinking particularly of farm equipment dealers who have had a large and continuing source of credit available to continue in the promotion of their business. It may be argued that some of the instalment payment arrangements set up by farm machinery companies and various types of acceptance companies have also performed good service, but in my opinion no source of funds for the purchase of new equipment has been as easily attainable and as useful as this act.
I was interested to hear the parliamentary secretary state that from the inception of this act in 1945 until now losses incurred were at the very low rate of one tenth of 1 per cent. This brings to mind a speech made by the Minister of Agriculture to a gathering of farmers at the C.N.E. in Toronto, when he said we have been a little too reluctant in extending farm credit because the record shows the losses are very small, in fact that 20220-505J
Farm. Improvement Loans Act they are substantially below most other kinds of credit extension.
I do not wish at this time to debate in general terms the value of farm credit for the purpose of modernizing and keeping farm units efficient, but one very interesting matter was recently mentioned by the Minister of Agriculture, a matter that I think is worth mentioning, again, namely recognizing the farmers of Canada for what they are, the producers of food and groceries, rather than as some entity unto themselves that continually comes to the government for assistance.
If my memory serves me correctly only about 21 to 25 cents out of each dollar Canadians earn are used for the purchase of food. I believe this is the lowest figure of any country in the world, and the purchasing of food has to be the paramount consideration when we think of our standard of living and the well-being of the whole nation. If the figure is as low as this then most of the credit has to be given to the efficiency of our farmers in producing the food requirements of our nation, and when one thinks in those terms he must realize it is essential that our farm units be kept efficient and in a healthy state.
The performance record of Canadian farmers has been such that all our other citizens ought to be grateful and satisfied that, whatever legislation has been passed by parliament for the benefit of farmers, the money it provided has been well invested.
We are being asked to approve amendments to the act to increase the maximum amount of loans from $7,500 to $15,000, available to individual farmers for the purchase of equipment and other things they are allowed to purchase under the provisions of this act. In this connection we have to recognize that there has been a certain amount of automation in the agricultural industry, as was mentioned a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kent (Ont.). This automation has increased the efficiency of our farmers in terms of the cost of production. It has been made necessary because there has been a reluctance on the part of the labouring classes to take up farm labour as a vocation.
There are a number of reasons for this. One reason has to do with the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act and other things; but nevertheless this automation has certainly taken place during the past few years. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that automation has increased the cost of investment in an efficient farm. Therefore increasing the amount now from $7,500 to $15,000 is recognizing two things; the first of which is that

plication of the act. He should do this before he makes a blanket statement that this is already provided for. I know it is certainly provided for in the case of those farmers who come along and have what is considered a high credit rating; in other words, if they have a large investment or large equity in the land, that is not committed for some other purpose, then of course money will be granted for the purchase of seed, fertilizer, perhaps even some livestock, and so on. However, Mr. Chairman, this is not what I am talking about. Let us take the case of renters, or other farmers whose credit rating is not quite so high. When the banker can take full security in the piece of equipment that has a serial number on it and is not going to deteriorate very rapidly, there is no difficulty in granting that farmer a loan because there is a reasonably new-and in most cases, brand new-piece of equipment in which the banker can take security. But as I have said, in the case of some of the renters and people in that category, who could make very good use of a loan for some of these other things I have mentioned, they are not granted loans in spite of the fact that there may now be provision in the act for such loans.
Therefore I believe there should be some broadening of the provisions of this act because it has been so successful. If I may repeat myself, Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary said their losses are only one tenth of one per cent, and perhaps this is an indication that some relaxation is in order.
It is interesting to read some of the submissions that have been made to the Prime Minister. On February 26 this year a submission was made by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. There was also the address of the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture to their 28th annual meeting in Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, earlier this year. On page four of the document that I have before me, which was printed by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, they say, under the heading "Views on Farm Credit":
I would like to suggest that we should consider establishing means of thinking the problem through by study and analysis and arriving at new and sound proposals. There are a number of areas in which farm credit needs are not now being adequately met:
1.	Loan limits are probably inadequate under present conditions.
2.	Adequate arrangements for meeting the problem of transfer of farms on the retirement, or death, of the present owners.

Then the president of the federation goes on to give No. 3:
Operating, or intermediate credit needs, are not being adequately met by the farm improvement loan program, or the present banking system.
Then No. 4 is the matter of emergency or disaster credit. That was in the speech of the president of the federation given to the 28th annual meeting. In their submission to the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet on February 26, they said this:
32.	Second, the loan limit of the Farm Credit Corporation should be raised to $50,000. This would be more realistically in line with present costs of financing economic farm units.
Item No. 33 that they presented at that meeting was as follows:
33.	Third, the loan limit on farm machinery under the Farm Improvement Loans Act should be raised to $10,000-again, a more realistic level in light of present day costs for machinery and equipment.
If you look at some of the submissions and the discussions preceding those submissions so far as farm credit is concerned, it becomes apparent that by passing the amendments to the Farm Improvement Loans Act and the amendments we passed in respect of the Farm Credit Corporation several weeks ago, we have not only met but have considerably surpassed the requests that were being made by this association of farmers' organizations. I do not mean to be facetious because this is a serious subject, but it seems to me that we have now gone beyond even the fondest dreams of spokesmen for farmers' organizations, so far as limits are concerned. This amendment puts the maximum $5,000 beyond that asked for, and also $5,000 in aggregate, I think it is fair to say, beyond that asked for under the Farm Credit Act. I believe the maximum limits which have been placed on these various forms of farm credit available from and guaranteed by the government are now adequate; at least they are adequate for the time being. They have been raised to a point where they have taken into account both the need for farmers to become efficient in order to face the tremendous competition they have to face in the world today, and also the increased cost of the farm machinery that is sold today. So in the immediate future when we talk of farm credit I think we should turn our attention to other things with respect to the administration of farm credit. I strongly urge on the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance-although this may not be completely within the sphere of his minister's department-the suggestion that there is some room for improvement
Farm Improvement Loans Act in the application of these loans apart from simply increasing the maximum limits from time to time.
I do not wish to repeat what I said about making some amendments to the farm improvement loans legislation to provide financing of other things than farm machinery, but I think this question is a valid one and should be considered. We have no hesitation in giving our wholehearted support to the amendment proposed in the resolution before us, and during the passage of this bill through committee stage I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able at least to assure the committee that he and the Department of Agriculture are giving favourable consideration to relaxing some of the regulations which have hitherto prevented farmers with a low credit rating from making use of this type of loan to increase the productivity of their farms.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Chairman, I take this opportunity to say a few words about the resolution now under consideration. I had prepared some questions I wanted to put to the Minister of Finance; I will do that later when he comes back to the house.
In the meantime, I will just make a few general remarks, first to congratulate the government for its decision to increase farm improvement loans from $7,500 to $15,000.
At the present time, our agriculture certainly needs our government's attention.
First, as stated by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson)-and I agree with him on several points he mentioned-it is a fact that agriculture is almost entirely centred on foodstuffs. Right now the figure is 21 per cent.
Mr. Chairman, agriculture has always been the basis of our economy. Whether we like it or not it is essential to life, and that is why I feel that in the normal course of things it must always be considered with attention in order to prevent it from drifting.
In a country like Canada, which is known as one of the most fertile countries, not only the provincial governments, but the federal government as well must seek to maintain farm production as high as possible.
Farm loans are a good thing, and this increase from $7,500 to $15,000 will enable family units to expand and escape a kind of socialization-I should rather use the word centralization-by companies which at a certain time would probably establish a monopoly under their exclusive control.

Farm Improvement Loans Act
Our farm families have certainly showed their good will in the past. Today, some very well equipped farms produce much more than they could just a few years ago. Perhaps it is due to automation, but certainly to the good will and courage of Canadian farmers at large.
Tremendous courage was needed to clear that land for cultivation, land which is not too old as far as agriculture is concerned but which was practically turned into a farm kingdom.
Now, it is up to the government to legislate in such a way as to permit those farmers to live decently, particularly if one considers that the farmer is the most important of our citizens since he is producing food for the nation.
Today we want to help the family farm and that is why I am in favour of the proposed increase in farm improvement loans. It will permit families settled on Canadian farms to expand and improve their farm techniques in order to increase and improve their production in order to meet the needs of the Canadian people generally.
Now, this is good for agriculture in general or the rural economy itself.
As I said a moment ago, it is the very basis of the national economy, in this country as in other countries. Without agriculture, I think that it would be extremely difficult to survive.
Now, it is not sufficient to grant loans. I think that we should take our bearings and look in the direction of production and loans granted to farmers. It is obvious that if the farmer cannot obtain enough for his products, he will continue to need larger loans. And the fact that he is borrowing is not necessarily a good thing. If he applies for a loan, it is because his support price or the price he gets for his products is not high enough. The loan is therefore a bad thing, because it merely delays his bankruptcy.
In the present case, certain areas could even be designated where a loan would actually hinder the farmer's development. In the circumstances, it is up to us to look into the situation, to seek advice and to act accordingly, so as to maintain the price of his products high enough to enable the farmer to live on the income of his farm.
All farmers are taking jobs today, and I am not only speaking about the province of Quebec, but also of western farm lands- where the best farms in the country are to be found. There are people who work in a locality and, at a given time, they leave to
[Mr. Langlois.l

go to work in Regina; others have to go to work in Edmonton, because their farm is not too remote from the city, in order to make both ends meet at the end of the year.
This happens in the west, and it also happens in the province of Quebec. Nowadays, it is no longer the farm that supports the farmer; in many cases it is rather the farmer who has to support the farm. It is not at all the same thing. That is why it is necessary that an extensive study be made in connection with the sale and cost prices of agricultural products. It is useless to make loans easier for farmers if the prices quoted are not high enough. As I said a moment ago, the only result is to postpone bankruptcy. But at the present time, regardless of the views other members might put forward, I am convinced that the prices the farmers get in some agricultural areas are altogether ridiculous and that it is unthinkable to try to maintain a farm economy with such prices.
Here is an example I should like to give to the house to show what I mean. I would ask the government to consider such cases when they occur, in all farm production areas. I want to refer here to maple products, with which I am familiar because they are produced on a large scale in my own constituency.
Last year the cost of producing a pound of grade one, class A, maple sugar was 27 cents. The maple syrup then went to wholesalers or co-operatives to be placed on the market, etc. I should like to mention that when the organizers of last year's Plessisville maple sugar festival, seeing that they could not obtain enough maple syrup from the farmers because they were sold out, went back to the co-operative, the next day, after the quality test of the maple syrup had been taken, for another supply of maple sugar. They asked for second grade sugar since it makes a better and less crystallizing toffee; they paid 42 cents per pound for second grade sugar while the day before, first grade was selling for 27 cents per pound.
As you can see the farmer does not benefit from the disposal of those commodities. With regard to the price at farm level-though it has been said that maple sugar is expensive, it does cost something, there is the work of the farmer who produces it, the depreciation of his equipment used in the manufacture of maple sugar-we are advised not to put any cattle in the sugar bush, because it disturbs sugar production. Therefore, to what use can the sugar bush be put at times? Land taxes have to be paid, as well as the help, horses have to be obtained on rental and, today,

tractors have to be used instead of horses because those that are used in the sugar bush are now very very rare indeed.
There are certain burdens which must be carried by the farmer before he starts making any sort of profit. It is a problem which has to be considered.
The same thing is true in other sectors of farm production. The price to the farmer has to be studied. Western farmers joined together to establish a basic price for their wheat production, according to the various categories of wheat and the same procedure should be followed in other fields.
People seem to worry about surplus production. Let us take corn production for instance. According to a report given to the committee on agriculture, we imported last year almost $35 million worth of corn from the United States. Maybe we could produce a little more com in our country, but would we be in a position to sell it? Could the farmer recover his outlay and make a profit? That is the core of the problem and a big question mark.
Other farmers undertake the raising of cattle, hogs and poultry. There also, there is a question mark. The farmer wonders whether he will be able at the end of the year to sell his production at a profit, at cost or at a loss?
Nowadays, Mr. Chairman, very often the farmer incurs a loss. Moreover, if the farmer were counting his labour, there would be times when he would reconsider his position and perhaps come to the conclusion that he should sell his farm.
Such a loan will perhaps solve his problem temporarily. Well and good, but will it solve it permanently? This is something to wonder about. It will certainly enable the farmer to enlarge his farm, but in what way? Will that lead him to a worse bankruptcy or will it help him to survive?
I would ask the minister to consider this very carefully, then to talk it over with the provincial ministers of agriculture, to refrain from depriving one part of the country for the benefit of another and to endeavour to find a farm policy that would satisfy every section of the country at the same time. Once such a policy has been established, we might have a more stable, more satisfied and a happier farming class.
But at the present, there are far too many of our farmers who must leave their farms to work in the city in an attempt to survive, and who have to use the money earned in the
Farm Improvement Loans Act city to make up the deficits they have incurred on their farms.
Granted, Mr. Chairman, there is land for everybody in Canada. Our farm lands are not so small, for the great majority of farmers own at least a hundred acres. I think such a loan will enable them to break more ground, but it will not solve the whole problem.
You certainly will not solve the farmer's problem by trying to consolidate all his debts, because ten years later he will be right back where he started. All you have to do is look at the situation today and compare it with what it was ten years ago. The difference between the two is that farm lands-I am speaking of eastern Canada-were debt free 15 or 20 years ago. Those were economic farms then, whereas today, under the same administration, the same management, they are burdened with debts and farm loans. It is obvious that there is something wrong somewhere and that improvements, changes are indispensable.
I am urging the government to consider such a possibility, and to stop worrying about production surpluses. There are so many people who are starving in this world that the farmers will only be pleased to sell their products to them. Is it not better to sell a little at a price lower than the current one, a certain percentage of production than not to sell at all or to sell at a loss? This is where the government must play their part, through a compensation discount granted to the farmers who would sell their products on outside markets at reduced prices. Then, the farmers would be able to buy the necessary farming machinery which is heavily burdened with taxes and almost beyond their reach.
In considering the western situation, I see that in 1944, a farmer could buy a combine for $2,400 or $2,700, while today he must pay from $12,000 to $13,000, even though it must be admitted that this piece of equipment has been improved. Although it can cut a 16-foot swath, the various improvements made do not compensate for the difference in price. To pay $13,000 for equipment you use about only three weeks during the year, while the next year, the value of the equipment has gone down to $9,000, is quite expensive because the farmer incurs a $3,000 depreciation. Western farmers must make tremendous profits to meet such expenses.
For a tractor, it is exactly the same thing. Fifteen years ago a tractor sold for $3,500, whereas today the cost is $8,000, $9,000 and $10,000.
The price of wheat has not increased as much as that, the soil produces the same

Farm Improvement Loans Act thing and young people in western Canada, like those in eastern Canada, to start with, have to get farm machinery at a cost of $20,000 or $25,000, and they have to pay about as much for the land itself. This means that before they even start, they have to invest $50,000. How many members in this house could do that, Mr. Chairman?
It is certainly not through loans that we shall be able to guarantee sufficient income to cover these expenses. The only means to ensure a profitable income on that production is to establish a guaranteed price. The farmer who has to invest $25,000 or $50,000 will then be sure that his investment will be profitable. At the present time, the farmers can hardly pay interest charges.
Mr. Chairman, it is to this point I wish to draw the attention of the government. I do not object to the bill. On the contrary, I approve it. However, I wish the government would broaden its perspective so as to consider the whole farming situation in the best interest of the country and see to it that the farm production is sold at a reasonable price, which would enable the farmer to live on his own land instead of working on some other land or overcrowding the labour market.
I think it might be said that in the field of agriculture there is an improvement. There are other projects. In that field, there is ARDA, but it has become so complicated that I wonder whether its authors understand it nowadays. After the authorities concerned have examined the question, they could perhaps confirm that this project is somewhat in accordance with our suggestions, because we have long been advocating support prices and we will continue to do so.
We commend the government for the initiative it has taken in introducing this resolution, but we would ask it to consider this matter. However, the government must broaden its horizons and maintain its assistance to farmers, because they are greatly in need of help. A department of agriculture should be set up for eastern Canada and another department should be entrusted with western agriculture, because the problems are entirely different in the two parts of the country; the needs and crops are not the same in both areas.
Until we are given more details in that connection, I reserve the right to direct some questions to the minister in due time.

Resolution reported and concurred in.


John Whitney Pickersgill: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-119, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TRANSPORT


John Whitney Pickersgill: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That It is expedient to introduce a measure to authorize implementation of certain recommendations of the royal commission on transportation with respect to the rationalization of branch lines of railways and passenger train services and the fixing of freight rates under and consistent with a national transportation policy suited to modem transportation conditions; to establish a branch line rationalization authority and a branch line rationalization fund to be continued for 15 years to assist in the establishment of an orderly program for the improvement of the efficiency of railway branch lines; to provide authority for public funds to be used where assistance of a type similar to that provided by the branch line rationalization fund may be required after such 15 year period; to provide for payments out of the consolidated revenue fund on a reducing scale for a period of five years commencing with 1964 to compensate railways under the jurisdiction of parliament for passenger train deficits incurred in Canada during such period; to authorize payments to maintain the prevailing level of freight rates on western grain moving by rail to export positions; to permit the lapsing of the subsidy (known as the "bridge" subsidy) now provided for the maintenance of the trackage of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Sudbury and Fort William and the corresponding trackage of the Canadian National Railway Company between Capreol and Fort William and between Cochrane and Armstrong; to authorize agreements relating to the carriage by rail of Her Majesty's mail, and members of the Canadian forces and police travelling on Her Majesty's service and to provide further for other matters consequential upon or related or incidental to any of the foregoing.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.


The Chairman:: Shall the resolution carry?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before the resolution carries, Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should make a few brief observations. It has been suggested to me from the other side of the house, perhaps as a query, that there might be some disposition to treat this resolution as the last one was treated, and have one member of each group say something at the resolution stage. We could then see the bill and have the main debate on the bill itself when we would know with more certainty what we were talking about. In case there should be

any disposition in that direction I intend to make the kind of speech that I think is appropriate to the resolution and not attempt in any way to deal with the provisions of the bill itself except in the most general terms.
The resolution suggests that it is expedient to introduce a piece of legislation of a character that I was almost going to say was revolutionary. It certainly involves a number of fundamental changes in our concept of railways in Canada. I sometimes think that, over the years, railways in Canada have caused almost as much emotion and certainly as much controversy as flags and almost as much as languages. It is not surprising that this should be so because throughout the whole of our history since confederation, in fact even from the time of the union of 1840, railways have been the bony structure of the body politic in Canada. Perhaps this was truer in our generation of western Canada than of eastern Canada-I speak as one in his sixtieth year-but in western Canada the train whistle was really in many ways the call of civilization. It was the signal of the one thing that really connected each isolated community, some of them very much so indeed, with the rest of the country and the rest of the world. I think that the whistle of the old steam locomotive, which has gone into history, went into history just about the time that the railway ceased to be a quasi monopoly in transportation. I think there are still a good many of us who have got the habit of thinking that the railways are the only form of transportation which really matters in Canada. This is no longer true. For a long time, in many parts of the world and in many parts of Canada, the railway was the only effective means of transportation of persons or goods. It was a quasi monopoly, if not an actual monopoly, depending on where you happened to be.
At the outset the railways received from this parliament relatively rigid regulation. Even so, regulation was relaxed and relaxed considerably, in those parts of the country where alternative forms of transport were really important. This has always been true in areas where water transportation on our unique waterways competed with the railways. I think many of us who did not have the good fortune to live in areas where there was that kind of competition, which kept rates down, were rather envious of the advantages of those who did. With the development of hard surfaced heavy duty roads, with the trans-Canada highway which, although it is far from complete, does now give 20220-506
Branch Railway Lines
us an all Canadian road from one coast to the other, with the remarkable development of the air lines not only in carrying passengers but also in carrying freight, it is no longer true that the railways have a monopoly in most parts of this country for most kinds of traffic.
It is true that in certain remote areas the railway is the only effective means of transport. It is true also for certain kinds of goods. I suppose in this respect the most important single commodity is wheat. The railway in many parts of the country is still the principal carrier of wheat, the only other effective means of carriage being by water, where that is available.
It has been apparent I think for a number of years that a great leap forward was needed in our thinking about rail transportation and about the relationship of parliament and government to rail transportation. This leap forward would recognize the fact that the railways no longer, except in those rather limited areas to which I have referred, have a monopoly. There is competition which in many respects is very effective, and in some respects so effective that the railways are losing the traffic almost completely. Under these conditions it is surely better to allow the forces of competition to provide the regulation than to seek to provide it, generally somewhat out of date, by law.
Some years ago under the previous administration a royal commission was set up. This of course has been the pattern over the years, that at each important stage of development in our railways, we have used this rather useful device for having a hard look at the railways taken by really competent people. This most recent commission was not under one chairmanship. Unfortunately, for reasons of health, the chairman was not able to continue but found a very worthy successor in Mr. MacPherson who, although our views might differ politically, I think the house would be united in agreeing is a man of utmost integrity, great competence and vast experience in this field. This commission had a number of other able members. They provided us more than two years ago with a report which certainly deserves our respect. This does not mean, of course, we should blindly accept every recommendation that was made by fallible men who could make errors in judgment. But I am bound to say that when the present government was faced with the problem of deciding what if anything should be done about this problem- and it certainly called for some drastic action

Branch Railway Lines
-the recommendations in the main have commended themselves to the government, and in the main we are proposing to ask parliament to translate those recommendations into legislation, if the house is willing to accept this resolution and to permit the government to bring forward a bill.
Now I may say that despite what some hon. gentlemen opposite said in the exuberance of debate in recent weeks, the bill has been ready for months, and I say that because I want to say something about the date July 1, 1964, which is in the bill. I do not propose to ask to have the bill reprinted on that account. I think it would be better to have it introduced, better to see what progress we make and, if it is desirable to make the effective date a different date, the government would reserve the right to substitute another date for it, without being accused of retreating or advancing or anything else, but just of being sensible.


Mr. Clancy:: You are just neutral about it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. gentleman suggests that we are just neutral, but we are just being sensible about this matter, and if we can save the taxpayers a little money in the process then it is a good thing to do. I thought I ought to mention this one point because it seemed to me, if later this day we do get consent to introduce the bill, there should be an explanation on the record with regard to this date.
Broadly speaking, what the bill would propose to do is to relieve the railways of the burden of the services which the royal commission decided were uneconomic. By uneconomic I mean services that were being provided to the public at a greater cost than the railway was recovering from the direct payment for those services. It is in that narrow sense of the word uneconomic that I use the term. It does not necessarily mean any of these services are uneconomic in the sense of being unnecessary to the whole economy. Those that are unnecessary to the economy we would hope would be dispensed with altogether; but those services which, for economic or social reasons, do need to be carried on, but for which the railways do not receive, in direct return adequate financial support, it is felt should not be charged to the general revenues of the railways but that these uneconomic charges should be made and clearly defined for what they are, so that we will know in this parliament, so that the public will know as nearly as we can possibly, by good accounting segre-

gate these matters-what is costing what, what is being received for what, and how the railways are doing.
The legislation will also provide for a radically new method of freight rate regulation which will involve, in fact, a great deal less regulation than we have been accustomed to in the past, and which is in general very much along the lines recommended in the report.
There are a number of recommendations in the report which do not directly affect these two basic matters, recommendations with respect to the Maritime Freight Rates Act, with respect to road transport and some other matters that are of great importance in themselves, but that it was not felt we should attempt to include within the four corners of this legislation which we now wish to bring forward, and some of which we feel still need more study before the government will be prepared to decide to recommend legislation.
The philosophical basis, if one wants to put it that way, of the legislation is that the railways now, in the main in most spheres, being subject to competition from other forms of transport should be free to compete for business with other forms of transport, but with due regard to the national interest. In this context I should like to say a word about the fear that has been expressed by those engaged in other forms of transport, that in some way or other, the government is proposing massive subsidies to the railways to enable them to undercut their competitors. There is no such thought and no such intention in the legislation.
It is true that in the past several years parliament has seen fit to vote certain sums of money which are paid to the railways because of their financial situation, and it is true that the government will be asking- and parliament has already been told this *-to have these payments made for the calendar year 1964, and that we have undertaken to look at the effect of the recent increases in wages, six months after those increases were granted, to see what if any additional, temporary, transitional assistance the railways may require.
But the whole purpose of this approach to the railway problem, the whole purpose of the legislation we have in mind is to get away from any large, undifferentiated lump sum payment to the railways, to make payments only for specific services that are specifically defined, and to leave the railways free otherwise to compete, but to compete

with their own resources, the resources that are available to them, on the same basis as other forms of transport. I thought it worth while making this point because there is a great deal of misunderstanding and apprehension occasioned by that misunderstanding about this point.
I may add, moreover, that, having regard to the financial situation of the treasury and to what I believe myself to be good sound principle, it is the desire of the government, wherever this is possible, wherever it is reasonable, wherever there are not important national considerations calling for different action, that users, and not the taxpayers, should pay for the services that are provided in the field of transportation. There are of course exceptions that will have to be made, as they have always had to be made to this principle, with respect to the railways, and which sometimes have been made with respect to other forms of transport.
We must remember that in the Canadian context, perhaps more than in that of most countries, good transport and efficient transport is essential to keep the country a country, to keep it united, and that the national interest must at all times be paramount. We consider, as every government has considered -at least for a generation-that one of the national interests of this country is to maintain the tremendous grain export business that has been one of the main sources of income of the Canadian people in the whole of the twentieth century. For that reason there is no thought and no intention of disturbing the Crowsnest pass rates, and those other rates which are an extension of the Crowsnest pass rates on grain.
It is also very well known that, notwithstanding the tremendous changes that have taken place in railway transportation on the prairies, this applies more to the prairies than to any other part of Canada, although there are other areas where it has some application -where railway branch lines, in many cases, are getting much less traffic than will pay for the cost of operation of those lines-that there are many of those lines which are essential now and will be essential for a considerable number of years for transportation, and particularly for the transport of grain. And as hon. members know I have taken the view, which was taken also by my predecessor, and which has been taken by this government and which I am sure would have been taken by the previous government, that in this matter the public interest must be placed ahead of balance sheets.
20220-506J
Branch Railway Lines
So far as these branch lines are concerned, there are undoubtedly some of them where the traffic is so light that their essentiality has really disappeared and the branch lines themselves could probably be dispensed with fairly soon. There are others which are going to be needed for a great many years ahead, so far ahead as it is reasonably safe to legislate in a matter of this kind, and therefore it is proposed to recommend that a branch line rationalization authority be established and that a fund be given to this authority to keep these lines in being, without making the losses on them a charge on the general revenues of the railways, but having them paid for directly as a national service, so that the railways will not be able to blame any failure to earn a living by themselves on these branch lines.
We have all of us witnessed, no matter what part of Canada we have come from, the gradual shrinking-though there has been perhaps under the red, white and blue a revival of late, but it is only a small revival compared with the shrinking that has taken place-of passenger traffic and passenger services on the railways.
It is proposed to accept the recommendation of the royal commission that payments be made to the railways to maintain certain of these passenger services on a sliding or diminishing scale in order to give the railways an opportunity to test which service can really be made to justify itself and which cannot, without sudden shocks in the transportation field.
I think these are the principal features of the legislation that is proposed. As I said at the outset, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would not feel it necessary to try to debate the bill before we see it. If we could confine ourselves to generalities and possibly to a few questions about any points that I may have left obscure at this resolution stage, we could have a much more intelligent and informed debate when we have the bill in front of us and know precisely what it is the government is proposing.
With respect to what the government will be proposing, I may say that of course we are taking our responsibility as a government for the proposals in general; but it is the intention of the government to have this bill sent after second reading, provided the house sees fit to give it second reading, to the railway committee, because it is of such vast importance to everyone in the country. We think it would be quite unreasonable to take any other course. We would expect that

Branch Railway Lines
the committee would hear representations from all seriously interested bodies. I may say that as the minister primarily responsible for this legislation, it would be my view that I should listen most carefully to all representations and bring to the attention of my colleagues any serious suggestions for amendment of the legislation that in the light of those representations might seem to be more in the public interest than what is being recommended. No one can be all wise about as difficult and complex a subject as this, and certainly the government does not pretend to be. I do not think the royal commission did, either. If through our collective wisdom in the committee or in the house we can provide more effectively for the future of the railways, we will seek to do so in the course of this legislation.
I think I should just say, in conclusion, that notwithstanding the tremendous development of road transportation, of transportation by air and other forms of transport, particularly the tremendous increase in the volume of inland water transport which has taken place since the opening of the St. Lawrence seaway, the railways still do represent a very important element in the whole Canadian economy. It is essential that we have efficient railway service in this country, not only to transport goods from one part of the country to another but, in a country which still depends for about one fifth of its income on sales outside the country, it is of the utmost importance that our railways should be both efficient and competitive, not only with other forms of transport in Canada but with transport elsewhere in the world, so that we may continue to derive from the rest of the world that one fifth, that 20 cents of every dollar, of the income of the average Canadian that comes from sales abroad.
It is our view that it is of great importance that we should give the railways an opportunity to operate as efficiently and as economically as possible and avoid adding unduly to fixed charges that are imposed upon the taxpayers and that inevitably have to be paid for and are therefore a minus factor in the economy. At the same time we must remember that the railways are large employers of labour; that the interests of the employees of the railways, our fellow citizens, must not be overlooked; and that, though change is essential in this field if the railways are to compete and receive a reasonable share of the traffic which will enable them to maintain their services out

of their revenues, we must at the same time see that we do not, because of changes for which they have no responsibility whatsoever, visit hardships that are not reasonable and bearable upon a large section of the Canadian population. I think, sir, on that note I should conclude what I have to say at this stage of the proceedings.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister whether he could give some indication, or perhaps even assurance, that after the bill is referred to the committee there will be sufficient time-I am thinking in terms of at least six weeks; perhaps two months-allowed before witnesses are called, so that the people concerned, and primarily the three prairie provincial governments, will have time to prepare their case.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do think any reasonable suggestion of that kind would be acceded to very readily by the government. I would rather hope that it might be possible to go on quite soon, after the first reading, with the debate on second reading of the bill. Suggestions have been made that even the second reading should be delayed for a long period. I do not think that would really serve any particularly useful purpose; I believe it would be desirable to have the second reading of the bill and then have it before the committee. But I do not think we should, in committee, act in such a way as to make it difficult for any organizations or individuals who have serious contributions to make, to make them in the way they want to make them. I would certainly be very happy indeed to consider any reasonable requests for delays in these matters; but I think there should be an interval, perhaps after second reading, before the committee even undertakes its task-unless perchance there are a number of organizations that are ready to proceed, because I think these proceedings will take a long time. If a number of organizations are ready to proceed, perhaps a start could be made and then there could be an interval, if it was required by any of those seriously interested. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, if I may make a very bad pun, the government has no thought of trying to railroad this legislation at any stage.


Mr. Hamilton:: Mr. Chairman, I think there must be a realization in the minds of all of us that the introduction of this bill, into the house is a very historic occasion. Railway legislation and the problems that go along with railway construction and management

in Canada are far older than the federal structure itself.
The very fact that when we built this House of Commons the largest single room in it was the railway committee room is an indication that the men who sat in their places here before us spent the greater part of their time dealing with railway problems. Now we have an introductory statement by the minister which indicates that the railways, which were once the chosen instrument of government to achieve national development, are now going to be asked to go into the position of being just another transportation company with an equal chance to grab their share of the transportation market, and with an equal chance of removing the load of carrying national responsibility which this parliament of Canada placed upon the railways.
My remarks today on the resolution stage will deal with the principle of the resolution, namely should this parliament consider first reading of a bill to expend the moneys indicated in the words of the ministers, to make this adjustment of a railways system by taking it out of the role of being the chosen instrument of the national government back into the field of free enterprise? The grants which the minister talked about are, in effect, adjustment grants to help the adjustment become a little smoother than it would be if we simply arbitrarily cut off all help.
I should like at this time, Mr. Chairman, to highlight, if I may use that word, the real significance of this legislation as indicated to us by the minister. To see this highlight one has only to go to areas of Canada where competition did not bring down freight rates. Those areas are the prairies, the maritimes and certain northern areas of all our provinces where there is no other reasonable type of competition. As a result, as costs of railway management rose, freight rate increases were applied across the board. But because freight rates in areas where there was competition- namely, in the central provinces-could not be raised, the increase was loaded on to the prairies, the maritimes and the northern railway sections.
This is not a new problem, Mr. Chairman. Using round figures, and taking a date shortly after the war, these increases in freight rates, applicable only to certain areas of our country and to certain classifications of goods carried by the railways in those areas, rose approximately 150 per cent. If in this period of a little over a decade there was a 150 per cent increase in the cost of moving goods
Branch Railway Lines
into a particular area and the cost of moving much of the goods out of that area, it would be a high cost factor loaded on to the production end. In no place in Canada was this more severe than in the maritimes and in the prairies. All of the goods imported from central Canada were at high cost. This cost was accelerated at a rate which no other goods had to meet. So the railways situation, or the problem, as it is called, has always been of prime interest to the people on the prairies. The same type of argument would apply to the maritimes, and spokesmen for that area will no doubt remind us of it. Also a forgotten group were those in the areas in the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, who had the same freight rate increases applied to them but apparently over the years of our history had no spokesmen in this house to speak for them.
One of the greatest of the spokesmen for the areas which were being discriminated against was M. A. MacPherson, senior. He became one of the members of the royal commission on transportation in 1959, and eventually its chairman. I do not think I am wrong in saying that any province in western Canada, whether it was governed by a Social Credit government, a C.C.F. government, a Liberal government or a Conservative government, had any doubt that M. A. MacPherson was looked upon as the man who, probably better than anyone, expressed the viewpoint of western Canada on these discriminatory rates.
I mention this highlight to you, Mr. Chairman, because the significance of this royal commission report with which we are now dealing is that for the first time we see some answer to the continually spiralling cost of freight rates. As I understand that the recommendations, according to the words of the minister, will be included in the legislation at long last, those of us in the areas of Canada which have been discriminated against know that, under the radical system of freight rate adjustments, if the increases apply at any place they apply all across Canada. They are based on certain formulas.
I said earlier that this was not a new matter. In 1951 the government set up a railways royal commission, if I remember correctly, which reported a year or so later. This royal commission grappled with these problems and the suggestion it came up with, which was accepted by the government of that day, was the bridge subsidy, whereby the federal taxpayers paid approximately $7 million a year to the two railways to bridge

Branch Railway Lines
the gap between Winnipeg and the head of the lakes, or roughly that area, on the C.N.R. I have read the recommendations of that royal commission. I have gone further back and read the recommendations of the royal commission of the early 1930's, and in my judgment one of the great tragedies of this whole question of governments dealing with the railways is that the recommendations of the commission of the 1930's were not more seriously considered. However, as a reasonably well informed student of these matters I know that the government was aware of the fact that we were then in the throes of the depression, and that any move in those days to make the railways efficient and to let them have some reasonable chance to cope with their rising difficulties would have practically been construed as being against the interests of the many thousands of unemployed.
When you go over those recommendations, Mr. Chairman, and think what would have happened in the last 30 years if some of them had been implemented, these losses which have piled up all during the years would never have occurred and the situation we have to deal with today would not be so extreme. So I hope that all members of this committee, regardless of party, realize that the first responsibility we have to face in regard to this legislation is that for the good of Canada we will have to get the railways into some form of rational situation where they can cope, and are just another private enterprise concern in this country.
Speaking for a moment on behalf of the farmers, at least those on the prairies, 1 think they want more than anything else probably to be freed from the fear that the old system which was in effect in 1958 and 1959 will be continued. Every year or two they have been exposed to accelerated freight rate increases, increases which do not apply to the great bulk of areas in other parts of Canada, and to be freed from this fear is one thing above all others which they would like. Having pointed out what I think is the highlight, and never forgetting that removing this discrimination is the main objective of us all, if this legislation frees us from that fear I think it should get the support of all parties, not just the support of the government party.
However, it is up to us in the opposition to bring forward as clearly as we can some of the great concerns we have about the implementation of this legislation.
For the sake of the record, I should like to mention one or two historical facts about the

way this problem has been tackled. Many members will recall that when the government of which I was a member took office it was faced almost immediately with a succession of difficulties relating to wages paid on the railroad, always under the threat of strike of some form. These negotiations were always on the basis of a strike situation, but we met these situations as well as we could. We finally set up a royal commission, and paid a temporary grant of $50 million per year in an attempt to keep the situation stable until this royal commission report could be acted upon.
The order in council establishing the royal commission was dated in May, 1959. The first volume of its report was received by the government in March of 1961. The second volume was received in December of 1961, and the third volume in July of 1962. Even before the third volume was received certain action was under way by the government to prepare itself for the production of legislation to meet at least some of the recommendations of that royal commission. The resolution was ready in the fall of 1962 and was referred to in the speech from the throne at the beginning of that session of parliament.
One of the most painful memories I have of that session, knowing the many hours that had been used in the preparation of this resolution, relates to my feeling at the time I read in the newspapers, as evidenced by the attitude here in this house, that the opposition was determined not only that no estimates would go through, but no legislation would be passed. One of the most devastating and determined efforts of the opposition to block legislation occurred in the fall of 1962, and continued at greater lengths than ever before. We had to take certain steps, and I should like to outline for the first time in this house some of the steps that were taken.
There was great uncertainty in the country at that time as to what would happen to the recommendations of the royal commission, not only on the part of many farmers, but on the part of governments which felt affected. In the fall of 1962, after a great deal of preliminary negotiation and, if I might say so, skirmishing, we finally arranged a meeting of the officers of the two railways and the grain trading companies, pool and private, in western Canada. These two factions, old enemies as they were, faced up to the fact that the day of the railroad being used as a chosen instrument, under which all the obligations that the railroad could not meet through

revenue were passed on to the taxpayer, was coming to an end. They met in an attempt to find some common ground so that they could come together on an economic front. To the credit of all concerned, both on the side of the railways and on the side of the grain companies, pool, co-operative and private, an understanding was reached. I think generally speaking this understanding has been followed, although there have been times when I wondered if the understanding was being kept fully. I know there have been some complaints on the part of each side about the actions of each other, but generally speaking that understanding has been honoured.
On two or three occasions the predecessor of the present minister has stood in this house and said the present government would honour those commitments. One of those commitments was that we would introduce legislation and get it under way in the spring of 1963. The government changed in April of that year, and of course we could not honour that commitment. We in the opposition have not been too hard on the present government for not bringing this legislation forward sooner, because, while we knew it was ready, we knew that the new government would have to spend a good many months examining it in order to get the feeling of it and decide whether they wanted to bring it before the house. The resolution now on the order paper is almost identical to the one we prepared, with the exception of one clause, and I am sure the present minister is aware of that fact. I point this fact out because we have now reached that stage at which we have not been able to honour a commitment of time. I should like to point out that we did not expect this government to move too quickly because, as the minister has said, this is very complicated legislation.
Having described that meeting between the economic groups affected by the actual operation of the railways, particularly in western Canada, we called a meeting at the end of January, 1963 of the three prairie premiers and the officials here in Ottawa. I hope the minister has read the minutes of that meeting, at which we explained the general philosophy of the government in respect of solving the railway situation. We explained in general terms the devices we had developed to protect public interests, and we asked for their co-operation, because there were certain fields the board of transport commissioners could not cope with. We admitted this fact, and indicated that only by co-operation between the respective governments, namely the federal
Branch Railway Lines
government and the governments of the three prairie provinces, could there be an answer to the difficulties.
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a well known fact that the great bulk of low density line abandonments recommended exist in the prairie provinces, and you will see why the remarks I make now deal specifically with that area, but apply equally to every section of the country where line abandonment is contemplated. At this meeting of the prairie premiers we outlined certain commitments, one being that during the period of the introduction of the bill, first and second readings, there would be delays enabling the representatives of those governments to prepare general briefs outlining their positions. Whatever information those general briefs contain, they are ready and have been ready for many months. We also indicated to the premiers that in respect of this question of rationalization, even though at that moment we did not contemplate such an agency or board as suggested by the minister, a fund was available and we would work very closely with them in this regard.
I should like to make one further suggestion at this time, and I hope I am being constructive. I think the three premiers agreed to the suggestion that we did not generally support the concept of an over-all study of the prairie area, but that we thought it should be broken down into regions. Manitoba lends itself very well to four main regions; Saskatchewan lends itself to nine or ten and Alberta to four or five. We thought this study could proceed while consideration was being given to the nationalized abandonment period recommended by the commission.
I think the government should also be aware of one further question which was kept separate during this meeting. We also agreed that when the truckers saw the legislation they would be given time to prepare a brief and either present it at the time of second reading or in committee. We made that pledge and I know the government will honour it, because they should.
Time is passing and I want to deal with the subject matter of the report. As I said earlier, the first principle of the report and its highlights, I think, is the recommendation of the commissioners that at long last there should be an end to unequal freight rate increases in Canada which have so plagued and divided our country economically over the last 30 years. Second, they recommend that the railways should be allowed to move out of passenger services where people did not

Branch Railway Lines
travel on the railways, and in this regard they recommend the five year declining subsidy to which the minister referred. Third, they dealt with the question of light density lines. This of course will be a crucial part of the debate that will develop, in that we will be concerned about how we are going to handle this situation. The railways put forward the idea, which was accepted by the commissioners, that they should be allowed to abandon light density lines where the traffic did not pay the fixed or constant costs of the railway and the variable costs of the railway applied to such light density lines. The commissioners recommended a period of 15 years in which these adjustments could take place. They said that if the railways could demonstrate that the traffic generated on these light density lines was not sufficient to meet the constant costs and the variable costs, then in the national interest they should be a charge on the government if the government wanted the railways to continue operating these lines. The commissioners recommended a subsidy for the constant cost and also a maximum subsidy applicable to the variable costs. This is a subject I want to come back to later in the debate, because I think it will be the crux of the matter in determining whether good legislation has been introduced which will meet the demands of the present and future situations.
As the minister pointed out, there is no intention to break the Crowsnest pass agreement. I know it is very difficult for people who do not come from the prairies to understand the significance of the Crowsnest pass agreement to westerners. To us this is the charter on which we base our thinking. This is the basis on which hundreds of thousands of people moved into the area, established homes and cultivated and brought into production an area of land probably equal to the greatest agricultural areas in the world. I am thinking of the Ukraine and some of the great plains of India.
I am not going to go into legalistic interpretations with respect to the Crowsnest pass agreement. The agreement was made and the government of the day picked the railways as the chosen instrument to open up this area. To encourage the railways to go in there we gave them certain land grants and cash grants and finally we got the Crowsnest pass agreement with respect to one area. However, I intend to deal with it as it affects the whole prairie area, because that is the way it should be dealt with. If a member to my left follows me in the debate I suppose he will refer

to the oil rights and mining rights that went along with the land.
A deal was made based on conditions over 60 years ago, and nothing has happened since to suggest that the agreement should be dishonoured or broken. In those days a small engine pulled a small number of cars and the fixed costs and variable costs were set. Today we have locomotives that can pull over 100 much larger cars and travel much faster. According to all the laws of economics, if the deal was economically sound then it is even sounder today. There is nothing in the evidence that any commissioner was able to dig up to prove that there are losses under the Crowsnest pass rates.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Or on the Kettle valley.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I suggest to the minister that one reason why the railways have not pressed for quicker action on this legislation in the last year and a half is that exports of grain in 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964 have been such that even a mediocre economist like myself can figure out with a pencil that they are making money on most of these lines they have set down for abandonment. I am going to have something to say about that, but not just now.
In winding up this part of my remarks I should like to suggest that if the MacPherson report and the legislation we pass to implement it end the discrimination that has existed, this report will be one of the greatest reports in Canada's history, not only because of ending 130 years of our history and bringing us into the new electronic age but because it is an end of injustice. You cannot build a strong Canada if the maritimes or prairies are suffering from discriminatory freight rates, and freight rates are such a large part of our costs.
If the royal commission report has achieved this objective, which I think is the highlight of the report, then it is to be expected that there will be honest criticism in the house in putting the report into effect without relinquishing our right to discuss the controversial parts and to make sure that the people of the country realize what this report means to them, namely at some time in the future a cessation of the continual pressure on taxpayers that they have had to undergo for over 100 years in the building of this nation.
I should like to call it six o'clock, Mr. Chairman.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Before you leave the chair, sir, I wonder if the hon. gentleman would object if I pointed out that what he said was

not quite fair to the railways. From the day I took over this portfolio I have been under constant pressure from the heads of both railways to bring on this legislation, and if they have not blasted me in public they have come quite close to it once or twice in private.


Lucien Lamoureux: It is my duty, pursuant to standing order 39A, to inform hon. members that the following question is to be raised at 10.30 o'clock this evening:
The hon. member for Danforth, unemployment insurance, denial of benefits to striking newspaper employees in Toronto.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, before the break for the dinner hour I was dealing, in a very general way, with some of the history of this railway problem and pointing out near the end that the Crowsnest pass rates were a matter of charter rights to those of us in the west. I expect that some time, probably during the debate, the maritime members will explain how their interests have to be protected also. In the time that remains to me, which is not very much, I want to wind up with the strongest statement that I can on what I think the problem from now on will be, in so far as putting this legislation through, getting it accepted and making it work.
In my earlier remarks I mentioned that in the fall of 1962 through to the end of January, 1963, we had put considerable effort, as a government, in getting the interested parties on the economic side into a meeting with those on the political side and trying to explain to them what our objective was. It is very important in this type of complex legislation to have understanding and sympathy with other political organizations that are affected. There has been a great deal of talk over the last year or so about co-operative federalism. The co-operative federalism envisaged in my mind is where adult governments which have matured mentally, knowing full well what their constitutional responsibilities are, are willing to sit down on any particular subject as equal governments, regardless of political affiliation, to see if they cannot come up with some common agreement. This was the basis of my approach and the
Branch Railway Lines
approach of the governments of the three western provinces.
I think we had an understanding. If you read the statements of ex-premier Lloyd on this matter, you will find he had the same concept. They know in western Canada that adjustments have to be made, but there are certain things that have to be said, certain things that have to be done, to protect the social and economic interests of the people there. These social and economic interests were created by the federal government in the national policies of that day. There was a desire to fill up western Canada with people. These railway lines were built as a part of that policy and the railways were the chosen instruments of the federal government. It is true that during this process of filling this vast area the railways were built where it is clear now they should not have been built. It is clear also that when the Canadian National was put together in 1919 it had the task, as the chosen instrument of the federal government, of bringing together this hodgepodge of lines as an integrated railway system. By contrast, the Canadian Pacific was built on an integrated basis and its problems in connection with applications for abandonments of lines are not nearly as great as those of the Canadian National which was left with this inheritance from this tremendous overbuilding at the beginning of the century.
It is because of this national policy of 60 years ago that we must move with great caution at this time. You cannot, in justification of human values as well as economic values, move in and arbitrarily take out railway lines on a dollars and cents formula per line. The fact that you created the situation as a result of national policy means that it must be met as a national policy. I believe I said that many people in western Canada, as well as the provincial governments, are prepared to accept the premise that in return for getting clear of this fear that there will be ever spiralling freight rates applied to them, they must be willing to accept a rational economic proposal put forward by the federal government. However, they have a duty to protect their people, and this duty must be discharged in the form of representations from provincial governments. We, as federal members from the prairie provinces-almost entirely Conservative at the present time- intend to bring our representations forward as individual members of ridings. However, a duty falls upon the provincial governments to represent the people of their provinces as well. It is in this field or arena that I would

Branch Railway Lines suggest the technique of co-operative work with the provincial governments of the three prairie provinces would yield tremendous dividends.
We set the pattern in January, 1963. There has been great concern and uncertainty since because, so far as we know, they have never been consulted since. Occasionally we get from them these expressions of concern. These meetings that have been held in various parts of Manitoba and Saskatchewan during this last year and a half are indicative of the fact that the concern is widespread in these provinces. I would suggest very strongly, not only to the Minister of Transport but more particularly to the minister who is to be in charge of this rationalization program, that they frequently communicate with the governments of these three prairie provinces.
No matter how you twist and turn, no matter how you rationalize the abandonment of any of these lines there are people there who have spent a lifetime-two generations in some cases-building up the social capital of their churches, their sidewalks, their sewage systems, their water systems, their curling rinks and all the other things that make up the social capital of a community. Take a railway out of one of these towns and you may destroy the economic base of that community-


Lucien Lamoureux: I have to interrupt the hon. member to ascertain if he has the unanimous consent of the committee to go beyond his time limit.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I shall not trespass too far on the good will of the committee, as I think I can finish my remarks in five or six minutes. I am trying to make the point that here you have a large number of people who, rightly or wrongly, are in a certain spot and they have invested all they own in this social capital, as well as in the private ownership of their homes. At this moment I am not including in my concern the great grain companies who invested hundreds of millions of dollars in grain handling facilities, as they can look after themselves fairly well in this type of tug of war. But I am speaking, with all the feeling I can put into my words, for these small merchants and craftsmen in the towns, who have built these conveniences to supply the people around them, all because there was a railway going through their towns.
Having said that I know there are other cases involved. In fact one happened in my
[Mr. Hamilton.!

constituency in 1961 when 122 miles of railway line were abandoned. I joined with the hon. member for Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Brandon-Souris in trying to get the people of that area, if they wanted to preserve their railway, to join with us in collecting information and promising certain things to convince the railway that the line should be kept there. But the businessmen had to tell us they could not take their business and hand it back to the railway, because of the time factor in modern merchandising.
Likewise, when I took the case of two or three of the communities involved to the railways to suggest that a spur line be built by the C.N.R. into the areas abandoned by the C.P.R., they were able to show that the figures of maintaining and servicing these spur lines were greater than the cost of trucking goods. Therefore we dropped our opposition. The rail line was abandoned, but I am compelled to say that these particular towns we were worried about are equal to or stronger than they were before the lines were abandoned. However the situation in that case was that the other railway was only two or three miles away, and there was no loss to the farmers. People kept coming to these communities to curl, go to church and do their business. In that particular case the abandonment of the line did not cause any harm to the social capital I have been talking about and actually it improved the economics of the two railway lines north and south.
If we are willing to look into these problems of going into an area and taking out railway lines that may well possibly have been built in the wrong places 60 years ago, if we are willing to add up the assets as well as the liabilities, then I am sure westerners will be willing to be the first to agree to a railway line being taken out, as long as the suffering or loss is not so severe that it destroys the livelihood of the people in those areas. No matter how you turn and twist there are going to be areas where the taking out of a line is not going to be serious; but equally there are areas, and I think a majority of them, where the losses will be beyond the recovery of the private individual. In these areas where losses will be beyond the individual's ability to cope with, where the small businessman, the clerks in a town, small craftsmen and, in some cases, groups of farmers, will be completely isolated, then I think governments have to accept something more than just the ordinary type of commiseration. We are going to have to do something definite, and there are many practical

proposals that could be put forward to meet the needs of those places.
With regard to this resolution I think we should make our general viewpoints known about the whole question of dealing with these recommendations of the royal commission, but really we are talking in a vacuum until we have the terms of the bill before us. Therefore I hope the members of the official opposition will join with me in suggesting it might be wise to let the resolution stage pass tonight, with each of the other parties making their views known, in order to get the bill in our hands. Then if the minister on behalf of the government could assure us of having a suitable length of time to study the bill, which is very extensive and complicated-say about 10 days-we would be in a better position.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If I might be permitted, Mr. Chairman, before the next member speaks, I would give that assurance without any hesitation. It would be much more desirable to have the bill studied reasonably thoroughly before embarking on debate on second reading, and in view of the timetable which the Prime Minister put before the house it would not appear likely to impede the program of the house in any way to give that assurance, because there is other legislation available for tomorrow and Wednesday, which I think will take all the time, and next week on Monday and Tuesday we have a supply motion.


Mr. Fisher:: Mr. Chairman, the minister is one person whose abilities I have a great deal of respect for, in his capacity to analyse, and also in his capacity to project his analysis into this chamber when he wants to. It is quite apparent from the introduction he gave this resolution that he has not chosen to do this and, knowing the minister, I assume that he has very good reasons for it, probably tactical.
But one might have assumed that on legislation which has been mooted so long, which, according to the minister, arose out of one of the great studies of transportation, the royal commission on transportation, we might have had an over-all presentation of the transportation policy of the government. It is now apparent we are not going to get it or, that if we get it, it will come piecemeal. It is not satisfactory to assume that we can get it at second reading, or that we are likely to get it then, and so we are left with the impression that the Liberal party's policy on transportation is a piecemeal approach, taking
Branch Railway Lines
a bit here and a bit there, without any overall application or any over-all plan; because the minister, I think, would have to confess that this resolution cannot really stand as the main guts of the MacPherson recommendations.
There is nothing here about a national transportation board; there is nothing about a national transportation council. And so I am left to wonder what the minister and his predecessor have been doing with their time. The minister has told us the bill has been ready for a long time. He has had time to prepare a statement on national transportation policy, because anything that has to do with the railways, and particularly the major railways, which are certainly both vertical and horizontal in the transportation business, surely has implications and requires some kind of statement on national transportation policy.
We all know the minister is capable of giving us this, and the fact that he has not done so is an indication that members of the government feel it is best to leave it this way, so that they will not arouse too much antagonism or too much interest, and maybe this is the most effective way to get it through the house.
I could not help but be slightly amused by a comparison between the resolution put forward by the minister's predecessor, now the President of the Privy Council, and this one. There are a few changes. I can just see the blue pencil of the minister from Newfoundland cutting out the phrase in the previous resolution which read:
-to establish a branch line rationalization authority and a branch line rationalization fund to be continued for 15 years to assist in the establishment of an orderly, rational and planned program of abandonment of uneconomic branch lines-
That has been changed in the new resolution to this:
-to establish a branch line rationalization authority and a branch line rationalization fund to be continued for 15 years to assist in the establishment of an orderly program for the improvement of the efficiency of railway branch lines;-
This is a really subtle contribution the minister has made. We have cut out those okay words "rational" and "planned". I suppose this is to take care of the free enterprise activities in the area the minister represents. Instead of the kind of ugliness of "abandonment of uneconomic branch lines," we have this much more positive statement, "the improvement of the efficiency of railway branch lines". That is a really great contribution the

Branch Railway Lines
minister has made to the policy as set forth in the resolution.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is the minister of
euphemism.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Yes, he is the minister of euphemism, all right. I would like to suggest to the minister that some time, surely, during the proceedings, if not at the second reading stage then perhaps when the railway committee is hearing the evidence and examining the bill, we should get from him some idea as to what is the government's transportation policy. A lot of people are very much interested in this. I can think of the tracking industry, the people who are involved in pipe lines, all the railway workers across the country, who would still like to have some impression of where this government stands with regard to some of the problems that are facing them.
So far as our party is concerned, we will not call any division at the resolution stage, but we are certainly sceptical enough of this legislation, from what we can see of it, to anticipate that we shall probably be speaking against it, or speaking against substantial parts of it, and voting, probably, against the legislation when it comes in. This is not put forward as any kind of threat that we are going to drag things out, but it is quite apparent that there are a number of items in the legislation revealed by the resolution that are unsatisfactory, to say the least.
One of the things that I do not think has really struck home to the people across the country generally is this. I do not think they realize what a drastic change we have had. We have had a freight rates system building up for decades; a freight rates system handled by the board of transport commissioners. We all know the tremendous number of hearings and the long attempts that were made, particularly in the 1950's and a few years ago, to equalize the freight rates, to try to make the system one that is practical and adjustable. Despite any of the vicious or mean things that might be left in the freight rates system at the present time, it was viable and it was working. Now we have to start off with a completely new slate in so far as freight rates are concerned, because the essence of what the minister and the government have plucked out of the royal commission's recommendations is opening up the whole area to competition. This sounds great; there is nothing better than competition and laws and rules in the market place to give you the best in transportation. However, I

happen to come from an area that has been subsidized substantially by the bridge subsidy. I would like to give the minister an example of what happened recently with the pick up in the transportation out of our area of basic commodities. The $7 million had to be spread a lot thinner. As a consequence, in effect there was a substantial rise in the rates of certain commodities, particularly lumber. The railways, without any hesitation, went in and applied this rate despite the fact that its application immediately made much of that exportation of lumber out of our area uneconomical. We are still hoping we can stave off the increase. It has been postponed several times. But this gives you an idea of the tremendous economic pressure many parts of our country suffer when they have not competition.
We cannot get competitive transportation in the sense in which they have it in southern and northern Ontario. I do not believe we get it really on the prairies, as yet. Yet this is going to be the carte blanche that is given to this new set-up as far as we can make it out-the abolition of the freight rates structure as we know it. I suggest that, inadequate as the structure may have been, despite all the difficulties in connection with it, we are really throwing out a great deal for something that is most indefinite. I am somewhat hesitant of making a fetish out of or bowing to the shrine of free enterprise and competition in contemplation of what may be possible.
I suggest to the minister that if the legislation follows through and is introduced, what we will have here-and members had better remember this-is more delegations and more representations than we have ever had before when the new freight rates are applied and the railways put their rates on a so-called economic or competitive basis. This is one of the reasons why we want to look at that particular section most closely.
I certainly intend to call before the committee a couple of Canadian experts on freight rates, people who have had experience with them. I know at least two of them who have worked in the field for a number of years, and they think this proposal is absolutely fantastic. I refer to the proposal to suddenly throw away the whole structure, all for the sacred principle of competition. One of the other questions that the commission dealt with was this. I remember that when I appeared before the commission I put this first question to them. One of the fundamental issues we faced was, are we to throw open competition

in Canadian transportation, restricting the role of the board of transport commissioners, or move toward nationalized transportation, initially through nationalizing the railways? We got the answer from the MacPherson commission. In effect they said that our railway structure has now reached the stage where it is easy enough to get into the competitive modes of transportation, particularly in trucking, so we can have genuine competition in most parts of the country. So the thing to do is throw away most of the old, controlled apparatus; let the railways free; set them free to make their way.
This immediately raises one question in my mind about the areas where competition reaLIy will not be in effect. I would like to ask the minister how he feels a lumber exporter, or a mine that is shipping concentrates from somewhere on the north line of the C.N.R., is going to make out. Another point involved here is the whole idea that competition in itself in the transportation business is the best and cheapest way of getting things. We had one great competitive surge in railway business back from about 1896 to 1917. What did it leave us with? Right now we have a proposal from the C.N.R. that it should be recapitalized by some $800 million. We had the tragedy of over-building, all as a result of competition. People may say, "That is old stuff. They do not make mistakes like that any more". That is just where they are wrong.
You want to look at a real boob like Manitouwadge, where you have a small community of 4,000 people, with two producing mines; and we have two railroads into it. This is complete economic nonsense. There is an even bigger development up in Esterhazy, Saskatchewan, where the C.N.R. were on the site. What was one of the consequences? The C.P.R. held the government up-it certainly held a committee up-for its share in this thing. I do not know who is going to profit from the competition. All we know is that neither railway is going to get as much as would be the case if one had the natural entry that seemed to be justified by geography; and we have a duplication of facilities, plant and everything else. We must remember that even the C.P.R., with one sacred institution of private enterprise, has been terrifically subsidized, even within recent years, by the government. So here, Mr. Chairman, are two subsidized operations with a phony kind of competition.
We have another example in this horrid affair down in Gaspe, that the government
Branch Railway Lines
has just got out of by one of the craziest
undertakings that I know of.
This is in the province of Quebec, a province which does not like the federal government to interfere in its affairs. We are going to support a special road to get us off the hook for building a railway which the previous parliament undertook to build, a railway which the government knows and which the C.N.R. knew is completely uneconomic. I give these examples, Mr. Chairman, to point out that the day of stupidity in the development of railway lines is not past.
I also believe that the day of stupidity with regard to abandonment is not past, because just yesterday I discovered that the Canadian National Railways has put work trains on a line which runs from the lakehead up through Superior Junction to Winnipeg. At the same time there was a big wreck on the south line of the C.N.R. with some 40 cars derailed. The cause of the derailment was supposed to be a broken axle. That is probably true, but I do know that the roadbed on the south line is very poor. I am convinced that the intention of the C.N.R. with their work trains is to improve the northern roadbed, to increase traffic and gradually to snuff out the south line because it is uneconomic. I am sure that is the intention of the Canadian National Railways. But the way we operate results in the fact that we have communities all along the south line who do not know what is coming or what is going to be their future. No wonder the minister takes out words like "rational" and "planned" from the resolution. It will just be orderly. I should like to know how the order is going to unfold.
I suggest that the people of western Canada are getting in this legislation-and I am disappointed to discover that the official opposition, as revealed by their spokesman, seems to be I will not say enthusiastic, but certainly prepared to go along with this legislation- something that they will regret for a long time. I am not speaking just of the abandonment features, but of the whole question of a new deal in freight rates for an area which has not the protection of the kind of competition existing in other parts of the country. Why have the prairies been squawking for years? Why have we one of the most brilliant lawyers in Canada here from the province of Alberta? It is because of their realization of how vulnerable they are in the freight rates situation when competition really does not work in their favour. There seems to be a general tendency to assume that because M. A. MacPherson was from the prairies and was

Branch Railway Lines
a good Tory, therefore his recommendations should be suitable to the Canadian west. I think that is a bit of a misstatement. I am not going to credit or discredit the contribution of Mr. MacPherson to the royal commission, but I have the feeling that there was a couple of younger men on the commission who got the bit between their teeth. I wonder why we bothered to go before that commission. I wonder why there were such vigorous presentations when I note the fact that the recommendations seem to ignore completely what was one of the most common features of representation. Region after region in this country worried about their future in the face of wide open freight rates, or freight rates which were uneconomic and would not allow them to get their products to the market. It seems to me that western Canada has the most to lose, unless this legislation is a lot more attractive than appears at the present time.
In our part of the country we too would seem to have something to lose, unless we can get some assurances when the railway officials come before the committee that the ending of the bridge subsidy will not mean immediately an upsweep in freight rates. Quite frankly-and the minister should know this-we have not the advantages of competition in our area. One really cannot conceive of trucks hauling mineral concentrates or bringing in supplies which keep my area going over the distances which are travelled. It is for that reason that to be left to the possible mercy of the competitive free enterprise instincts of the noble railroads of Canada, when it comes to setting freight rates, that we are so worked up about this wonderful prospect.
There is another irony in this whole question of competing modes, and that is the substance of the truckers' objections to the recommendations of the commission. One of their criticisms relates to very substantial and further subsidies for the railways over another interim period in connection with both abandonment and passenger traffic. I can leave that to one side for a moment, but the fact remains that when you talk of competing modes you have at the same time these two huge organizations both expanding in the trucking business. I am wondering whether the commissioners and the government which follows their recommendations, have any idea of the trends today in the transportation business. We are not returning to the day of perfect competition when small men spring up all over the place in the trucking

business and other transportation modes, the old Lincolnian ideal of the small man making his way. We are at the stage of consolidation of trucking operations, where even the biggest private operators are waiting, hoping for a bid from the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. You do not get into long haul trucking without a considerable amount of capital. At the present time the major railway companies have franchises all across the country and are in a position to expand and to exploit them.
Members who shared the committee experience with me when Mr. Gordon was before us not long ago will remember that he came to the committee and said the C.N.R. had a huge deficit. But Mr. Gordon was proud-I do not say justifiably-of the fact that the trucking operations of the C.N.R. were going ahead and were making money. How are you going to get the competing modes of transportation really chewing down the costs when, in effect, you have the development of two large universal carriers as an integrated operation? Mr. Gordon told us five years ago when the C.N.R. got into trucking that they would keep these lines separate. He did not go through with that kind of deceitfulness any longer at the last committee hearing. He told us that this was for legal reasons and to deal with provincial boards. In effect we have consolidated the whole operation. There is no reason why I select the C.N.R. instead of the C.P.R.; let us realize that we have here two giants in the transportation field. These companies are not only in railways but are very much in trucking as well, and they have a great future in trucking.
That being the situation, and with the capital support that both those railways enjoy-the capital of one of them supported by the government-how can you expect the trucking industry not to be scared and frightened and leery of proposals such as this, which are going to promise specific subsidies for another generation and also support the capital expenditures in the structure of these railways? I make this point because previously at least these lump sum payments which went into keeping down freight rates in relation to wage boosts were applied to freight rates. I wrote down somewhere-I cannot find it at the moment-the minister's statement to the effect that really what this will do is that it will get us away from large lump sum payments and pay the railways for specific things. One of the specific things is passenger service subsidies. Here is a decision to pay the railways a passenger subsidy, which seems

reasonable. The railways have complained that they have been losing their shirts on passenger service, and most of us believe them. Evidence to this effect was offered to the commission and the commission came forward and said it was the fact.
What has happened in the last two years as far as passenger service is concerned? We have all heard of the red, white and blue fares and the tremendous increase in traffic. Mr. Gordon said just a few months ago that it is too early to tell, but certainly things look better than ever. In other words, the railways modernized their marketing, streamlined their passenger operations and now things look as though they are beginning to improve; yet we are starting to give them a big subsidy in connection with passenger changes. I suggest there is something of a paradox here. Surely one does not set out to subsidize so definitive a service that is in a flux or change, and where there is some indication that with even more marketing and with a move back to a use of the rails this passenger service in many parts of the country may be able to fend for itself. Yet that is what this government seems to be doing with this legislation.
Mr. Chairman, there is one other aspect of the minister's approach, or lack of approach, or at least his lack in telling us what his approach is, which I should like to mention. I am sure he has an approach. We all know him too well to feel that he does not have this pretty well set in that very capable mind of his. There is nothing in this legislation in respect of one of the major problems of concern to the people who work for the railroads, or whose communities are sustained economically by the railways. I thought this was supposed to be such a go-ahead government made up of a group of very bright people who were sensitive to all the things that were happening and all the trends, but everyone has been talking about automation lately, the effects of it, and automatic innovation and change. We had a committee which met last year which voted almost unanimously-there was one dissenting vote-in favour of changing the Railway Act. The committee made quite clear recommendations in respect of a change to take care of that community of employees who were being shifted; but all the minister does is stand in his place and tell us that the railways are a very important part of the economy of this country, and that they employ a great number of people. He has no message in this resolution in respect of those
Branch Railway Lines
very genuine problems which exist in this field.
It might be said that this problem should be dealt with by amendments to the Railway Act; but this is something the minister did not explain, or if he did I did not understand him. What is the relationship of this legislation to the Railway Act? It seems to me to be very lacking in general terms. It may be more explicit in the bill when it is presented, but there is either going to be a conflict or a great need for amending that act as a result of this legislation. We have received no information in that regard. In other words the minister has come forward in this house without any grand outline of intention, presenting a bill which he is willing to concede will affect a tremendous number of Canadians, but is unwilling to give us a clear statement of his intention, or a clear statement in respect of government policy. It seems to me the only excuse or alibi that can be put forward for him, and he must be clear in his mind in this regard-and surely must have worked out the situation-is that he does not want to become involved in any grand hassle on principle which might lead us into longer and longer debate.
I would suggest that If we had a little bit less stupidity on the part of the government in its tactics in this house we would not be reaching the stage of bringing a bill of this complexity in at this late date, having only ten days, which I think represents a good undertaking, to look at this bill, then send it to a committee where there will be all kinds of people who want to make representations. The minister knows that it will be a miracle if this bill gets through at this session, unless this session is going to last into next year.
What were we doing during the last three or four months, at a time when this particular resolution could have been before us? We were fooling around with interim supply and the flag debate. This was the grand strategy of those masters on that side of the house whom we just had to have back in Ottawa in order to get the country straightened out. What a collection they are, Mr. Chairman, indeed. We are now faced with a most complex resolution brought in late in the session. I suppose we will have the minister chattering away on the C.B.C. television some night in the not too distant future telling the people about the opposition blocking and getting in the way of the government in this connection.


An hon. Member:: Perhaps he has learned.

Branch Railway Lines


Douglas Mason Fisher: I hear someone suggesting that perhaps he has learned, but we all remember his last appearance on television.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am never invited. It is only the hon. gentleman who is on television.


Mr. Fairweather:: He just wants you to ask
him down some Sunday night.


Douglas Mason Fisher: He knows that the door is always open.
One of the things that intrigues me about the recommendations of the royal commission-and this makes me very suspicious, as it makes most railroad employees-is that in only two parts of the country, or two institutions, have I found that these recommendations are really being thought of as wonderful, and those institutions are the president of the C.N.R. and the president of the C.P.R. Mr. Chairman, one would have to be a pretty innocent fellow not to be a little suspicious when Donald Gordon and Mr. Crump are just delighted about the recommendations of the royal commission.


Mr. Moreau:: Do not forget the truckers.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I have not heard of any truckers who were delighted, and if it was only the truckers who were against the recommendations I would be suspicious; but aside from one of the major unions which supported the commission's recommendations, with some caveat, I have not heard general enthusiasm for the royal commission's recommendations, except that expressed by Mr. Gordon and Mr. Crump. All I can say is that that should be enough of a guarantee, and enough of a warning, particularly to the people of western Canada in the bridge country, to anticipate that we should look at this legislation very carefully.
Mr. Chairman, one could go into a great deal more detail in respect of this matter. At eight o'clock I was talking with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle who said he really needed several hours to warm up to this particular issue. I feel somewhat similar, but I assume that we will be able to do so when the bill has received second reading and sent to a committee.
I should just like to repeat that I think the farmers and people in those areas of Canada where the competitive modes of transportation are not having their necks wrung, including railways employees and employees of the trucking industry, particularly the long haul, should be concerned and interested in this legislation.

It would just be blind stupidity to condemn legislation completely on the basis of this resolution. I do not really have any particular questions to ask the minister, and I hope that we can get this resolution through and receive the bill tonight. I would like to suggest that when the minister comes to the committee with this legislation he bring with him his usual and normal humility, plus a desire to be more expressive about the transportation policy of the government, because I do not see how he can suggest changes of this magnitude that will affect the whole transportation industry without some inkling as to government long term intentions; and this legislation does not have that. Even if, as I say, someone did place in this resolution a rational plan of approach, the minister cut it out before presenting the resolution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Arthur who has just taken his seat mentioned that this was a very complex piece of legislation introduced by the resolution now before us. I think it is fair to say that even that expression is an understatement, particularly when we consider the implications and ramifications which may flow from the legislation apparently to be included in the bill when it is before us.
Generally speaking the resolution before us tonight deals with three main subjects with respect to the transportation policy of Canada. It deals with what is now termed the rationalization of branch lines. As has been pointed out, this is a change from the former wording in that it used to be referred to as the abandonment of branch lines. The resolution also deals with passenger train services and the fixing of freight rates.
This history of transportation in Canada has been written often and well and I do not think anything can be gained tonight by rethreshing old straw. But I think it is fair to say that from the early days of settlement, government bodies have taken an active part in providing and regulating transportation by water, by highway, by rail and more recently by air. Generally the public has insisted that these facilities be operated on a commercial basis, that is, that the users pay the cost of services and operations, but at the same time the welfare of the public and the benefit of the nation as a whole have been a fundamental and persistent objective.
We can say that the history of Canadian transportation involves the interplay of two radically different concepts. On the one hand there are straight business principles, and on

the other hand such matters as national unity, Canadian trade, the development of new areas and matters of defence. I wish to deal only briefly with the question of passenger train services. I think it is worth mentioning at this time, as the hon. member for Port Arthur has already pointed out, that there has already been a substantial change in the past year and a half with respect to the usage of railway passenger facilities. The introduction of red, white and blue days and the introduction of special excursion rates certainly have attracted a great deal more business to passenger trains from one end of Canada to the other.
We are looking forward to celebrating our 100th birthday three years hence, Mr. Chairman, and among the plans that are being made at the present time for our centennial celebrations is the idea that it would be desirable to have a great movement of people from certain areas of Canada into other areas, resulting in an intermingling of the people from one area with those of another so they can understand each other better. It is thought that this massive movement of people to various regions of Canada during that year will help to strengthen national understanding and national unity. I do not think any reasonable member of the house will question the validity of these plans and the anticipated results. But, Mr. Chairman, during the summer of 1964, when as yet there has not been any real attempt by the centennial committee or other interested persons and groups of persons to encourage such a movement of people, we find that the railway passenger facilities have been used to the maximum all summer.
I have attempted on many occasions, as I am sure other hon. members have, to obtain reservations on some of our passenger trains and have found that there was absolutely nothing available for days and in some cases weeks in advance of the date on which I wished to travel. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, if the railways are now utilizing all of their usable equipment for moving passengers throughout Canada, what are they going to be using in 1967 for what has been described as a massive movement of people from one region to another? It seems obvious to me that even in this year the railways do not have the equipment to take care of the demands that have been made upon them, and certainly we cannot look to 1967 with any degree of optimism that the plans of the centennial committee are going to be realized. Therefore, while I believe that perhaps there
Branch Railway Lines
is a need for some subsidies for passenger train services to keep them in operation, I think that since the MacPherson commission made its recommendations there has been a very substantial change in the use of the passenger train facilities and this should be taken into consideration.
If these plans for 1967 are going to materialize, certainly the railways are going to have to produce a lot of new equipment. Maybe prior to the MacPherson commission hearings the railways ought to have taken the action they have now taken. It this had been done they probably would not have experienced a drastic falling off in the use of passenger train facilities. We think that perhaps we have already passed the point where we need to take another look at passenger train service in Canada. I might say that the MacPherson commission came to this conclusion in its report:
Uneconomic passenger services exist over the whole length and breadth of the nation but with different degrees of intensity... We regard the provision of these services, whether they be required by law, tradition or public policy, as national obligations upon the railways and a burden upon them and the other users of rail services.
We in the Social Credit party feel it is the responsibility of the house to assist the board of transport commissioners in determining whether there may be alternative public transportation available in some cases that could be used by people who normally use railway passenger service, provided they will not be subjected to too much inconvenience. Then there are other important considerations which must be kept in mind such as the severe weather conditions that exist in some parts of Canada in the winter and which, if no adequate public highway is provided, may result in the isolation of those areas for certain periods of time.
The minister in his introductory remarks this afternoon, and I intend to deal with this more fully in a minute, said that the government was preparing for some subsidies. I think he referred to specific subsidies rather than a grant or a large subsidy without any specific purpose. Some of the subsidies paid during the past four or five years, of course, have been in the form of large grants without any accounting being made of how the money has been used.
We believe there may be some instances where assistance could be granted to improve other facilities in local areas, particularly highway transportation, and that if this were done the money would be better spent.

Branch Railway Lines
Now, Mr. Chairman, turning to this matter of what is called the rationalization of branch lines or railway line abandonment as it used to be called, I should like to say, without going into too much detail, that I do not believe there has been any single commission report that created so much stir in western Canada as the MacPherson report, which contained some recommendations respecting railway line abandonment. In fact, the governments of the three prairie provinces have held a number of meetings during the past year and a half trying to work out some concerted presentation to make to the federal government respecting this matter. In addition to that, there were a number of meetings held in Regina at which there were representatives from almost every provincial and national organization in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Manitoba.
I do not want to spend the time of the committee tonight dealing with many of the submissions that were made. However, there certainly seem to be unanimity in at least one area and that was that before there is any progress from this point on in allowing the board of transport commissioners to authorize the abandonment of any more railway lines, there should be a minimum grid system set up. In other words, there should be an orderly process for the abandonment of these particular branch lines that do not serve a useful purpose. In so far as we are concerned, we take the position that there should not be blanket opposition to all abandonments but rather that each case should be considered on its merits. Even these individual cases, however, should not be presented to the railway commissioners, parliament should not even allow such presentations, until we know what the plan is for the over-all rearrangement of railways, particularly in western Canada. We think, too, that those lines which are resulting in substantial deficits being loaded into the freight rate structure should not be abandoned unless local transportation requirements can be provided satisfactorily by some other form of carrier.
We believe that the first essential is that the railways should prepare a projected program for proposed abandonments which should be extended over a period of time to afford the communities affected an opportunity of knowing in advance what is proposed, in order that they can satisfy themselves as to whether or not the abandonments are justified, and if so adjust their local transportation programs to other forms of transport such as highway transport. I did not hear the Minister of Transport say this afternoon

whether or not the government has accepted that principle. He has talked about a 15 year period. He has talked about a fund that may be required for this length of time. But I did not hear him say that the government was prepared to insist that the railways come forward with a projected program of proposed railway abandonments. Along with that projection, the government and the railways should indicate what they consider to be a minimum grid system, particularly over the three western provinces. If he did say that and I missed it, I am sorry. It seems to me, after all the representations that have been made to the federal government, they ought to have accepted this principle as a first requirement before going into railway abandonment of any kind, and even before accepting responsibility for setting up a fund to provide for some of the adjustments that will obviously be necessary.
When I say that in so far as we are concerned we do not take blanket opposition to all abandonments, I should like the minister to know that we do not believe that any community should be abandoned to the point of isolation. This is so obvious it hardly needs to be said. There may be places, in fact I know of places, where highway transportation is far more economical. It is far more convenient. The proof of this statement is that highway transport is being used to such a degree there is little or no use being made of the railways, in spite of the fact they are there and there is a schedule of trains provided. I know, for example, in my own constituency of a branch line that serves two or three small towns. A few years ago the railway services into these towns were very important, particularly in the wintertime. Until a few years ago, there was no other way of getting the grain out of these towns, and they are grain growing communities. During the past two or three years all the mail and all the l.c.l. or local freight, all the passengers moving in and out of these communities, as well as all the grain, has been moved by highway transport to the mills in Medicine Hat.
It seems to me obvious, Mr. Chairman, that in such a case where the railway is not being used at all for any of these railway services that were so essential a few years ago, it would be stupid on our part to insist that they be maintained, that the right of way be maintained and that they maintain regular train service into and out of these places. However, when the minister accepts the concept that the government is prepared to pay

certain moneys out of the federal treasury in connection with these lines because of deficits that may be incurred, it is time for consideration to be given to whether or not the federal government could make better use of that money by assisting the municipalities, through the provincial governments, in upgrading highway transport. I know that the minister of highways in the province of Alberta has, over the years, been urging the federal government to assume some responsibility for a grid system of highways throughout Canada. This has been done in the case of the trans-Canada highway. So far as western Canada is concerned, it is the only one. We know that recently the federal government changed positions with regard to the proposed railway in Gaspe and allocated at least a portion of that money for a highway in that area.
I believe that the time has come when the responsibility for the trans-Canada highway and for many other highway development projects should be transferred from the Department of Public Works to the Minister of Transport. I say that because as the importance of highways increases in Canada, and that is happening every year, there should be an assumption of responsibility for them by the federal government.
I am not trying to take anything away from the Department of Public Works which has its responsibilities for the trans-Canada highway and, latterly, for the Alaska highway, but there is a principle that ought to be accepted by the federal government, the principle of providing a network of good highways for the movement of people and goods to market. It is only logical that this responsibility ought to rest with the Department of Transport.
Substantial subsidies will be paid out of the federal treasury to maintain some uneconomic railway branch lines, knowing full well that these lines will tend to be of diminishing importance. In that case possibly the money would be better spent if the federal government gave assistance to improving the highway links serving communities where branch lines are uneconomical.
The minister said the government had no intention of interfering with the rates established under the Crownsnest pass agreement. In this connection one point was mentioned briefly by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle, that in the minority report of the royal commission Mr. Gobeil of Quebec disagreed completely with the railways' contention that they had any losses as a result of hauling
Branch Railway Lines
grain. He agreed that on some of the low density branch lines losses could be incurred on the movement of grain, and we in this party think additional proof would have to be provided, through a proper accounting method, to show whether or not there were losses. We recognize costs have gone up terrifically for all the services the railways must purchase, but it would be fair to say there has been a corresponding increase in the efficiency of moving grain. By that I mean the loads they are hauling out to the lakehead and the Pacific coast are now several times the size they were when these rates were set, and in many cases they are being hauled out with less labour than in those days.
We agree with the members who have already spoken, that it would be better to wait until we have the bill in our hands before making further contribution to this debate. The resolution contains one phrase dealing with the fixing of freight rates "under and consistent with a national transportation policy", which certainly does not spell out in detail what the government intends to do with the very complicated rail tariff structure.
As the minister well knows, the province of Alberta has been much concerned about the matter of freight rates and, as the hon. member for Port Arthur pointed out, has kept one of the most brilliant lawyers in Canada here in Ottawa for a number of years, to keep watch on the federal government whenever it attempts to play around with freight rates. Every time there has been an upward adjustment in rail tariffs we in Alberta usually get the lion's share of the increase. We happen to be near the continental divide which appears to be a kind of tariff divide for the railways, and we get the worst coming from both ends. Many commodities can be transported by rail from central Canada to Vancouver cheaper than they can be shipped to points in Alberta, despite the fact that Vancouver is 1,000 to 1,200 miles further away. Therefore when the minister seeks to amend the freight rates structure this time, we hope it will not be a repetition of what has happened so many times in the past.
There have been instances of 10, 12 and 17 per cent increases in freight rates across the board, and if this principle is applied in those areas where there is a virtual monopoly in transportation then there is need for some government regulation.
No doubt we shall have a great deal more to say about some of the provisions in the

Branch Railway Lines
bill, but first we need to see it. Further, following the question I asked the minister this afternoon, I want to say to him we know the report of the royal commission has been in the hands of this and the previous government for many months. It may be argued that already too much time has gone by, but it is absolutely essential that the experts in this field, such as the counsel for Alberta in Ottawa-and I may say Manitoba and Saskatchewan have their own experts- should have time to prepare their arguments. I have talked many times to the counsel for Alberta and he thinks he and his colleagues would be able to prepare arguments in six weeks. I am not asking for any undue delay when the bill goes to committee, but I do plead with the minister that he allow at least six weeks from the time the representatives of the provinces see the bill until they prepare and present their cases.
It will be up to the committee to decide how long it wants to hear such submissions but, as the minister pointed out this afternoon, I am certain they will not railroad it through to the point where they prevent any valid representations or arguments being made to the committee. A minimum of six weeks should be allowed for these people to prepare their cases, and following that it may be desirable for the committee to allow another three or four weeks for these people to prepare rebuttals to other submissions made to the committee.
The lifeblood of the economy of many communities is dependant on railway transportation. In view of this, and if there is going to be a large departure from the tariffs controlled by the government, taking into account competitive factors, ample time should be allowed so that all interested parties may be heard.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I would be remiss if I did not sincerely congratulate the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) who has set out his resolution in a simple, clear and specific way, without any political partisanship, but rather with the purpose of introducing legislation he is bent on.
We seldom see a minister do that with so much simplicity, and I think it is proper to congratulate him for having done so this afternoon.
However, his resolution, like all those we had before us, is couched in rather vague terms. This is not peculiar to this case, but to all resolutions presented to us. In fact,

everyone gets up and says: Well, since we do not quite know what it is all about, since we do not know what the bill will be, let us wait and see.
All those who spoke before me repeated the same thing: before offering our criticism and observations, before making suggestions, let us wait until we see the bill.
Therefore, I wonder, after sitting in this house for two years and a half, whether the resolution stage is essential to parliamentary procedure.
Indeed, I wonder like those who rose before me, if I should discuss the bill, since I do not know what will be in it.
Therefore, it might be proper to question the usefulness of this stage in our parliamentary procedure.
So, I shall say, like all the others-and it is normal-that I shall wait to see the bill in order to know exactly what is in it before offering my observations, my comments and my suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, all previous speakers mentioned the part played by railways within the context of Canadian unity.
In the past the part played by railways was far more important than nowadays to achieve some kind of economic unity, because they were connecting various regions with one another, and encouraging the export trade of certain goods.
But nowadays, our very modern roads, our superhighways, where trucks as long and spacious as railway cars can roll, the St. Lawrence seaway which runs from the Atlantic to the great lakes and which allows the shipping of wheat and grain stored in elevators, planes which are more convenient and not much more expensive for the transportation of passengers from Halifax to Vancouver, Toronto or Winnipeg, in short, other means of transportation, including individual transportation, have become as important if not more so than railways for the Canadian economic and political unity.
Therefore, those new means of communication, such as air transportation and the St. Lawrence seaway, and especially the trucking business, should not be destroyed in an attempt to overly assist the railways.
It is essential to find a happy medium likely to satisfy everybody and to enable us to achieve our aims.
The government must see to it that what has to be done is done, whether it be by the railways or by the trucking industry. It must not help one at the expense of the other, but

as I just said, it must see to it that what must be done is done in the best possible and economical way.
Such is the part to be played by the government. Let us not destroy private enterprise, the trucking business, by providing too much assistance to the railways. Let us try instead to find a happy medium while enabling everyone to survive and to render services, because planes, trucks and ships are just as useful as railways in our modern age.
We must therefore find a solution which will not benefit one to the detriment of the other, but which will help all transport services.
The Minister of Transport is called the minister of "transport" and not the minister of national railways. When we say "minister of transport", the term may apply to truck, ship, air or rail transport. The minister must represent all those means of transport and not only one.
To penalize the trucking industry in order to save the railways would be a monumental blunder, because it would not foster unity in the country; quite the contrary, it would perhaps contribute to its destruction.
It was also mentioned that we have an obligation toward the thousands of railroad employees. I quite agree. We must see to it that they have good working conditions and good salaries.
But we also must think of the thousands of employees of the trucking industry as well as of the small truckers and even of the large ones who earn their living in the transportation business and whose need to survive is just as great as that of the railway employees. All must be placed on the same footing. All must be helped as much as possible, because they all serve the Canadian community.
However, the resolution contains one point which leaves me rather sceptical. In the middle of the paragraph, for instance, it is said:
-to provide for payments out of the consolidated revenue fund on a reducing scale for a period of five years commencing with 1964 to compensate railways under the jurisdiction of parliament for passenger train deficits incurred in Canada during such period;-
Mention is made of the deficits of passenger services included in the services as a whole, but only for railways under the jurisdiction of parliament, namely the Canadian National Railways.
Now last year, when we studied the last report of the Canadian National Railways, it indicated a surplus of a few million dollars. It will be said that on the whole, there has been a general deficit and it is true. Why?
Branch Railway Lines
On account of the debt charges and the payment of interests on the debt of the Canadian National Railways.
When the president of the company, Mr. Donald Gordon, last appeared before the committee on railways, he asked the federal government to recapitalize its debt and stated that afterwards the company would show a surplus.
Well, if the C.N.R. gets a recapitalization of its debt and if it shows a surplus, at that time it will not have a general deficit- there might be a deficit in a certain area, but not a general deficit; for its operations as a whole, it would have a surplus.
And now you would have a government business with a surplus which would nevertheless be subsidized by the government to pay for a deficit which would exist in a given area of operations, namely, in the passenger services.
If there is a deficit in the passenger services but a surplus for the operations as a whole, this surplus should be used to make up for that deficit. It is as simple as that.
As the C.N.R. president stated himself before the committee, once the debt is recapitalized, the C.N.R. would have an operation surplus. So, I do not see why we should go on giving them grants for certain services so that this company may come and say: we have a surplus. Let them use their surplus to make up their deficit. That is what every private company and every business man does. If a man has several businesses and if one of these has a deficit, he makes it up with surpluses from his other businesses.
So, if the C.N.R. has a surplus it should not get grants to make up a deficit in a certain area.
As far as the C.P.R. is concerned, I believe it showed a revenue of $30 million last year, after taxes. A profit of $30 million from its over-all operations. It does not appear that it would need a government grant to cover a small deficit in its passenger train service.
Mr. Chairman, I will not say any more for the time being. Like the others I will wait for the introduction of the bill.
However, in conclusion, I would like to draw three points to the attention of the minister.
First, we cannot accept that the government, through a crown corporation, subject private industry to some underhanded competition, using taxes paid by that industry to do so.
In other words, we cannot accept that the government use the taxes paid by the truck-

Branch Railway Lines
ing industry to subsidize the C.N.R. To act otherwise would be to destroy initiative and personal ambition and to remove any incentive to expand on the part of such a vast sector of private enterprise as the trucking industry. That is inadmissible.
If the government feels rich enough to give subsidies, I have no objection but let it subsidize all transport companies so as to prevent any unfair and underhanded competition at the expense of part of our society.
Second, we have before us at this time a resolution concerning the railroad industry. When looking through the order paper we find that there are other resolutions concerning the railways-No. 51, for instance, relating to the Canadian National Railways.
I am asking the minister whether-as there are various bills concerning the C.N.R. to be introduced, one of which concerning the recapitalization of the C.N.R. debt, which might be considered simultaneously-it would not be possible to submit or introduce all those bills immediately? We might pass all those resolutions very quickly and refer them all to the committee, to proceed with a study of Canadian railway matters, which hardly can be made bit by bit, or piecemeal, but by considering the railway problem as a whole. Suggestions and recommendations would then be made concerning not one specific area of railroading, but the overall aspect of those problems which complete each other and are interconnected, as in the case of the recapitalization of the C.N.R. debt, which is certainly directly linked with the proposed subsidies to meet the deficits which may be incurred in some respects.
Under resolution No. 51, there is a question of financial claims by the C.N.R. We find a similar claim under No. 35. Could the Minister of Transport not immediately move resolution No. 51? It might then perhaps be passed more quickly than the resolution now before us.
Then we would refer all that to the committee on railways and the members could thus examine the over-all problems and submit a more comprehensive solution. This would certainly be more satisfying to the railways as well as to the members, who could study those problems all at once.
Hence I submit, and I believe everybody would agree to this, that once this resolution has been adopted, we should deal with all the other resolutions dealing with the national railways, and which are all concerned with related problems, so as to enable the members to have an over-all outlook and to make a more intensive study of all those problems.
[Mr. Gregoire.l
Third, and it is my last suggestion, or rather the one before the last, reference is made to the abandonment of railway lines, especially in the west. There is something peculiar about that. I wonder whether we could not obtain retroactivity in that field? I say this because in the province of Quebec, the abandonment of railway lines program has already been carried out.
That program has been completed for some ten years. If you take the line from Quebec to Ste Anne de Beaupre and Baie St. Paul, you realize that that line has been eliminated for several years. That abandonment of railway lines program has been completed. But when the time comes to abandon railway lines in the west or in Ontario, well the decision is taken to proceed in such a way as not to affect those regions.
Yet, as far as the province of Quebec is concerned, a program of abandonment of railway lines was adopted first and then carried out. But as regards the west and Ontario, things were postponed and principles are brought up. There is even a plan to assist cities, which was not done in the province of Quebec.
Could there not be some kind of retroactivity in order to assist the province of Quebec in that field as it is done in the rest of the country. We are not asking for the same amounts, but for some retroactivity for Quebec, the same benefits as are given the other provinces in establishing this program of abandonment of uneconomic railway lines.
I think it could be done. I suggest that the minister should try it.
The fourth and last recommendation I should like to submit to the minister is perhaps of less importance than the preceding ones. I was looking forward for the opportunity to make it today and I am availing myself of it now. In concluding, I would like to submit it to him. Certain innovations have appeared in the national railways. Some of them were good and some others were not as good and not as successful. The opportunity seems well at hand for me to make this recommendation to the minister.
It is because electronic kitchens have been installed on some C.N.R. trains. Everything is cooked in 30 seconds but it is just not fit to eat. Therefore, I wonder if one must prefer inferior food, less expensive and prepared more quickly, to better tasting and healthier food. Therefore, I wonder if the minister could not take this opportunity to forward those recommendations to the president of the C.N.R.

I close my remarks by saying that we are happy that this bill is being referred to a committee. We will study it without prejudice, trying to favour the country's economic development in one of its important areas. On the other hand, we will be very firm on one point, namely that the government must not help some areas of the transportation industry to the disadvantage of others. In that connection, we will stick to ideas formulated in this house on many occasions.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I do not think it would be profitable or in the spirit of the debate so far if I undertook to make any lengthy reply to the observations which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite this evening. I intend to deal with all the points which have been raised on second reading of the bill. There are, however, one or two points that perhaps I did not clarify sufficiently, and it would leave a wrong impression if I did not say a word about them.
The hon. member for Lapointe, who has been missed while he has been visiting other parliaments, said something at the beginning of his remarks which I must say has often occurred to me, and that is that I wonder whether this vestigial remnant of medieval times, known as a resolution before a money bill is any longer really necessary. In Australia it has been abolished completely, and they seem to get on pretty well without it. I am rather hopeful that this is one of the things that will be looked at by the committee on procedure, but that is hardly within the scope of our debate this evening.
The hon. gentleman also inquired whether item No. 51 on the order paper could be taken immediately after this order, advancing it, so that the bill would be made available. Normally I would hesitate to say anything, especially in view of the fact the house leader has just come in and is casting a baleful eye in my direction, but I think if the committee would agree to such a proposition, and put this through without any debate, that would be very sensible.
Perhaps I should point out that this is the annual resolution which, by statute, has to be put forward each year by the minister of finance in respect of the ordinary annual financing of the C.N.R. There is nothing new, revolutionary or unusual about it at all. However, if the house were disposed to get the bill before us right after this resolution, and before embarking on the next item of business, I am sure the house leader would not object. I will not say more than that.
Branch Railway Lines
Perhaps I should say a word in reply to one or two of the remarks made by the hon. and conservative member for Port Arthur, who seemed to be suspicious of any change or anything new during the whole course of his speech. He objected very much to my leaving the word "rational" and the word "plan" out of the resolution, as they appeared in the resolution that was placed before the house during the last session of parliament. It did seem to me that "rationalization", if it means anything, means that this should be done rationally, and that it is a little redundant to repeat it. I did say at the outset of my observations this afternoon that what was being proposed was something that was, and while I did hesitate a little about it I did use the word, "revolutionary". I would have thought that would have been welcomed by the hon. member, but apparently it was not.
The hon. member did point out a real deficiency in my observations this afternoon, and I should like at this time to correct this very serious deficiency. I should have said something about the problem to which he referred when he mentioned particularly the head of the lakes, but which has application in two respects. It has application to certain areas of the country and application to certain commodities. The railways still in certain areas have a monopoly or a quasi monopoly. There is no thought whatever, in the legislation that is going to be proposed, of ending the regulation of rates in those cases where the railway has a monopoly or quasi monopoly and where, in other words, the shipper has no real alternative. Provision is being made for the maintenance of regulated rates as should be the case. There must be effective competition, and the hon. gentleman and I are both pseudoeconomists and realize that perfect competition does not exist in this field or in many others. It is only where there is effective competition that, in the view of the government, regulation is not necessary. In those areas, whether it is in respect of certain commodities or certain regions where the railway is the only practical mode of carriage, regulated rates will be maintained. I really think I did not say anything about them, and that was a very serious omission from my observation.
I must say there was another omission, although I do not think it was as serious, but which I wish to remedy immediately. In the main this legislation will not involve a new act but will be an amendment to the Railway Act. There is no danger of any conflict with the Railway Act because it will replace some-
8002	HOUSE OF
Branch Railway Lines
thing in the Railway Act that needs to be replaced in order to carry out the intent of the bill. It will also, in an ancillary way, amend one or two other acts; but in the main it will only represent an amendment to the Railway Act.
The hon. member for Port Arthur and the hon. member for Medicine Hat both dealt with a problem which is certainly one of the most serious in connection with this legislation, and that is the method by which abandonments, rationalizations or more efficient planning of branch lines is to be carried out. I was really hurt by what the hon. member for Port Arthur said when he referred to my English, because I did think it was rather an improvement to talk about obtaining more efficient operations than about abandonment of things. The resolution refers to improved efficiency of railway branch lines. Anyone who is familiar with the prairies will know that in many cases in the days when there was, what the hon. gentleman would call more perfect competition, Mackenzie and Mann built railways paralleling railways that had already been built by the C.P.R. In some of those cases neither line is a paying proposition, as long as both are in existence. However, if one of them is removed the other will probably be self-supporting. This is precisely the kind of situation in each of the various regions of the prairies the government intends the rationalization authority should consider before abandonments are permitted.
Mr. Chairman, I do not intend tonight to go into all the detail that will be included in the bill, about how this process is to be carried out, because this is rather complicated and I think we should have the document before us so we will all be on equal terms when we are debating it. I did however want to make it quite clear that it is to avoid a situation which has existed in the past, where each case was considered in complete isolation from all the rest of the structure of the railways, that we are proposing this legislation, and substituting for that type of consideration a consideration in respect of the effect on the whole region, and proposing, moreover, that it shall be under the jurisdiction of and responsible to the Minister of Agriculture. I have been asked why this was being done. It is being done precisely because, in the main, the users of the railways, which in most cases are candidates for abandonment, are farmers, and it is because the rationalization authority will be considering primarily the economic effect on a community and not pri-


marily the interests of the railways, that it seemed more appropriate that the minister who was more familiar and perhaps more directly concerned with the interests of the consumers of railway services, should have charge of that authority.
There is just one other point I think perhaps I should mention. I hope that the intervals of time suggested by the hon. member for Medicine Hat are a little greater than will really be necessary, because if we are going to have six weeks before the committee can even start, and other adjournments of perhaps three weeks, it does look as though the hon. member for Port Arthur may be right about the prospects for this legislation. At the same time, it would be far better to get the legislation right than to try and get it hastily through and have it wrong, because I think even the limited debate we have had so far does justify one observation I made, that this is a subject that is very close to all of us in this country. Railways and railway legislation are really still of the utmost economic importance, the utmost social importance and the utmost national importance. Even if it takes a lot longer than some of us would like, we must be sure that we do this job properly and with all the wisdom we can bring to bear upon it.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Mr. Pickersgill thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-120, to amend the Railway Act, the Transport Act and the Canadian National Railways Act, and to repeal the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether it would be the pleasure of the house to dispose of now, without debate, item No. 51, which was referred to a few minutes ago, so that the bill could be placed in everybody's hands. I refer to the 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.


Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Speaker, this is a remarkable change in the attitude of the hon. member for Lapointe over the years because I think this is the legislation on which he has always taken the opportunity to deal rather

strenuously with the operations of the C.N.R. What has caused the sudden change in attitude?


Douglas Mason Fisher: Bilingualism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He can still do it on second reading.


Gilles Grégoire: We will have an opportunity then.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Will he assure us he will not continue his talk of other years on second reading of this bill?


Gilles Grégoire: Why not?


Gordon Minto Churchill: As far as we are concerned, Mr. Speaker, although it is a rather unusual procedure and we think that items like this should be brought to our attention at the proper time when the business of the house is announced, we will nevertheless go along with the proposal.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, this bill does not normally go to a committee. We will see the bill when it is introduced and it will not go to a committee.


Gilles Grégoire: If it is not going to go to a committee, we are opposed. We thought it would go to a committee at the same time as the other bill so that we would be able to discuss all these problems in committee and have a general idea of all the problems of the C.N.R. That is what we would like and I should like to have an answer from the minister.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Of course it will go to committee of the whole.


Gilles Grégoire: No, I mean the committee on railways. Will it not go to the committee on railways? I should like to ask the minister that question. Will it go to the railway committee?


Guy Favreau: I am advised it never has and it is not the intention of the government that it should go before the committee on railways.


Gilles Grégoire: Then we are opposed, Mr. Speaker.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could take the time to make my point. Only last July we had Mr. Gordon before us. The hon. member was there and we went into everything connected with the C.N.R. This is not the big measure by way of recapitali-20220-507
Business of the House
zation for which Mr. Gordon is looking. This is just the normal money bill. I suggest to the hon. member that on this other measure he can take up almost anything in which he may be interested. Therefore I hope the hon. member will change his mind.


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker. If this measure goes before the committee along with the other one everybody will then realize that under item 51 we are giving so many hundred million to the C.N.R. and under item 35 so many hundred million to the C.N.R. We would also like to have the bill on recapitalization sent to the committee at the same time, so that we could have the whole picture of all the operations and what they cost and try to make necessary changes. We would like to have the bill sent to the committee. I may tell the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that there is no change in my opinion. We would like to see the bill sent to the committee and then we could discuss all these measures.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps I should make the situation clear, because I believe the hon. member may be under a misapprehension. This measure has nothing to do with recapitalization. This is an annual bill which has to come before parliament every year. It has always been treated as something rather close to a matter of routine. It is really a kind of audit of the C.N.R. and the bill has never been sent to a committee because the C.N.R. in its annual report traverses a much broader field. I think it would be rather a mistake to depart from the normal procedure and agree to send the bill to a committee simply for the sake of having the resolution passed and getting the bill before us. I would not feel competent, and I doubt that the Minister of Justice would either, to commit the Minister of Finance, whose bill it is, to an unusual course of that kind. Therefore unless the house can see fit to carry out the original suggestion of the hon. member for Lapointe that we dispose of the resolution and give the bill first reading-[DOT] there will be ample time on second reading and in committee of the whole to consider it -I think we had better go on with the business that was prescribed.


Gilles Grégoire: It is not my proposition, because my original proposition was to send it to a committee. If that is not to be done we will not agree to pass the resolution without debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is terrible. We would like to accept the original proposal of the hon.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions member for Lapointe. I think it was a very-good one.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, just so the record will be complete and there will be no misunderstanding of our position, may I say we believe that any question that could be asked with regard to the bill to follow the resolution in order No. 51 can be asked when the bill to follow the resolution in order No. 35 is sent to the standing committee. We also think it is far better to spend a great deal of time in detailed discussion after we have the bill and know its details. For that reason we would agree to pass the resolution so that we could then have the bill before us.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there agreement that order No. 51 will be called at this time with the understanding that the resolution stage will be disposed of immediately?


Gilles Grégoire: No, Mr. Speaker.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, April 23, 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 representation in accordance therewith-Mr. Pickersgill (for Mr. Pearson)-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 6-Appointment of chairman.
Lucien Lamoureux: When the committee rose on April 23 last, clause 6, with an amendment thereto proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was being considered. Is the committee ready for the question on the amendment?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think before we resume our consideration of this item I should like to make a suggestion to the committee. I suggest that rather than continue at this particular time today, since we hope this bill will come up again, we suspend the consideration of clause 6 and perhaps also the consideration of clauses 7, 8, 9 and 13. Then, we should try to dispose of the other clauses, which are I think largely non-contentious, in the short time that remains this evening. I think possibly if we had an opportunity between now and the next time this bill comes up to have certain consultations we might make greater progress with the clause we


were considering. I am just offering this as a suggestion.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is the suggestion acceptable to the committee?


Gordon Minto Churchill: It sounds like a very reasonable suggestion, Mr. Chairman, but there may be some clauses which hon. members who do not happen to be in the house this evening might wish to discuss. I would be content to follow the proposal of the Minister of Transport with the slight proviso that if some absent member indicated, when he returned, that he wished to deal with one of the clauses which had been passed he might have that opportunity. The thing I fear right at the moment is that we might make a mistake. We are coming to this rather hurriedly tonight and we were expecting to continue the discussion of the amendment rather than proceed with the other clauses. I do not want members to be embarrassed by finding that this evening, at five minutes after ten, the committee rushed along with the clauses which might be of considerable interest to members who are not here.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I appreciate that many of us did not think we would reach this bill this evening. I do not believe anyone would want to deprive any member of the opportunity to say whether or not he had any serious objection to these clauses, so they might be carried on the understanding that if any hon. member wished to make some serious observations relating to some of these clauses he could make them on a later clause that had not been passed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to support the suggestion that has emerged within the last few minutes. Perhaps clause 32, which seems to refer to all the clauses in the bill, might be the one upon which any such missed contributions could be picked up.


Lucien Lamoureux: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps we could call clause
10.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 10 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 11-Return of dominion statistician.
Douglas Mason Fisher: I just wanted to ask a question for the purpose of seeking information. Are we to assume from the information the minister gave previously, and the experience some

of us have had, that the chief electoral officer has preparations in effect so that the intent of this particular section, in administrative terms, has already been carried out? Are the preparations practically complete, if you read this as applying to the census taken in the year 1961?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am afraid I did not catch the purport of the hon. gentleman's question.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Well, this section is setting up preparations for what shall be sent by the dominion statistician. Are we to assume-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Is the hon. gentleman speaking about clause 10 or clause 11?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Clause 11; clause 10 was passed, I thought.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I assume that this has already been done for the 1961 census. My question is, is this a fact?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not believe it could be done in the sense in which the legislation is drafted, because this is not an act of parliament. Certain computations may have been made which would be the basis for carrying out these instructions of parliament, if parliament ever does give these instructions. I could not say whether or not they have been formally, but I feel quite sure it is well known to all hon. members that computations have been made based upon provisions of section 51 of the British North America Act.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 12-Calculation of members to be assigned to each province; preparation of report.
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, with regard to clause 12 of the bill, there is one point I wish to refer to. As a matter of fact, I did not expect in the least we would reach this section-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I beg the hon. gentleman's pardon for interrupting him. I believe I inadvertently said clause 13 should stand when it should be clause 12 which should be held up pending the passage of the rest of the bill, because I think it is clause 12 that contains the tolerance feature which I am sure the committee will want to debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, it is clause 13.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Well, I was just a little bit hasty.
20220-507J
Electoral Boundaries Commissions [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I was saying that we did not expect to reach clause 12 tonight, because we know an amendment and a subamendment will be moved to clause 6. We thought clause 12 would be considered tomorrow.
However, since this clause is before us tonight I shall make the remarks I intend to make just the same.
I wanted to point out first of all, regarding section 51 of the B.N.A. Act-if I give the wrong figures, I hope the house will excuse me, because I did not bring the necessary material tonight, not knowing that we would be studying this section and I am caught a little off my guard-
In the past, as far as ridings are concerned, it was provided that there would always be 65 in the province of Quebec, in relation to the rest of the country. The number of ridings could change, but always on the basis of the population in the province of Quebec: dividing this population by 65 would give the equivalent number of ridings in the province of Quebec in relation to the population in the rest of the country. It gave the number of ridings for the rest of the country, and the number of members of parliament for the province of Quebec remained the same.
I do not have the original text of section 51 of the British North America Act, but I think that it was changed at a certain time to increase the number of members of parliament to 75 in the province of Quebec, and for the rest of the country, the number of ridings would vary in relation to the population in proportion to what it was in the rest of Canada, while in the province of Quebec it remained at 75. Now this is going to be changed, but how is it going to be changed? It is not stipulated in the legislation. It is said:
Subject to section 51.
Who will mention the fixed number of 75, while the rest of the country will vary according to population?
In the province of Quebec there is an election act dating from confederation. In the text of the confederation, it is said that in the province of Quebec there shall be some ridings which will not change. Why? Because at that time, in 1867, there was in the province of Quebec an English minority which was living mainly in some ridings called eastern townships.
It was provided that these constituencies would not vary, even though the population

Electoral Boundaries Commissions increased in the rest of the province. For all that, those constituencies remained static. For instance, there are constituencies like Compton, Brome, Missisquoi and a few others, a dozen constituencies where the population is far less than in other constituencies.
At this time a redistribution is being made in the province of Quebec, and those constituencies are not affected, because it was so provided by the British North America Act to protect an English minority, to guarantee them a number of constituencies in the province of Quebec. This was readily accepted by the French Canadians at that time because it has always been a point of honour for them to protect minorities and, in many cases, to give them all the security and protection required.
Now, today, there is an immigration trend which may cause changes and, no doubt, an increase of population in certain parts of the country. Even if the increase in the population of the province of Quebec was quite steady, it is not equal to that which took place in other areas of the country. I therefore have a suggestion to make-and I want to indicate to each and everyone that I do not intend to propose an amendment-but I wonder if the government should not propose an amendment and have it supported by the official opposition, for, at that moment, it would be much appreciated by everybody, for the purpose of stating, on item 12, that over a total of 265, or perhaps of 300 in 20 years, or 400 in 50 years after all there are 650 seats for 50 million people in England, we could number 50 million inhabitants in 30 years and there would perhaps be 600 members in the house, people would be somewhat crowded, but it does not matter-that the province of Quebec maintain always the same percentage of members. The Minister of Transport indicated a while ago that I have visited several parliaments in Europe. In fact, I visited that of London, which is twice as small as ours and where 600 members or more are crowded in an area which represents half that of our own House of Commons; therefore, would it not be possible for the province of Quebec to have always the same proportion of members, whatever the number of members sitting in the house, that is always the ratio of 75 to 265, which makes about 30 per cent? The same proportion would remain, whatever might be the additions made to the number of members forming the house.
Then the only French Canadian province would be sure it would always have at least a minimum representation in the House of
[Mr. Gregoire.l
Commons of this country. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport would be ready to accept such a suggestion, because the principle was accepted at the time of the drafting of the British North America Act. Such a principle was accepted for the counties with an English speaking majority in the province of Quebec, and this was written into the British North America Act. Would it not be possible today to make this electoral change and give exactly the same guarantee to the province of Quebec, to the effect that it will always have the same proportional representation it has today, that is 30 per cent. I think that this might remove some of the apprehensions which many Quebeckers have.
I will not move an amendment in that connection, but this is a suggestion and it will rest upon the government and the Minister of Transport to present this as an amendment if they deem it advisable. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) would be well chosen to second such an amendment and it would be accepted unanimously by the house.
This is a principle which has been accepted and which would be very much appreciated by all the people of the province of Quebec. That is a suggestion I wanted to make concerning section 12. I wonder whether the minister would not comment in that regard or, better still, present the amendment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, if I followed the hon. gentleman correctly, he is suggesting that we should attempt in this bill to amend the rules set out in section 51 of the British North America Act. I do not think it would be within the scope of this bill to do that. If we felt it was desirable to amend the rules which are laid down in the constitution for the apportionment of seats between provinces-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Among, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: -among provinces; I am always glad to see what a conservative the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in matters of language-if we attempted to revise those rules, we ought to do it by a separate bill which would amend the British North America Act for that purpose.
Though it is not strictly in order, perhaps I might recall to the minds of hon. members who were here-and perhaps it will be of interest to those who were not here-at the time the present provisions for the disposition

of seats among the provinces were made, that it was done precisely because the old rule, where Quebec had a fixed number of seats, 65, was very unfair to certain of the provinces, and particularly to the province of Quebec. That had the effect of maintaining the representation of the province of Ontario, which was the most populous province, above its just desserts according to the strict rules of representation by population.
When the amendment was made to the British North America Act which established the present rule-with the exception that was made, I believe in 1951, to meet a special situation that then existed in Saskatchewan- when the final rule was made after the war, I think it was in 1947, and I am speaking from memory-that amendment was proposed by my right hon. friend Mr. St. Laurent, who, I do not think, would ever be accused of wanting to be unfair to any part of the country. It was proposed so that we would have a closer approach to equality among the provinces and so that this disparity that existed for many years between Ontario and Quebec would be removed.
There is no doubt that, apart from the special provisions that are in the constitution with respect to the least populous provinces, and which at the present time operate only in the case of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, it is fair to say that the operation of section 51 of the British North America Act in so far as all the other provinces are concerned, except Saskatchewan, is precisely to reflect the actual population of those provinces.
I do not think that to go back to the system of giving a fixed representation to, say, the province of Quebec, or to any other province, would alter that at all. It might alter the total number of members that would be in the house, and probably would alter it very slightly at present time, but it would not really affect the relative position. However this is a big question and I do not think the Chair would permit anyone to offer an amendment on it to this bill.
If we wished to do that, I think we have to go beyond the scope of this bill and deal with the British North America Act itself, and that is a matter for which I could not possibly take the responsibility alone of making any decision. However I would be very glad to read carefully what the hon. gentleman said and discuss it with my colleagues. But it is something that I think could not be done within the scope of the bill. If in the circumstances the hon. gentleman
Electoral Boundaries Commissions would like to have clause 12 stand, and if no one else has any objection, perhaps we might make some progress by letting it stand and going on to other clauses that may not give rise to contention.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, following the position taken by the hon. member for Lapointe and the answer given by the minister, I wonder whether it would not be more than wise to let clause 12 stand, because it occurred to me that when the minister said, rather quickly, that we should let clause 12 stand his mind must have been thinking somewhat along the lines mine was; namely, that if it is the intention of the government to get this bill through, there must be obvious thoughts in the mind of the government as to just what adjustments could be made to the bill that would make it acceptable to all groups in the house.
I think one of the matters that must be going through the mind of the government is the suggestion, for example, of increasing the number of members of the house itself. In this way you get rid of the problem of representation by population with regard to the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and, I think, Manitoba. That is one proposal that must be going through the mind of the government, namely what adjustments can be made to their bill to get it through the house.
Another suggestion arises from the minister's remarks about Saskatchewan. The situation in 1954 must surely have been identical in every detail with the situation that existed in 1952. At that time we had 21 members from Saskatchewan and the representation by population principle as provided by section 12 meant we would have to lose five seats, if I remember correctly. The government of that day, in common justice to the province of Saskatchewan, could not envisage such a radical jump in one redistribution bill and brought in an amendment under the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent along that line, and applied this 15 per cent rule, so that we only lost four seats at that time.
At the present time, under the representation by population rule we stand to lose four seats. Surely if five seats was too much to lose out of 21, it is an even greater slump in our representation to lose four seats out of 17. Surely the minister, who is very conscious of the necessity of making some adjustments in this bill to get it through, would reconsider with his colleagues the question of doing something about this 15 per cent rule that we have at the present time in relation to Saskatchewan.

Electoral Boundaries Commissions
I am not making a special plea just because I come from that province, and I was not in the house in 1952 and 1953 when that change was made; but I think all the arguments used at that time for the change would be valid now. I do know there are not now any Liberal members for Saskatchewan, and there were at that time. But surely that is not the criterion that the minister who is now piloting this bill, with his broad considerations of the national good, has in mind. Surely the minister is not applying the rule as to whether you are Conservative or Liberal with respect to fair treatment in this connection.
I suggest that the minister would be well advised to hold this clause over so that the government might consider the one, two, three or four suggestions that must be considered as to adjustments that could be made, in order to allow this bill through.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am
quite prepared to have the clause stand; but I would like to say a word about what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said. One thing that I do not think I could ever bring myself to do is consider any suggestion that would have the effect of giving more members to a province with a smaller population than another province. As the hon. member for Qu'Appelle knows, the population of Manitoba and Saskatchewan is now almost identical. The population of Manitoba is slightly larger, and even in 1961, when the last census took place, the difference was only 5,000.
I think it would appear to anyone that it would be a very grave injustice to have a different representation for those two provinces, and indeed the amendment of 1951 provided precisely for that situation by providing that a province having a smaller population than another province should not have a larger membership in the house. I think the observations I made to the hon. member for Lapointe apply equally to what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said, namely that if there is to be any consideration in any way of these changes to the rules laid down in the British North America Act, I think that would have to be the subject of separate legislation. I do not think it would be within the scope of this bill to purport to amend the constitution by an amendment to a clause in this bill. Of course I am quite prepared, as I said to the hon. member for Lapointe-and this applies to what the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has said-to bring the points he has raised to the attention of


my colleagues. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we could agree to let the clause stand and proceed to clause 14. We might make a little more progress in the few minutes that remain, if this is done.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, we are ready to have clause 12 stand in order to consider it further.
However, I should like to make a correction to the statement made a few minutes ago by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), because I think he did not quite understand my remarks. I did not suggest at all to set a number for the members of the province of Quebec but rather to guarantee a proportion-whatever the number might be- equal to the one existing today, as far as the number of members from the province of Quebec in this house is concerned.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall clause 12 stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 12 stands.


Lucien Lamoureux: Shall we go on to clause 14?


Gordon Minto Churchill: No, Mr. Chairman. I think we should rise and report progress. It is now 10.30, and we have done fairly well.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, in view of the announcement of the business made by the Prime Minister today, could the house leader let us know what business will be taken up during the course of this week, including the estimates for Thursday and Friday, if he is in a position to tell us tonight?


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we will proceed with second reading and the committee stage of the Farm Improvement Loans Act, after which we will take up the resolution on the Crop Insurance Act, after which we will discuss the resolution preceding a bill with respect to farm machinery syndicates. Then if there is time we will carry on with the committee stage of the redistribution bill.
On Thursday and Friday we will be taking estimates in the following order: first, the Department of Transport; after that, northern affairs; to be followed by the estimates of the Department of Public Works. I intend tomorrow, if possible, to announce the addition

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
of at least one department with respect to the discussion of estimates.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, the issue I want to raise tonight is whether or not the members of the international typographical union presently on strike in Toronto against the three Toronto dailies are entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. This matter has already been raised by members of this party on four or five occasions but to date no satisfactory answer has been obtained. The minister has indicated that benefits are payable when a substantial resumption of production has taken place. In a later answer he replied that what he meant by a substantial resumption of work was a production figure equal to 85 per cent of that prevailing before the work stoppage occurred. However, beyond that point we have been unable to obtain any accurate information as to the type of investigation being made, when it was started, when it is likely to be completed and what factors the unemployment insurance commission is taking into consideration in reaching its decision. This morning the answer received was again unsatisfactory, and therefore I should like to pose a series of questions to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Labour.
1.	Is it confirmed that once production reaches 85 per cent of that prevailing before the strike the workers will be eligible for unemployment insurance?
2.	Will the eligibility be retroactive and, if so, to what date?
3.	When was the investigation in this regard started and at whose request?
4.	What interviews have been conducted and with whom?
5.	What factors are used by the commission, such as size of the paper, its circulation, amount of advertising, etc., in reaching its decision?
6.	Has the commission experienced any difficulty in obtaining this information and, if so, what are the nature of such difficulties and what steps is the government taking to overcome them?
7.	Is the rate of strike pay taken into
account in any way in assessing the level of benefits to which the men will be entitled?
In short, Mr. Speaker, what I want is the fullest possible explanation from the minister as to what is going on, how the investigation is proceeding and when we can expect an answer. These men have made their contributions to the fund and if they are properly entitled to benefits the government should see that there are no roadblocks placed in their way.


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that three minutes would hardly permit me to answer all these questions in the order in which they were put, but first I must apologize for saying this afternoon that the hon. member's feelings were not to be considered. I am sure he meant the feelings of those who are on strike, and should be given fullest consideration. I apologize for that inadvertence.
Normally a claimant must make representations to prove that there is not a stoppage of work. The commission, following representations made by telephone, undertook to send a man from head office in Ottawa to make those investigations. There were preliminary investigations made, I understand, by the office in Toronto, but nothing in writing had been put before the commission in so far as the employees or the strikers were concerned.
I have the statement that:
On September 9. 1964, local 91 of the international typographical union made representations to the commission, which were confirmed in writing on September 10, that a substantial resumption of work to near normal conditions has been established at the three Toronto daily newspapers, the Daily Star, the Telegram, and the Globe and Mail.
These representations are based on the fact that the newspapers are producing their usual number of editions per day, that they are of normal size and that the circulation of the papers is back to normal. These facts, with certain reservations have been verified by the newspapers.
However, the three newspapers claim that the work in their composing rooms is only being accomplished under emergency conditions, that the complement of staff required for operating the composing room is still substantially short of requirements for normal operations and that the present work is being carried on by executives and salaried personnel assisted by a number of new employees.
This information is now being assessed by the insurance officer. If he is satisfied that a
8010	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion substantial resumption of work-and that would be approximately 85 instead of 80, as I said this afternoon-has occurred, the disqualification now in effect under section 63 of the act will be terminated. The normal operation would be determined by production and staff requirements. I think that the matter of strike pay of course will have to be considered before a decision is made. The investigation, as referred to in the statement, began on an official basis when our Mr. Shearer, from Ottawa, went to the various newspapers and made those inquiries. As I

understand the situation, he experienced no difficulty in this regard.
The question regarding what investigations have been undertaken has been answered. The question in respect to retroactivity of course will be determined by whether these claims were legitimate when first put forward.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his time has expired.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

Tuesday, September 15, 1964