1966-12-20

COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
Third and fourth reports of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on consumer credit and prices-Mr. Basford.

['Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in English and in French copies of a supplementary agreement amending the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of India relating to the Rajasthan atomic power station and the Douglas Point generating station signed in New Delhi on December 16, 1963. I also wish to table copies of an exchange of letters between our high commissioner in New Delhi and the secretary of the Indian department of atomic energy spelling out safeguard arrangements for the whole project.']
Mr. E. F. Whelan (Essex South) moved: that the fifth report of the standing committee on agriculture, forestry and rural development, presented to the house on Friday, December 9, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in English and in French copies of a supplementary agreement amending the agreement between the government of Canada and the government of India relating to the Rajasthan atomic power station and the Douglas Point generating station signed in New Delhi on December 16, 1963. I also wish to table copies of an exchange of letters between our high commissioner in New Delhi and the secretary of the Indian department of atomic energy spelling out safeguard arrangements for the whole project.



THE BUDGET


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I would ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to two facts, one that for some days before the budget was announced various elements in the press f 'edicted that there would be an income tax s>/ dition in the budget but
that it would not cover those with an income below $6,000, which was unusually accurate and, second, the statement made by the president of a securities organization in British Columbia, as reported in the press, that he had a conversation with the Minister of Finance and was convinced that there would be a 1 per cent addition to the sales tax?
Would the Prime Minister have an investigation made to ascertain where any such leaks took place, because it is obvious that the correctness of both indicate more than coincidence.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the reports and I also have talked to the Minister of Finance about the matter. The minister has made a statement to the effect that there was no leak from the Department of Finance in this matter and that the reports were merely speculation. If there is anything further to be inquired into in this matter I would be glad to do so, but I believe the statement made by the Minister of Finance should dispose of the matter.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the Prime Minister not feel that the fact that two such intelligent observations should be made indicates a power of prophecy that never has been equalled before in the absence of a leak.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like to say that the powerful prophecy in this case has been unprecedented.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I give a supplementary answer to the question raised by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding the so-called budget leak. As a result of a communication which I have just received and in justice to the Minister of Finance, I would like to put on the record a telegram which has been sent to him by the president of the Vancouver Stock Exchange. It reads as follows:
I would like to confirm my statements to the press last night that the Minister ol Finance in no way confided the contents of his budget to me last Wednesday or at any other time and that my predictions were pure guesswork arrived at from my years of experience in the financial community. Mr. Sharp and I did not discuss the budget in any way either alone or in the company or others.
J. A. Vanluven

December 20, .1966
Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



REPORT OF CARTER COMMISSION ON TAXATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister when we might expect in the house the report from the Carter commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not a supplementary question.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I will now repeat my question to the Minister of Finance. I ask the minister when we might expect the Carter commission report to be put before the house.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I met with the provincial ministers of finance this morning; that is why I was a little late in arriving. I informed them, and therefore I will now inform the house, that while I cannot be too firm in my predictions it is our expectation that the report will be delivered to us in both languages in March. I understand the report has been completed in the English language and it is now in the hands both of the printers and the translators.


Mr. Knowles:: Will that be March 1967?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General of which I have given him oral notice. It arises out of representations made to him by various organizations in British Columbia, as well as by myself, in respect of clemency with regard to four union leaders who are serving jail sentences as a result of a proceeding for contempt of court. Questions also were asked of the minister by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Kootenay West to which the minister replied that he was giving the matter consideration. Is the Solicitor General able to tell us what decision he has reached with regard to each of these four men?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to acknowledge that repre-

sentations were made to me as outlined by the hon. member. Representations also were made by the hon. member for Kootenay East and the hon. member for Victoria (B.C.).
Clemency under the royal prerogative has been extended to the four men in question in the following manner: The person sentenced on September 30 to three months imprisonment was released on December 16, and the balance of the sentence has been remitted. The person sentenced on September 30 to four months imprisonment will be released on December 22, and the balance of the sentence will be remitted. The other two men who were sentenced on the same date to six months will be released on December 22 until January 3 on which date they will be required to return to continue serving their sentences.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, would the Solicitor General say whether he will give further consideration to remitting part of the sentence of the two men who are to be returned to jail on January 3?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to commit myself on that question at this time. However, in due course, consideration will be given as to whether further clemency should be recommended.



PETERBOROUGH, ONT.-AMNESTY TO MEN IMPRISONED FOLLOWING TILCO STRIKE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. Solicitor General, in view of the fact that they are granting clemency to these people in Vancouver, whether it is at all likely the cabinet will grant amnesty to the two men who w'ere sent to prison from Peterborough at the time of the Tilco strike?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The
hon. member for York-Humber asked me a supplementary question which I was not able to catch.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I will repeat the supplementary, but I have another question I wish to ask. The supplementary is this: While the cabinet is granting clemency on the west coast, will clemency also be granted to workers from the Tilco plant at Peterborough who were sentenced to terms in jail after court convictions?
December 20, I960


Lawrence T. Pennell: I understand, subject to correction, that the men referred to by the hon. member have now been released. By the nature of things, there are no set rules governing the granting of clemency under the royal prerogative. I appreciate that it is unlikely that any course taken in a given case will meet with unanimous approval. One of the considerations which was borne in mind in the west coast case in connection with the date on which the men are to be released is that they could not earn the remissions which are normally granted to prisoners in our penal institutions.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the negative decision by the UN in respect of the Canadian resolution which was designed to establish a satisfactory basis for financing the peacekeeping operations, is the Canadian government considering any change in its policy of participation in operations where the entire cost of maintaining its forces must be borne by Canada?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I wished to make sure that I understood my hon. friend's question. There is no United Nations force, in which Canada is participating, where the full cost of our forces is borne by Canada. In the case of Cyprus we bear some of our own maintenance costs, but certain other costs are paid by the United Nations. In any event the disposition of our resolution-not a negative result in the sense that it has been defeated, it has simply been put over to the resumed session-does not in any way involve a change of policy on behalf of the government of Canada. We continue to believe that peace keeping is an important function of the United Nations, and we continue to believe that we must strive for an equitable way of financing future United Nations peace keeping operations.


Mr. W. B. Nesbifl (Oxford):: I have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the disinterest in, and indeed hostility to, the expansion of the peace keeping capabilities of the United Nations as exhibited yesterday by
Inquiries of the Ministry the disastrous defeat of the Canadian resolution in the general assembly, will the minister now give serious consideration to revising his plan for a single unified service?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Most certainly not, Mr. Speaker. When the white paper was written in 1964 it was decided on the basis of our experience that the best way we could contribute to future peace keeping operations, if and when they were authorized by the United Nations and the government of Canada, was by developing a well trained and well equipped mobile conventional force. That is the policy that was laid down in the white paper and it was the policy of the government. It is still the policy of the government and the armed forces. The forces we are developing are precisely those which can make a maximum contribution, not just to the deterrence of war in Europe or the central front, but anywhere else they are required for peace keeping operations whenever the need arises.
Therefore, my hon. friend should take some comfort from the fact that we are able to contribute whenever and wherever we are required to do so. The forces we are developing will give us the flexibility to carry out our obligations.
Bight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, is not the entire statement of the minister purely theoretical in view of the fact that the government suffered a major diplomatic set-back in the defeat of the Canadian resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is the description in the press.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is not the
fact, and you know it.


John George Diefenbaker: Let me ask the minister this. In view of the fact that his plans for a unified peace keeping force have been swept aside as a result of the attitude taken by the U.S.S.R. and France, does he not agree that if he develops a unified force he will then have a force all dressed up with no place to go?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it becomes the right hon. gentleman to cast reflections of this kind. Let me tell him that this government is persistent in its pursuit of peace throughout the world and will do everything possible at the United Nations and elsewhere to forward that pursuit. We are not going to be deterred by any small set-back.

December 20, 1366
Inquiries of the Ministry We intend to persist in what we believe to be a very important undertaking in this country for this country and the world. We are trying to develop some better method of settling world disputes than are presently available. As my right hon. friend should know, we are developing the kind of force which can make a maximum contribution, regardless of the circumstances.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Slarr:: That is a mouthful of malarkey.


John George Diefenbaker: Does the minister not agree that all his fantastic theories were swept aside yesterday by the attitude taken in the United Nations? What is he going to do with his force if the United Nations persists in the view it has taken? Is he going to the U.S.S.R. and France to show those nations that he is right and everybody else is wrong?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



DATE OF FINAL PAYMENTS ON 1966 CROP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.']
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce in his capacity as the minister under whose jurisdiction the Canadian Wheat Board falls. Would it be possible for the Canadian Wheat Board to make the final payments in respect of last year's crop before the end of the year, so that the mini-budget will not take it all?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the final payments will not be made before the end of the year. I announced earlier that they will be made some time toward the end of January, 1967.


Reynold Rapp: This is not fair.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What further actions, if any, have been taken or are contemplated by Canada in order to comply with the resolution of the Security Council of the

United Nations for mandatory sanctions, including oil sanctions, against the illegal regime in southern Rhodesia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if any further action was required. However, after the resolution imposing mandatory sanctions was passed, I asked the law officers of the crown to make sure that this was the case.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the great concern in this country about the Rhodesian question, would the minister consider sending a fact-finding commission composed of members of his department to Rhodesia to ascertain first-hand the situation there?


An hon. Member:: Send Bob Thompson.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think the action taken by the Security Council of the United Nations is the right kind of action at the present time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. This question arises from a publication from Rhodesia showing a gift of 1,500 gallons of gas from Friends of Rhodesia organizations in Canada being handed over by a Mr. Gostick of the Toronto Friends of Rhodesia, who said: "The gift indicates the sympathy and support of the Canadian people." I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what he can do about this situation.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will be very glad to look
into the matter and read the article, Mr. Speaker.


Michael Starr: What about the food supplies in North Viet Nam?


John George Diefenbaker: The minister told me that two weeks ago, and has not looked it up yet.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to
December 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry
the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of his recent trips to socialist countries of eastern Europe and his statement that there is Canadian trade to be had in those countries, will the minister take the first opportunity of advising the members of the house specifically what those trade opportunities are, and what additional trade initiatives are going to be instituted to take advantage of them?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is asking for a very general statement. I do not think that kind of statement can be made on questions.


George Harris Hees: With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am not asking for a statement now. I am asking whether the minister will take the first opportunity to advise the house.


Robert Henry Winters: I shall be glad to do so, Mr. Speaker.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. If he does not have this information readily available at his fingertips, I hope he will take the question as notice. Can the minister advise the house how the inquiry is proceeding, or has it been completed, into the death of a sailor aboard the Ontario Power earlier this year?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am afraid I have not the information available, but I will get it.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the unforeseen delay in passing the new transport bill through this house, because of other priorities, I wonder whether the minister would undertake to get in touch with the Canadian Pacific Railway in an attempt to ensure that the municipalities in the prairie provinces will receive the taxes that the C.P.R. has promised for the year 1967, even though this bill may not be passed by December 31 this year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman's question is one that I could answer more effectively when we get on to consideration of the bill. Though perhaps there is not much hope of getting it passed, I do hope we will have a little time on it before the recess. I will be glad to deal with the question then.


Mr. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: You had better write to Santa Claus.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the Minister of Transport could not give some indication to these municipalities, because they will need it in their budgeting for 1967. We do not have the bill before us and if this information is not supplied the municipalities would still need some indication before the end of the year.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, it would be useful to answer this question, if you will permit me, and to say that, as hon. members are already aware, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has agreed voluntarily to give up an immunity which this parliament could not take away from it without introducing a constitutional amendment. The most that I could do would be to pass on the representations of the hon. gentleman, my own and anyone else's about this matter. However, apart from that, it seems to me that it would be better to discuss this matter when we can have some give and take across the floor of the house and I hope that this will not be delayed long.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In view of the deep concern expressed by Mr. Daniels, president of the Canadian cotton industry, and to repeat the recent request made by the Confederation of National Trade Unions, does the government intend to set up a royal commission of inquiry shortly, in order to appraise the financial and economic situation of the textile industry in Canada, and particularly in Quebec?

December 20, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think any inquiries that are necessary can be made without setting up a royal commission.



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In a very short time the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism and the constitutional committees of both Quebec and Ontario will be reporting their findings. In view of this will the government be announcing its intentions relating to constitutional reform early in the centennial year?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is a great deal of work to be done by the federal government before an announcement of this kind can be made. I think it would be a very great mistake to give the impression that it is desirable or necessary to have a full-fledged constitutional conference before adequate preparatory work has been undertaken.


William Heward Grafftey: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I was asking the Prime Minister whether, in view of the fact that the commission and the committees will be announcing their findings soon, the government would not consider clarifying its stand early in the new year, so that the dialogue will not take place in a vacuum?


Mr. Speaker:: I would bring to the attention of the hon. member the fact that he has asked the same question twice.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. I can think of nothing more important than constitutional reform that will be facing the nation during the centennial year, and therefore I would like the Prime Minister to inform the house as to whether the government will clarify its stand early in the new year, so that the dialogue will not take place in a vacuum.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will do so as soon as the work has been completed.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to that asked by the hon. member for

Brome-Missisquoi. I understand the Prime Minister to say that before there would be any constitutional conference a lot of preparatory work was required. Is the Prime Minister and the government still considering the possibility that a committee of this parliament might assist in the preparatory work with regard to constitutional changes?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, when the government has completed its own preparatory work, consideration could then be given to setting up a parliamentary committee to which the government might make a report.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
On November 3 last I put a question to him and he was supposed to give an answer within the next two or three days. Would he have an answer now?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my memory does not go back to November 3. I wonder whether my hon. friend would be good enough to remind me.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker. At that time I was asking the Prime Minister whether the statement made by the Secretary of State to the effect that it was not necessary for one to be bilingual to be appointed chairman of the C.B.C. was in accordance with the fact.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State herself will be able to deny that she made that statement. I consulted with her at the time and she said that the report was very inaccurate indeed.



BIRTHDAY GREETING TO MISS LAMARSH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the name of the Secretary of State has been mentioned, may I take this opportunity to offer her our best wishes on her birthday?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 20, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES



HOCKEY-REFUSAL TO AUTHORIZE EUROPEAN TOUR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Could the minister advise the house whether someone in his department or himself, or someone in another department, recently took some action to get the authorization that is essential for the European tour of two hockey teams sponsored by Expo '67?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I believe it may be the hon. member's intention to deal with this matter at ten o'clock.


Mr. Mongrain:: Ten o'clock tonight.



BANKRUPTCY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance arising out of the Prudential Finance Corporation and the North American General Insurance disaster. I should like to ask the minister whether he, the Minister of Justice or both are proposing to the Ontario provincial authorities a joint royal commission of inquiry or some other form of inquiry to ascertain the concatenations which led to the disaster.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be premature to do that, but what I am proposing to do is to meet with the ministers of the provincial governments, with whom I met both yesterday and today. At both of these meetings my suggestion that the provinces and the federal government should meet to discuss the whole field of operations of financial companies was greeted with considerable enthusiasm.


David Lewis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. If I understood the Minister of Finance correctly, he said in answer to my question that he thought it was premature to hold any kind of inquiry. May I ask the minister whether this very large failure at this time of Prudential, following so quickly upon the failure of Atlantic Acceptance a year or a year and a half ago, does not disclose a situation an inquiry into which cannot be delayed?
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Sharp: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member I am very much concerned about these matters. Indeed, as soon as the attorney general of Ontario heard of the failure of Prudential Finance he informed me about it because he was concerned about the implications upon the financial world as a whole of the failure of another Ontario company. I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, and it will be the object of the conversations that we will be having with the provincial officials to see whether we can each in our own respective jurisdictions improve the regulation of these
companies. I am quite confident, of course_at
least, I am not confident but I am very sure-that the province of Ontario, which has jurisdiction over Prudential Finance will be conducting a very thorough investigation.



PRUDENTIAL FINANCE CORPORATION-PAYMENTS TO COMPENSATE FOR LOSSES- INVESTIGATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister also take up with those provinces which are particularly affected the matter of compensation to investors and depositors who rely on the fact that governments have responsibilities in respect of those who have invested their hard earned money and have lost it through fraud?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that that subject will be discussed by the provincial and federal government ministers when we meet. That does not mean that we will necessarily make that recommendation to our respective jurisdictions, but I am quite sure that the subject will arise.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask the Minister of Finance whether representations have been made in recent months either to himself or to the officials in his department regarding the practices of other insurance or finance companies-and by that I mean other than Prudential and its associates-the suggestion being that there might be practices within other companies as well which could lead to disasters. If that is so, what has the minister done about them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, so far as insurance companies are concerned we have a responsibility under the laws approved by this parliament to supervise the operation of federally

December 20, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry incorporated insurance companies. The Superintendent of Insurance does everything he can to ensure the solvency of these companies.
However, Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat what I said previously, that it is very difficult indeed for any jurisdiction to offer protection against the sort of fraud and theft that occurred in the case of North American General, where securities which were shown to be in the books disappeared.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question. The minister has given us some very interesting information but he did not answer my question, which was whether he or officials in his department have received representations with respect to other companies which could lead his departmental officials to believe that there might be further collapses of companies in the insurance or finance field? If so, what has he done about those recommendations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire of the Superintendent of Insurance whether he has received any such reports. I think hon. members will agree, however, that it would not be desirable to create the impression that federally incorporated insurance companies are on the verge of collapse. This is a matter of very serious significance. I am sure the hon. gentleman would not want me to create any such impression, nor would he wish to create that impression himself.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, do not the
very warnings or the caveat given by the minister indicate that there should be immediate action taken to protect the 20,000 policyholders in this insurance company? Does he not feel that that is of first importance in order to preserve proper respect and regard for the integrity of Canadian companies?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept this proposition. The federal govermnent is doing everything it can under federal law to protect the interests of policyholders and of investors in insurance companies, but there are certain types of fraud and theft that it cannot protect against, unless we change the law. One of the points that was made by the Leader of the Opposition and others in criticism of me was that I should have suggested earlier that we might have to improve the law in order to give as much protection to the policyholders and investors in Canadian companies as in British and foreign companies which operate in Canada.
I think this is an initiative on my part that helps in improving the confidence that the public will have in these companies, and I

have no hesitation whatever in saying that I intend to pursue these discussions with the companies, and eventually with the provinces.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Cenire):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it has to do with Air Canada. Has the minister found out whether or not Air Canada is supplying the proper number of flights to the maritimes and western Canada, or have those flights been restricted or curtailed because of flights going south?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I conveyed the hon. gentleman's question of last night to Air Canada. I did not expect a reply like that, and I did not get one.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Transport let the house know why it is that transportation by rail has become so difficult in the last two years. It is almost impossible to get reservations without about three months' notice.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the question about railways transportation raises an entirely new subject this session and I will have to go into it at length.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary question. The hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Speaker, in that connection, has the hon. minister received representations asking him to intervene with a view to getting back into service the night train between Montreal and Quebec that was cancelled?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt that this can be
considered a supplementary question. I do not believe the question, as it is now worded, can be allowed at the present time.
December 20, 1968



CRIMINAL CODE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choqueiie (Lofbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked to address the hon. Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), because the agenda of my good friend for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) indicates that to-day is his birthday also. However, due to the nature of my question I must put it to the hon. Minister of Justice.
I merely wish to ask the hon. minister whether, in connection with the Sicotte case and police brutality, he has had conversations with the provincial minister of justice (Mr. Bertrand) with a view to amending the Criminal Code so as to refuse validity to the confession of the accused when it is made in the absence of his lawyer?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been received from the Quebec minister of justice with regard to the matter brought up by my hon. friend.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour concerning unemployment insurance benefits. It is of general interest, but it is of particular urgency because of the lay-offs in Cape Breton. Is any thought being given to an early increase in the $36 a week unemployment insurance benefits paid to married people?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: The possibility of changes in the unemployment insurance regulations is under constant review. If any change is to be made-and I am not saying one is even contemplated-it will be announced in due course.



VANCOUVER B.C.-REGULATIONS DENYING BENEFITS TO FISHERMEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Perhaps I could ask the minister by way of a supplementary question whether he has yet come to a conclusion regarding the unemployment insurance regulations as they affect fishermen on the west coast?
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Since the copy of the letter on this subject was handed to me the other day by the hon. member for Skeena I have caused inquiries to be made and I have also been in touch with the vice president of the fishermen's union. As a matter of fact, I have been trying to get in touch with him on the telephone within the last hour to arrange an appointment to discuss the matter.
The problem involved arises out of changes in the fisheries regulations, and some new formula may well have to be found, to be included in the unemployment insurance regulations to overcome the difficulty. I shall be very surprised if a meeting does not take place to discuss the subject within a matter of days with representatives from the west coast.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation amending the Unemployment Insurance Act? Will this be done during the latter part of this session?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is extremely doubtful, as I think I said earlier, whether the large number of amendments dealt with in the interdepartmental report based on the study ordered by the Prime Minister could be considered and covered in legislation for action during this session of parliament. We are, however, giving serious consideration to bringing some of these amendments into effect by order in council as early as possible next year.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. A few days ago I inquired of him whether Canada had stated its position on two proposed United Nations resolutions concerning the withdrawal of the United Nations force from Korea. He said he would like time in which to examine the text of the resolutions. I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman has any further comment.
11364
December 20, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry [Translation]



SHIPPING

[Stage Direction]
WINTER NAVIGATION ON ST. LAWRENCE On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Transport a question related to the statement he made last night about what it would cost to facilitate winter navigation on the St. Lawrence. Can he tell us if his department has investigated that matter and, if so, if he is ready to table the figures?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The matter is under study continuously but I have no special report to make at this moment.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Transport table the report or notes he referred to last night before mentioning those figures? And could we know what they are?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The only figure I mentioned was "many millions", sir.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Calgary South has the floor.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. R. Ballard (Calgary South):: My
question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Having regard to the amendment which was placed before the committee of the whole house last night in connection with the measure to assist old age pensioners, whereby the Minister of National Health and Welfare would be authorized to call for information from the taxation branch of the Department of National Revenue, does the minister intend to bring in an. amendment to section 133 of the Income Tax Act to permit him to make this information freely available to the Minister of National Health and Welfare?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is pursuing a debate which has 
been going on in connection with the consideration of a bill now before the house. I would think that his inquiry might very easily be made when we return to the consideration of that measure.


Harold Raymond Ballard: May I raise this matter at ten o'clock?



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Siegfried John Enns: My
question is directed to the Solicitor General. Has he considered any measures which would give wider application to the parole system? I have a particular case in mind, but I believe there is urgent need to make the parole system a better rehabilitative tool in carrying out penal reform.


Lawrence T. Pennell: should like to advise the hon. member that amendments to the Parole Act and to the Criminal Code are now under study with a view to attaining the end he suggests.
o (3:20 p.m.)



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, December 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act-Mr. MacEachen-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 3.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Monday, December 19, clause 3 was under discussion. Is the committee ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall clause 3 carry?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Last night, when the house adjourned at ten o'clock, I had been speaking for five minutes, I think, and I was the one who called it ten o'clock. Therefore, would it not be normal that I be allowed to conclude today the remarks I had begun to make yesterday?
December 20, 1966


Herman Maxwell Batten: The hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have only a few comments to make on this particular clause of the old age security legislation.
I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) did not provide a satisfactory answer yesterday concerning the question of provinces which might want to implement or take over the old age security program.
The minister's defence is that this is merely hypothetical. Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out to the minister that it is more than a hypothetical question since it was specifically referred to in the speech from the throne, delivered at the opening of the present session of the Quebec legislature: That means that the government of Quebec firmly intends to take over the old age security field, since it announced it in the speech from the throne. Consequently, when he asks us to pass this bill, I feel it is the minister's duty to inform us as to the position he will take when the Quebec government decides to implement its own old age security program.
The minister must not ignore a situation which, obviously, is about to occur, since, as I said earlier, it is mentioned in the speech from the throne. The minister must not, like the ostrich, hide his head in the sand; on the contary, he should know what action will then be required. That is why we want an answer from the minister, since the speech from the throne clearly indicates that Quebec intends to recover control over the field of old age security. Faced with such a situation, what will the minister do? Why not provide, in the present legislation, for a fiscal compension to be paid to the provinces-or to Quebec, if that were the case for that province-which would decide to take over the control and administration of old age security?
I feel the Minister of National Health and Welfare should give us an answer in that connection. As a matter of fact, he should even provide in this bill for a fiscal compensation that would reduce or remove the problem raised by section 94A of the B.N.A. Act which grants priority rights to the provinces in the field of old age security.
I therefore ask the minister to tell us plainly what he will do when Quebec has passed the piece of legislation announced in the 23033-7191
Old Age Security Act Amendment speech from the throne. I also ask him whether he does not intend, at this stage, in view of what will happen, to amend the bill so as to provide for a fiscal compensation to be paid to any province that wants to establish its own old age security plan.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, now that the Prime Minister is present opportunity should be taken to let the house and the country know what is the attitude of the government with reference to a situation that will shortly arise when the legislature of Quebec implements legislation to exercise its jurisdiction in reference to old age security and old pensions in general? We have been endeavouring to secure information about that on two or three occasions.
Is it the intention of the government of Canada, in pursuance of its avowed dedication to unity to assure a province that in the event the province utilizes the power it has, the federal government, by subsidies and the like, will make available the necessary money to the province when it withdraws from the national plan? That is not a suggestion on my part in any way. It is simply a question as to what is going to be done. We have endeavoured to secure information from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, but the information has been as arid as the Sahara. We have not been able to get anything.
This surprises me, because I recall so well the various steps taken by the Prime Minister in his vocal adhesion to co-operative federalism. Is it now the intention of the government to desert its declaration in favour of that principle, or does it intend to apply it in such a way that, in a manner similar to that provided for in health insurance, the province or provinces can adopt a duality of system within this country? Where any province takes unto itself the enactment of legislation within its jurisdiction, the federal parliament has correlative jurisdiction, as provided by section 94A of the B.N.A. Act.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Chairman, the right hon. gentleman has complained that he has not been able to get any information from this side on the constitutional point which he has brought up. But I would remind him that he got a statement last night from the Minister of National Health and Welfare, which I think dealt quite clearly and conclusively with this question. I have little to add to that statement.
December 20, 1966
11366	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Naturally, we believe we have complete constitutional authority to introduce this legislation, just as the federal government had authority to introduce pensions legislation in the first place. I recall that after that legislation was introduced there were many occasions in Quebec when the right of the provincial government was reserved to introduce legislation of this kind under the constitution, if they saw fit, because they do have the right to do it also. But there is no doubt in our mind of our constitutional jurisdiction in this field. We are exercising it now, Mr. Chairman, as it was exercised in the past. Indeed, as my right hon. friend himself was going to exercise it when he moved an amendment to this bill adding $25 to the pension.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The right hon. gentleman- and I do not criticize him a bit for doing so-though it was quite fitting to make that kind of amendment even after the prime minister of Quebec had made his statement in Quebec. We are taking the same kind of action in a different way, and perhaps I might add for the same reasons and within the same understanding of our constitutional authority.
The right hon. gentleman said that a situation will shortly arise in Quebec by which we will be confronted with a particular piece of legislation. Mr. Chairman, he bases that statement on an intention in a speech from the throne in a provincial legislature. We do not know when that intention will be implemented. We do not know in what terms it will be implemented, if it ever is implemented, so to postpone action in this house in a matter of this kind because of that hypothetical situation would, I think, be entirely irresponsible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Lester Bowles Pearson: If and when a situation of this kind should arise where there is concurrent jurisdiction exercised provincially and federally, we would then know in what terms that exercise took place and what was the problem and what we might have to do to face and solve it. Meanwhile, I think we would be very ill advised were we to throw any doubt on our own jurisdiction by suspending action in this matter of supplementary pensions because of a declared intention in a speech from the throne in a provincial legislature.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So, Mr. Chairman, I think what we should do now is complete consideration of this legislation, get it into effect as quickly as possible and, if and when the contingency arises-I repeat if and when it arises

we will then know how to deal with it in the terms in which it has arisen.


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister has created a straw man, and then has demolished his straw man. I never at any time suggested the suspension of this legislation. I never at any time suggested its postponement. If the Prime Minister laughs, I would ask where in the statement I made did I infer that there should be a postponement? What I did ask was, what is this government going to do if there is a government in the province of Quebec which will carry out the undertakings which were made in the speech from the throne? I know that this government placed a lot of stuff in several speeches from the throne. They regard that as simply decoration. But I believe when the province of Quebec today places anything in the throne speech, it means to bring in the legislation and depart from the lack of principle that has been characteristic of this government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am convinced that the government of Quebec has a capacity for integrity in carrying out its pledges which has never been characteristic of this government. Until I find the contrary, I must accept that. Now then, I say to the Prime Minister, why all this evasive by-play? Nobody is objecting to the legislation which is before the house. What we are asking is this: What is going to happen to your highly vaunted co-operative federalism which you marched forth on every occasion in the past and ran away from whenever you were faced with reality? What are you going to do? The answer of the Prime Minister is one of complete evasiveness. He refuses to answer the question because he seems to believe that when the federal parliament passes this legislation it will then have exclusively occupied the field of old age security pensions and that from that day on the provinces will have no authority. That is not my reading of section 94A.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If the right hon. gentleman felt this way, why did he move an amendment to this pension legislation adding $25?


John George Diefenbaker: You see, that is like asking a question when the answer is perfectly obvious.
December 20, 1966


An hon. Member:: Answer it.


John George Diefenbaker: I want an answer to the question I asked. What are you going to do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: That is fine; the interruptions of hon. gentlemen opposite, as in so many cases, represent the complete contribution that they make to debate in this house. The only thing I regret is that they cannot be recognized individually by Hansard by their oh's and ah's, so that at least among their constituents they would be given credit for these interruptions.
What is obvious is that the Prime Minister will not answer because he is in difficulty. He dare not answer, and realizing the consequences of the declaration made by the minister he resorts to building up an imaginary situation. The fact still remains that the government does not know where it is going in this legislation in view of section 94A, and not knowing where it is going, as in so many cases in the past, it shuts its eye to the problem. It moves ahead ultimately toward difficulties; crises develop, and then ex parte legislation is introduced in order to meet the situation. The Prime Minister has given an answer. I accept it. They do not know where they are going.


David Lewis: Mr. Chairman, the issue which has been raised and which is being discussed obviously is of the greatest importance to Canada. I should like to say a word or two on it, but not in terms of asking the government to say now what its policy may be if a certain thing should happen. Personally, I have the feeling that for the government to attempt to do that would not be a service to Canada or to federal relations with the provinces. To attempt to say now what may be done in circumstances, the precise nature of which are not yet known, would not be, as I have said, a service to the future of confederation in this country.
I suggest that when, in 1951, the amendment to the B.N.A. Act was made, it was obviously made because of a conviction across the country, shared by the provincial governments as well as by the federal authorities, that care of the aged of Canada must be so far as is possible equal across the country, subject to anything more that the provinces themselves may be able to do.
The principle on which this parliament has functioned in this field as I understand it, is precisely the principle that all the aged people of this country, wherever they may reside, are
Old Age Security Act Amendment entitled to at least the little we are giving them to live on for the rest of their years in some dignity and self-respect. There are parts of this country which would not be able to afford such treatment for their elders within their boundaries unless the federal parliament took action.
If I may put it this way, the frightening thing about what has happened in the province of Quebec at this time is that not only did the government of that province demand exclusive jurisdiction in this field in the throne speech, but that the official opposition in that province expressed full agreement to that demand. As a result of that, I have no doubt that at some future date we will be faced with a very real and difficult problem, a problem which will be created not only by the Union Nationale government in the province, but also because the position taken, as I have read in the press, is fully supported by the official Liberal opposition. I am not unaware that there are some members of my own party in the province of Quebec who take a general line of this sort. The problem is not a partisan one in this country. The problem is a very real difference of opinion regarding certain fundamental constitutional matters.
While the Prime Minister, as far as I am concerned, is right in saying that he will not attempt to make any decision now on a particular problem, the precise nature of which we do not yet know, I do hope that the federal
government itself, as I have no doubt it is__I
would be heartbroken if it is not-is occupying itself very actively with this problem in its long term context. I hope that soon-and when I say "soon", I mean soon-the federal government will have the courage, if I may put it that way, to state to parliament and to the people of Canada the path which it intends to follow. We need a policy which will guarantee the kind of co-operation between the federal and provincial governments which will be designed for the benefit of all Canadians and not at the expense of the elderly people or any other section of our people who might suffer through a fragmentation of welfare legislation which is now within federal jurisdiction or to the extent that it is now within federal jurisdiction.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
I did not rise to make a lengthy or impassioned speech, but merely to indicate that we, like all other members of this committee, recognize the seriousness of the problem. I agree that a decision cannot be made until we
11368	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment all know the precise nature of the problem, if and when it does arise. However, I urge the government that the time has come when we, as a country, must face some of these problems and come to decisions. If this means a confrontation of ideas in this country, the longer we delay that confrontation the worse the situation will become. As we enter 1967, it seems to me the time is long overdue for us to make some definite decisions, so far as constitutional matters can ever be definite. We must make some definite decisions in these fields which concern the welfare and future of the whole of Canada and every section of our people.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Chairman, I cannot accept the general and diffuse interpretation given a while ago by the right hon. Prime Minister to section 94A of the Canadian constitution, thus bestowing steadily upon the central government a responsibility in the old age security field.
Section 94A is very clear, it is one of the sections of our constitution that lends itself the least to confusion and it is to the effect that the central government cannot hinder, neither now nor in the future, the provinces that decide to exercise such authority, such constitutional responsibility.
Besides, it is consistent with the spirit and the letter of the constitution. If we take the time to read the 1865 confederation debates, we will find out easily that the fathers of confederation, the politicians of that time in Canada, wanted to leave to the provinces the whole field of social security. And the 1951 constitutional amendment implies such priority, such precedence on the part of the provinces as regards social security.
I say that an active province, which Quebec is preparing to become in this matter as stated in its speech from the throne, and which decides to occupy the old age security field has a priority right. And when its legislation is passed, well it becomes an exclusive right on its territory.
Evidently, the central government can continue to legislate and operate in the old age security field for inactive provinces which prefer to let the central government look after the matter. This is the only meaning in my opinion, which can be given to section 94A. And this is why, in view of that crucial problem which will very soon arise, probably during the winter, in Quebec city, when a provincial legislation will be passed so that the

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
Quebec government will take possession, according to its constitutional and prior responsibility, of the old age security field, it should now be foreseen what the federal government will do, if it will merely legislate in the case of other provinces, but not for the province of Quebec.
To govern is to anticipate. It is a truism we learned in college. We have had few opportunities to see it put into practice in this house since last January 18. Yes, to govern is to anticipate. And in this case, the antecedents or the precedents are what matters. When hon. members ask for a fiscal compensation, their arguments rest on antecedents, on other federal legislation where a fiscal equivalent was granted. And to quote a few examples, we have the education grants in 1964, if my memory is correct, and payments to universities in 1962. Therefore, if that procedure has given satisfaction and has abolished dissension between Canadians, between the provinces or a province and the central government, I fail to see why the present government refuses to anticipate. It is its responsibility to govern, anticipate and include in the present legislation the fiscal compensation for the provinces which will want to assume that field of social security.
The basic principle of federalism is a matter of balance and a matter of social justice also. And to reach a balance under our legislative system, it is necessary to anticipate clauses which will not result in discrimination and injustice toward any province which will want to occupy the field of social security.
If the central government refuses to anticipate, in the right direction, one can imagine what conflicts and disagreements will ensue when a province occupies the field of social security. And all this, Mr. Chairman, would occur during our centennial year, in that very year when Quebec, for instance, is going to pass within a few months, in 1967, legislation to get into the field of old age security. And the present federal government is going to let dissension occur during the centennial, when finally Canadians from coast to coast, in a fine constructive spirit, must try to prepare and cultivate further national harmony and fraternity.
I hope the government, and therefore the Minister of National Health and Welfare, will agree to amend the bill if they want it to pass rapidly and if they really want it to be free of discrimination and injustice against a province or provinces wanting to occupy the field of old age security.
December 20, 1966
COMMONS DEBATES	H369


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Chairman, I referred to this matter first a week ago last Monday, on December 12. I did not do so because of a frivolous reason but because it is obvious, as the hon. member for York South stated, that there is a deep and serious problem here with which the government may be faced. One does not blame the government for introducing this legislation, although one may differ with the terms, but it is proceeding on the basis that in the past this field has been largely occupied by the federal government.
In view of the very definite and categorical statement by the province of Quebec, certified by the government and approved of apparently by the official opposition, it appears to be quite definite that we will shortly see provincial legislation dealing with old age security. It is not enough for the minister to say, and as the Prime Minister has said today, although there is a problem the government has a constitutional right to introduce this type of legislation. This is quite correct. I do not think anyone differs from that view. Of course, the government has the right to introduce it. But it is surely our duty, as the legislative body which authorizes the government to change the existing laws to provide for this supplement, to take a look at the future and see what will be the situation. We say to the government, here is a problem. Will you not admit it? Will you not tell us what you propose to do?
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I made a suggestion, which I will come to in a minute, which I think might well be considered by the government. The hon. member for York South has raised the point. I believe that there is a very meritorious case to be made for arguing that the field is one which should properly be completely and exclusively dealt with by the federal government. I am not arguing that point now" not giving my view; there may be other opportunities to do so. But it is quite obvious that in 1951, when the then government attempted to offer that solution it was rejected by the provincial governments. We now have section 94A in its present form.
In 1964 the government, seeking the necessary constitutional amendments to permit it to introduce the Canada Pension Act, asked and secured from Westminster an amendment to section 94A providing for supplementary pensions including old age and disability. At that time I suggested the government give consideration to dealing with the provinces in an attempt to make the field exclusively federal.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Obviously, there were difficulties and impediments; the provinces no doubt did not agree. We are, therefore, faced with the situation that exists today.
I think it would be a very embarrassing, ludicrous and impossible situation if, without there being any indication of what this government intends to do, we found that the province of Quebec, or for that matter any other province, had exercised its obvious constitutional right by enacting legislation which so far as the amount, ages and conditions are concerned differed completely from the federal old age security legislation.
If you consider section 94A and its obvious, plain meaning, it would appear that the ultimate jurisdiction still lies with the provincial government. The provincial government may say: In our opinion pensions should commence at a certain age. They should be for a certain amount and should be paid under certain conditions. If this were the case, it would quite obviously not be meeting the intention indicated through their legislation with regard to limits if, in addition to the amounts they prescribe, pensioners received the amount prescribed by the federal government. It would be an impossible situation, and one with which this house must be concerned now.
The law is there. I suggested to the minister that he might give consideration to making it quite plain that the minute the province does legislate, before that legislation was actually implemented the matter would be referred to the Supreme Court. Statements, with which I do not agree, have been made in this house and outside, that this is not a matter in respect of which the Supreme Court can adjudicate. I reject that argument. On one hand, the provinces turn to the British North America Act and say, because of the way this legislation is worded we have the right to enact social security legislation. We stake our claim on the ground of the British North America Act, but reject that act when it comes to establishing the forum in which this question can be discussed and tried if there is a conflict of opinion.
That is a proposition which I cannot support. It seems to me that the government should say: There is a problem. We did not create it, but it exists. We may be coming into a situation wherein we will be met with provincial old age security legislation which differs materially from ours. Under those conditions, we recognize the problem and intend to deal with it. I think that under
11370	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment those conditions we, as a legislative body, should bring the question to the attention of the government and suggest alternative solutions. The government should recognize and accept the fact that the difficulty does exist. If we place alternatives before the government, I think we will have done all we can at this particular time.
I believe this is an important issue. It is not being raised for frivolous or delaying purposes. I think the house is entitled to raise the matter and obtain as competent and complete answers as it is possible for the government to give. I do not believe it is sufficient merely for the government to say that parliament has the right at this time to pass the legislation which the government has introduced. I agree with that position, but that is not a sufficient answer to the problem. A situation may occur in the future in this respect. I believe it is incumbent upon the government to indicate that they intend to solve the problem by negotiation and discussion, or if necessary by a reference as soon as possible to the proper forum for a final and binding adjudication. Anything less than that really does not satisfy me.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, I only have two words to say. Considering what has been said in the course of this debate, I must reaffirm the position I have already taken on this matter which I, for one, call fiscal compensation in connection with this bill.
The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) says he is not prepared to make a statement now, and I understand him perfectly; as a matter of fact, I approve of his attitude, because I think such matters cannot be negotiated on the basis of newspaper articles or even on the basis of a speech from the throne, but as a result of talks and discussions between the provinces concerned and the federal government.
I might remind the government that a federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance is now going on at Ottawa and that this perhaps could afford an opportunity to initiate talks, particularly with representatives of the province of Quebec, or with spokesmen for any province which might eventually apply for fiscal compensation.
I do not agree with the member for York South (Mr. Lewis)-although his arguments are sound, sober and quite logical-when he submits that it is time for the government to face the provinces and maintain its position in the field of old age security. I admit that

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
this is an area in which the federal government naturally has the right to intervene, but the provinces also have a priority in this field.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I intend to vote in favour of the bill, because I feel that the federal government must take action where the provinces do not and ensure a certain degree of uniformity between the ten provinces. I personally feel that, when the time comes, the federal government must also grant fiscal compensation to those provinces wishing to administer their old age security program themselves. I would urge the government to take this suggestion into account, even though we recognize that the time is not yet favourable, that discussions have not yet taken place between the provinces and the federal government, and that it would be advisable to extend the period of dialogue and look into the situation at greater length.
I am referring to my province in particular, although the same situation may apply elsewhere. The federal government must recognize the fact that the government of the province of Quebec is presently demanding control of the old age security program and that the Liberal opposition endorses this claim.
I may say that a great majority of intermediate bodies of the province of Quebec would consider this a wise move on the part of the government, if it endeavoured to find a solution which would not encroach upon the rights of others and yet accommodate everybody. I repeat that this may not be an urgent question, a problem to be solved within the next 24 hours, but say in the next few months, following consultations which are necessary in such a case, the government should show good faith and take the necessary action, even if it imposes the minimum conditions providing for uniformity in the ten provinces, which I find is in order.
In certain quarters people will be surprised to see that I support the conclusions of my friend, the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) on this matter. Even if I disapprove his way of presenting the project, or some of his arguments and expressions, I cannot but agreee with him when he has a flash of common sense, which does not happen too often. Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Lapointe will forgive me this smart remark, but this is a case where I feel compelled to stand in favour of his conclusions, as well as those of my neighbour in this
December 20, 1966

house, the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard). Even though I do not accept all their reasoning, I think we cannot escape the conclusion, not only with respect to Quebec province but also with respect to several other provinces.
It would probably help mutual understanding if the government were to say: Eventually, when we are through with the discussions that are necesary in order to come to some understanding on the terms and conditions of transfer, we shall agree to grant fiscal compensation to the provinces on request.
Mr. Chairman, I make this request of the government, in the best spirit possible and with the intention of being as constructive as possible.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, as can be seen, the requests for explanations are not limited only to the group to which I belong, for the few remarks that were made this afternoon came from all corners and from all parties. This proves that the hon. minister must definitely make his stand clear, as regards section 94A.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) has asked the minister three times as well as the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), to state clearly what would be the position of the government as regards section 94A. This is also the third time I rise to ask our friends opposite to tell us where they will stand, once the government of the province of Quebec actually moves into this field of old age pensions.
There is no doubt that the premier of Quebec has clearly established his position when, in the speech from the throne of December 1, he stated the intention of his government to take action in the field of old age pensions. Mr. Chairman, his position is that much stronger because he has the firm support in this connection of the Liberal opposition in the Quebec legislature. It seems that he also has the support of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).
I said last week and I repeat it again this week: it is urgent that positions be clearly established, not only to prevent misunderstanding but also unnecessary legal proceedings which would bring about friction and suspicion between the parties concerned. We merely ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to tell us what he will do when, for instance, the citizens of Quebec
Old Age Security Act Amendment will declare themselves, by way of referendum, in favour of the occupation by the provincial government of the field of old age pensions.
There is no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that the population of the province of Quebec, if it is asked, will respond favourably to the question of knowing if the government of the province of Quebec should look after old age pensions itself. If, as the hon. minister has said, we are going to wait and see what happens, this will only postpone the administration of a remedy, which could be done right away, because for human relations, the situation is almost the same as for diseases; one ounce of prevention is worth one pound of cure. Now, in order to avoid meeting countless difficulties for the minister, we ask him to state his position right now.
He told us three times that the provincial government had jurisdiction in this field, and the federal government also. He did not have to tell us, we knew it already. The answer is in section 94A. What we do want to know, on the other hand, is whether the hon. minister will grant the fiscal equivalent to the province that decides to take over old age pensions.
This does not mean that the province of Quebec, sooner or later, will be the only one that will decide to assume the responsibility for old age pensions. It way well be that other provinces will decide to do so as well. We would like the hon. minister to tell us clearly whether he intends to give fiscal compensation to such provinces as may decide to have their own old age pension plans.
Will the same policy as was followed in other fields also apply to that of old age pensions? That is what we want to know. It seems to me that this question is reasonable. I would understand the minister being careful, if the question originated only in the Conservative party, but it so happens that it comes from all sides of the house. I am sure that several of his Liberal colleagues have also put this question to him in the inner circles of the caucus. I would like him to answer everybody, because no one will be led to believe that this question does not create concern in the minds of certain members opposite from the province of Quebec.
Surely, this matter is of great concern to them, and the minister should take advantage of this opportunity to allay the concern of those with whom he shares party responsibilities.
11372	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
Let him, therefore, tell his Liberal colleagues what will be the position of the government if the province of Quebec and other provinces choose, some day, to move into the old age pension field. In a situation such as this, is the minister going to grant or refuse fiscal compensation? A denial will lead inevitably to double taxation.
Those are the questions we are asking the minister, and I urge him to reply, because they concern not only the people on this side of the house, but also several members from the province of Quebec.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Is the committee ready for the question? Shall clause 3 carry?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Chairman, before this clause carries, I should like once more to tell the minister that his attitude is totally inconsistent with the spirit of mutual understanding all across Canada and, some day, he will certainly regret refusing the house the information to which it is entitled.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, two amendments have been introduced by the Minister of Transport, and we want to see the bill reprinted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would there by any disposition, if the bill could be reprinted in time, to having third reading later this day? Perhaps I can direct my question to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). Perhaps we could take third reading at eight o'clock tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it now the understanding of the house that if the bill can be reprinted it will be given third reading later this day?


Mr. Rynard:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

DEBATES	December 20, 1966


Gordon Minto Churchill: There is no agreement here, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Next sitting of the house.



TRANSPORTATION


[Stage Direction]
House in committee on Bill No. C-231, to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions-Mr. Pickersgill-Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-National transportation policy.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether on clause 1 I might make one or two observations about the bill itself which I think are directly related to the progress of the bill.
In the first place, Mr. Chairman, if it is not against the rules, I want to express my very deep appreciation to the hon. member for Hamilton West, who I think all members of the committee in every part of the house will agree, did a painstaking job as chairman of the committee. It has certainly not been my experience that any piece of legislation that I have had anything to do with has received a more thoroughgoing and conscientious scrutiny by a committee. I want to say that I do appreciate the part played by members from all parts of the house in their consideration of this bill.
I think we all realize that transportation, as I have said too many times already, is the bony structure of our country and that it is very important to keep the skeleton healthy if the body politic is to be at all healthy. We had a big responsibility, when we came to do something about its basic structure, to make sure that we did it well.
At the same time, I might be permitted to point out what will be the legal and administrative consequences of our failure to complete this bill by December 31. In saying this, I am not trying to kid anyone that this parliament will be able to dispose of it by December 31. I would hope this house might, but I do not think that in the few days before Christmas we could dispose of the bill in committee here and expect the hon. members of the other place to rush through a bill of this magnitude in an hour or two.
At the same time we should be aware, as I say, of the legal and administrative consequences, as nearly as I can outline them, of
December 20, 1966

our failure to pass this bill. It seems to me they illustrate the importance of making as much progress as we possibly can between now and the adjournment, so we can dispose of the measure as early as possible in the new year and offset the effects of these consequences to such extent as we can.
There is no provision in the estimates for any further payments to the railways beyond December 31 of this year. It was assumed and hoped, and I think expected until fairly recently, that this bill would have become law by that date. As these payments to the railways are to some degree made in recognition of certain things that they are doing voluntarily, it will be somewhat difficult to expect them for a long period-I hope not even for a short time; but certainly not for a long period-not to exercise what rights they may have under the law existing on January 1 unless there is evidence that we seriously intend to make changes in the law along the lines which, as a result of the deliberations of the committee, I think most of us seem disposed to make.
As hon. members know, the non-competitive freight rates have been frozen. Originally, they were frozen by law. That law has long ago expired and the rates have remained static by the voluntary action of the railways. If there is reasonable evidence to show that we are not gomg to take too long in the new year, I hope there would be no disposition on the part of the railways to disturb that freeze. But we should remember that it is not part of the law and what they are doing at the present time they are doing voluntarily.
Whatever criticisms hon. members may still have of some aspects of the new bill, I think all of us would feel that it would be very regrettable if there was any attempt to make any rate changes under the old law. We do recognize the many disadvantages that those rates have. This is particularly true in the Atlantic provinces or the select territory, which includes the eastern part of Quebec. ' [DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
In that area we are not merely proposing in this legislation to mainta'n the freeze for two years but we are proposing to maintain the roll-back, which would also cease to operate after December 31 unless the railways voluntarily decide to continue it in the hope that parliament will act in good faith and with reasonable expedition.
The order in council providing for the at-and-east grain rate freeze also expires on
23033-720J
Transportation
December 31. Since that order in council provides for compensation to the railways for maintaining these rates, and since no funds have been provided for this purpose in the estimates, again because we expected that this legislation would take the place of the estimates, an awkward problem once more arises. I do not say it is an insuperable problem. But it is an awkward problem.
Then, there is the question of the undertaking given by the railways to withdraw all their applications for branch line abandonment on the so-called protected lines. They have given an undertaking to withdraw them as soon as this bill receives the royal assent, and they have so signified before the transport commissioners.
That undertaking is, of course, contingent upon the passage of the legislation. I am glad to say that the Board of Transport Commissioners, as a result of the intervention I made when the measure was brought up here in the house, has agreed not to hear any applications for abandonment in the prairie provinces while this bill is before parliament. However, if we spend a prolonged period on this measure it is a nice question whether we can in reason and in equity maintain a freeze of this kind. Here again, I trust there will be no problem because we will proceed with the kind of expedition which I hope will be shown.
The present provision for the grade crossing fund also expires on December 31 and was to be replenished under this legislation. It will, of course, be possible in anticipation-because this is a genuinely unforeseen situation-to make some temporary provision to ensure that none of this very necessary work is held UP- Again, this means that extraordinary action will have to be taken because we have not been able to deal earlier with the measure before us. I am not critic1 zing anyone when I say this. I recognize that there has been much to do. But I feel we should know what the facts are.
The hon. member for Medicine Hat brought up a question, on the orders of the day, about which I might say another word. This is something about which the government can do nothing of its own motion, except pray. The Canadian Pacific Railway has voluntarily undertaken to pay grants equal to one third of the municipal taxes which would otherwise be levied but for their constitutional exemption. They have agreed to pay these taxes in the first calendar year after the passage of this legislation. It was anticipated when this offer

December 20, 1966
Transportation
was made that the year in question would be 1967. The railway will pay two thirds in the following year, and the full amount in the third year and thereafter.
This is a voluntary undertaking and while I could ask the company to overlook the fact that we have not found it possible to act by the end of December-and I would naturally be glad to do this-we must remember that this offer was made in anticipation of the freedom which would be granted under this new legislation. This freedom would enable the railways to compete for revenue in a way in which they are not able to compete at present.
Since the company is paying money out of its own treasury on the assumption that it will get this extra revenue, it would be rather humiliating for the government to have to say: notwithstanding the fact that we could not do what we had hoped and expected to do to enable you to earn these additional sums, we would nevertheless like you to pay these taxes. I hope that if we do not take too long in our consideration of this legislation in the new year the C.P.R. might, from the point of view of public relations, be disposed to listen to some such prayer. But there is no way of compelling the company to do so.
With respect to the government's announced intention of asking Canadian National Railways to pay grants in lieu of taxes of the crown-owned part of the C.N.R. system, that too, was contingent upon our placing the Canadian National in a position by the first of the year to earn this money. The government would, I think, have to reserve its decision as to whether it would impose this extra burden on the treasury-because that is what it would amount to-if parliament took too long about putting the railways in a position to earn the additional revenues which they had hoped to earn as a result of the passage of this legislation.
I think these are the main difficulties which arise as a result of our inability, up to now, to dispose of this legislation. I put them forward so that we shall all be reminded of them here, and in order that the country may be aware of them. If we in this chamber can in the next three days dispose, or largely dispose, of the committee stage of this bill so that it could be dealt with by the other place early in the new year there will not, I hope, be any serious conseqences arising from the delay. But should there be a protracted delay there may be considerable difficulty, as I think hon. members will agree.

It seems to me that if there is not a disposition to deal with clause 1 reasonable quickly we might agree, after some discussion of it-and I think there should be some discussion of clause 1 because it is so fundamental to the rest of the bill-that we might proceed to consider some of the other clauses and make progress with them. There are some hon. members who are not present today. I would be quite agreeable, if other hon. members thought it fair, to having some discussion on clause 1 and then adjourning the debate on that clause.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
If hon. members felt, after having some discussion on clause 1, that the clause should be stood to give an opportunity to other hon. members not now present to make observations on it, I would be quite agreeable. In the interval, we could make progress with some of the other clauses and thereby save time after the Christmas adjournment.
The bill speaks for itself. It is reprinted with the amendments that were made in the standing committee. There are one or two additional amendments that may be proposed during consideration of the bill in committee, but in the main I am recommending it to the committee as it is now.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: What are the clauses that the minister is considering amending? Possibly he has not got the exact language of the amendments before him, but it would be of assistance to know which clauses are to be amended.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am told that one of our
colleagues is going to make a proposal with respect to mergers and the purchase of transportation companies by other transportation companies. I have seen his proposal, and it looks to me like a pretty good amendment. I am rather disposed to accept it but I want tc hear the views of the committee before reaching a final decision.
There is another amendment, not small in amount but in scope, relating to the transitional subsidy clause, which arises out of protracted consideration which I gave to some of the representations that we received when the bill was being considered in the standing committee and on which, at that time, I had not reached a conclusion.
I promised the hon. member for Saint John-Albert and the senior hon. member for Halifax that I would look again seriously at
December 20, 1966

the bill to see if we were adequately protecting any rights in existing legislation which the Atlantic ports have in order to make absolutely sure that any such rights were not taken away by this bill. I have had an explicit amendment drafted which I will be proposing at the appropriate time.
Then, there is a very small, technical amendment about the apportionment of tolls. Those are the only four upon which I have definitely decided. There is one other possibility that I am still thinking about, but I have not yet been able to make up my mind.


Mr. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Chairman, we have just listened to a plaintive plea which arises from a mismanaged house. Instead of dealing with what this bill will accomplish for Canada, the minister dealt at some length with the manner in which the bill was introduced and the deadline that he placed on himself in introducing it. He told us that at one time he had great hopes of having it passed by December 31, but now he does not think it at all possible that this can be accomplished. I would like to state that it cannot be accomplished because of the government's mismanagement in bringing this legislation before the house.
We spent something like seven to ten days discussing medicare, which will not become effective until 1968. If this transport legislation was so urgently required and had to be passed by January 1, 1967, why did the house spend seven to ten days on medicare which will not become effective until July, 1968?


Philip Bernard Rynard: Maybe.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: And maybe not even then. Why did the government insist on the house spending something like nine days debating unification, for which Canada has no immediate need and which would not save the taxpayers $1 million even if it were implemented today? Why did the government keep the house bound up in that debate for nine days if time were required to consider this legislation which is urgently needed?
Why did the government play on words with regard to the old age security bill with which we have just been dealing? Four months ago we were told that there would be no means test, no needs test. But then the government introduced an income test, which is nothing more than a play on words and has aroused a great deal of indignation across the country. To top it all, the government introduced a budget last night and blamed the tax
Transportation
increases on the senior citizens. This is shameful treatment of our senior citizens. The government has used time consuming methods with respect to these three pieces of legislation, one of which is almost passed and the other two which it hopes to have passed soon.
I honestly believe that the Minister of Transport did his best to get this bill through the house by January 1. I hold nothing against him, except I am sorry he did not have more persuasive power with his colleagues. He should have been able to convince them that this legislation should have been introduced sooner because consideration of it would require more time than is available between now and January 1 next.
I want to point out that we on this side of the chamber co-operated fully when the legislation was introduced. We gave up the resolution stage debate, which could have lasted ten days on such an important piece of legislation. We gracefully acknowledged the fact that there was only so much time left for consideration of the bill, and then we proceeded as quickly as possible to give the bill first and second reading and send it to the transport committee.
In the transport committee we heard one brief after another in rapid succession. I do not hold this against the minister, the government or the committee chairman, but we heard the briefs in rapid succession. In the process 3,000 pages of evidence were piled up, in an endeavour to return the bill to the house as soon as possible so that it could be dealt with by January 1, 1967. If it is not now dealt with by that date I say the responsibility lies with the government, and not with the minister or with the opposition. Both the minister and the committee worked to meet the time objective, but we were unable to convince the minister's colleagues that they should co-operate.
This is an important piece of legislation, and I am going to quote the minister's exact words, as recorded at page 1666 of volume 23 of the standing committee's proceedings, to show hon. members what we are dealing with here. The minister said:
There is not, I am sure, any more important piece of legislation before parliament, not even the Bank Act, which I do not wish to disparage in any way but which is, after all, just a revision of existing legislation.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
Then the minister went on to say:
This is a fundamentally revolutionary change that is being proposed here.

December 20, 1966
Transportation
This is not in an ordinary thing; this is a fundamental, revolutionary change which is being presented in this bill. In the light of this, I urge the committee to consider this bill very fully. Then, he went on to say:
We are proposing for the first time since 1903, when the board of railway commissioners was first established and rates were set for practically all kinds of railway activity, to put the railways in a position of running themselves like any other business does except in the areas where they have a monopoly.
In other words, after this bill is passed, the railroads will be like any other business, except in areas where they have a monopoly. That has been the contentious issue. Where are those areas, and what protection does this bill give those areas?
Then at the top of page 1667 he went on to explain what a difficult time he had in attempting to agree with this revolutionary change. He said that it was difficult to come to such an agreement. He dealt at quite some length with the difficulty which he had in wrestling with this whole problem. So, this bill is put before us. It contains a revolutionary change, a departure. In the committee on transport and communications, we were asked to consider this at length.
I should like to touch a little on the history of transportation in Canada. The Manitoba brief, in proceedings and evidence No. 38, dealt with this question. I should like to read from page 2555 of the committee proceedings:
In the early days of confederation, national policy was concentrated mainly on fostering the political unity and economic integration of the newly united provinces.
In other words, transportation played a real part in bringing us together politically and economically. Now, this policy is going to be discarded in this new bill. We are going to treat the transportation system as just another business. That is the first real step we are taking in clause 1 of the bill. The submission continues:
Due to the distances which separate Canada's producing territories and consumer markets, development of the country's resources depended upon railway construction and low transportation charges to facilitate the flow of products to market. The people of Canada have given the aid necessary to procure adequate transportation facilities.
In other words, down through the years, through taxation the people of Canada have provided adequate transportation facilities to enable the producing areas to get their goods to market and the consuming areas to utilize 
the goods produced all across Canada. The submission continues:
The ultimate goal of the public policies of the various federal governments since confederation was to maximize and equalize opportunities and benefits for all Canadians in all regions of the country.
That has been the basic reasoning behind all transportation policies in years gone by. This bill is a revolutionary change from all that. It will set up the railroads as business entities and the suggestion is that we no longer need them as public utilities. In a sense, this is what we are being told; this is what this bill purports to do. Let us look at the possibilities. Are they still public utilities? Are they something similar to General Motors, or are they something similar to a Canadian utility which is providing power, for example, to the city of Ottawa, or something like that? According to my interpretation they certainly still are to quite a large extent public utilities.
One has only to go through the committee proceedings. One might look at page 1669 of committee proceedings No. 23 where it is outlined clearly by the minister that these rates are going to be subsidized. These are subsidized rates for grain moving to the maritime ports. In other words, there is an area here in which the railway still is a public utility. We see in the bill, as the minister points out on this same page, that the Crowsnest pass rates will be maintained at a subsidized rate, and in a sense the railways still are a public utility.
One could go through the areas of Canada and point out the many aspects in which the transportation system in Canada is still basically a public utility. Even if it is only partially so, then government regulations should have something to do with the permissible earnings of that public utility. If the government is going to give somebody a sole right to serve a given area, then it is its duty to make sure that the level of rates charged in that area are not exorbitant or abusive. If one feels they are not a public utility but rather a corporate entity, then of course there is nothing to stop them going ahead and charging any rates they wish.
One other aspect with which I should like to deal is that clause 1, in a sense sets up, the commission and does so in such a way that it causes some concern to the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. The commission is not necessarily going to be a cure-all. Just because we link all modes of transportation under one commission does not necessarily mean we are solving
December 20, 1966

all our transportation problems. This is outlined very well by the C.P.R. in committee proceedings No. 28 at page 2059. The C.P.R. had this to say about the establishment of the commission itself:
The McPherson Commission did not contemplate a commission having jurisdiction over all modes of transport.
Many people believe that this piece of legislation is based directly on the MacPherson Commission report, but here the C.P.R. points out that the MacPherson Commission did not envisage a commission such as this bill would set up to have jurisdiction over all modes of transportation. It recommended the creation of a national transportation advisory council to undertake the task of conducting the studies necessary to achieve the goals of a national transportation policy. They go on to deal at some length with what a national transportation policy should include. They say this:
It is important that care be taken that the study and research function of the commission does not become confused with its regulatory function, nor that it results in the commission assuming some of the functions of management.
In other words, a warning is given. The MacPherson Commission did not necessarily recommend a commission which would be as all encompassing as this one is.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Mr. MacDougall also suggested the MacPherson Commission felt that care should be taken to make sure that the research and administrative functions of the commission were not to be too closely knit or related to the regulatory functions of management. As recorded at page 1728 of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee on transport and communications a representative of the C.N.R. said:
Well, the new national transportation legislation that they have in the United States in so far as the regulation of railroads is concerned, is mainly directed to the general sort of administrative and research aspects. They have not attempted by that to take over into this new body the functions of the Interstate Commerce Commission in regulating and controlling various modes of transport.
In other words, in the United States the national transportation policy is related to administrative and research aspects while the Interstate Commerce Commission is the regulatory and controlling body. Through this bill we are trying to link these together. At the same page Mr. MacDougall of the C.N.R. dealt at some length with the dangers involved in linking these several functions.
Transportation
At pages 1768 and 1769 Dr. Bandeen pointed out that the research aspect must be kept independent. He said:
First of all, we have a feeling that there is a need for independent research-independent of the government, independent of industry in Canada-
He wondered whether or not this independent research would really remain independent over the years if it were linked closely with a regulatory body. There is a danger in this regard. Caution should be taken in setting up this commission to see that all modes of transportation are not placed under its jurisdiction. The two briefs presented to the commission which dealt to any extent at all with commodity pipe lines suggested that their operations should not fall under the jurisdiction of a commission such as will be set up by this bill, and that they might better be left under the jurisdiction of the National Energy Board. I think we are going too fast by placing regulatory and research functions in the same category, and by placing all modes of transportation under one commission. That is not a recommendation of the MacPherson Commission. Representatives of the railroads themselves have expressed fear about putting regulatory and research aspects under one commission.
I should like to mention one other aspect of this bill to which the minister has referred, and I have in mind the formula devised for rail line abandonments. Some years ago 4,000 miles of railroad trackage on the three prairie provinces were the subject of abandonment applications. If my memory serves me correctly, 1,800 miles of trackage on the three prairie provinces is to be abandoned. That is nearly half the trackage involved in the prairie provinces. In this regard, I intend to move an amendment to clause 1 of this bill which I hope the minister will consider seriously. It is my proposal that the word "adequate" should be added to line 4 of the first page of the bill. In other words, it now reads:
It is hereby declared that an economic and efficient transportation system_
I suggest the word "adequate" should be added so that it would read:
It is hereby declared that an adequate, economic and efficient transportation system-
That may appear to be unimportant, but I suggest it means a great deal when you consider the wording of that clause and the attitude of representatives of railway companies, particularly in areas of the prairie provinces. What is the most economic and efficient transportation system? Perhaps one track running

December 20. 1986
Transportation
through the heart of the prairies would be the most economic and efficient, but that is taking efficiency and economics to the 'nth degree. This clause does not take into consideration the adequacy of the system, as was suggested by the Manitoba brief.
Let me deal now with this general rail line abandonment aspect of a transportation system. On the prairies, we are very concerned about these abandonments because when the minister made his announcement regarding this bill there were 4,000 miles of track proposed for abandonment. The minister announced that 1,800 miles of the 4,000 miles involved in applications for abandonment had been nailed down to protect certain areas. He said the other 2,200 miles-


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think the hon. gentleman has inadvertently made a factual error which he would l.ke corrected. I said we had nailed down all but 1,800 miles. What I said was exactly the opposite of what he suggested.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I accept the correction and I thank the minister for it because I was wrong. There were 2,200 miles nailed down and the other 1,800 miles were up for abandonment.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Actually more than 2,200 miles are nailed down.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I was referring to the applications before the board prior to the minister's announcement.


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is right.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Those applications are now before the Board of Transport Commissioners. In the last week there has been renewed interest in these applications. The minister stated clearly in the house last Friday that these applications would not be proceeded with until the bill before us was passed. I should like to be clear on that point, because when this bill is passed presumably these applications will be dealt with by the new commission. I should like this difficulty cleared up before we pass clause 1 of this bill. If 2,200 miles of trackage on the prairies is to be nailed down, the citizens of the areas involved should know why one track is to be maintained until 1970 whereas another will be abandoned. In other words, in order that various lines be treated on an equal basis they should all be considered under this new transportation concept. I have some doubts in this regard as to clause 89.

My interpretation of this new concept is that applications now before the Board of Transport Commissioners will be dealt with after this bill is passed and the new commission is set up. What I should like to know is whether the Board of Transport Commissioners will then deal with the applications now in existence. That is what the railroads think. This is the reason 1 am raising the question of rail line abandonment. If some lines are to be saved under this new transportation concept, the commission should judge other lines in the same light. I cannot stress this point too strongly because there is, without doubt, a great deal of concern across the country in this respect.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I should like to deal with one other matter under clause 1 of the bill. What does this measure do? We are setting up a commission to regulate all modes of transportation. We are going to remove, to some extent, the regulations that now govern and control the railroads. We are going to free the railroads. What will be the end result of this measure? I have come to the conclusion, after sitting in the committee for many, many days and asking numerous questions, that the end result will be increased freight rates. One has only to read pages 1765 and 1766 of the committee proceedings te come to this conclusion.
As will be seen from page 1765 of the committee proceedings, Mr. Gordon was asked this question, and Mr. MacMillan was asked questions in this connection at the top of page 1766. The answer given was that there was no alternative, freight rates would be increased. The hon. member for Wellington-Huron prodded the president and future president of the C.N.R. The answer was that freight rates would be going up. The question was asked in Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence No. 28, as will be found at pages 1970 to 1972. It was asked of Mr. Crump, chairman of the C.P.R., and he said that after careful consideration freight rates would go up. They have to go up because the subsidies are being reduced and the railroads have been subjected to a freight rate freeze. Everything has been going up.
The result of this bill will be an increase in freight rates. Let us consider that aspect of the matter alone and ask ourselves whether we should hurriedly pass this bill. Inflation has run rampant across Canada in the past year. It is now slowing up a little. What effect will the passage of this bill have on the economy? Transportation has a bearing on the cost of everything we consume and produce. The
December 20, 1966

presidents of the two major railroads have said that if this bill passes, freight rates will go up. The price of goods will therefore go up; there is no alternative. Any increase in freight rates will be passed on to the consumer in Canada or some other country. We are going to increase inflationary pressures with the passage of this bill. There is no other conclusion to which one can come after reading those pages of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the committee to which I referred.
The consumer will pay a higher price for goods because the cost of transportation is a built-in cost in respect of everything we produce and consume in Canada. This is another matter that we, as legislators, should consider very, very carefully at this time. We have seen inflation run rampant across Canada. Housewives from Vancouver to Halifax have become organized and have been boycotting supermarkets to an extent never before envisaged in this country. Certain measures have attempted to deal with the problem of inflation. I refer to the attempted budget of a couple of months ago, and the budget of last night. These measures attempted to deal with the problem of inflation. I believe that inflation is reaching the end of its course, and that the passage of this bill will result in more fuel being thrown on the fire of inflation. Once again, prices will spiral.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted for his speech has expired.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the committee would not be disposed to allow the hon. gentleman to continue?


Maurice Rinfret: Is there unanimous consent that the hon. gentleman should be allowed to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This is very generous of the committee, Mr. Chairman, and I will not abuse the generosity of hon. members by continuing at length. I have said what I think this bill will do. It is an all-encompassing bill. It sets up a commission to look into the problems of transportation. In summary, I would say I am gravely concerned about this commission. I wonder whether it will have the proper facilities to undertake research and look into the regulatory and management aspects of transportation. A real attempt, should be made by the commission and the government to keep these two aspects as separate as
Transportation
possible. The whole country, particularly western Canada, wants an answer to the question I have raised with regard to rail line abandonment. Will the applications now before the commission be dealt with by the commission after this bill passes, or will they be dealt with by the old Board of Transport Commissioners? This is a question to which many, many people in western Canada would like an answer. They are very concerned about this matter.
The people of western Canada see some rail lines being saved under our new transportation policy, and some discarded. In a sense that is just what they are, discarded. There is some hope held out for some lines until 1975, and no hope for others. These people want to know the formula which provides this degree of safety for some lines but not others. That formula was never given in committee. There was an attempt at rationalization on this question. An hon. member asked whether the criterion used was so many thousand bushels a day to be hauled per mile of track. The minister said no, we could not really peg it on that. He said that criterion was used, but we could not peg it on that sort of thing.
The question of rail line abandonment is extremely important. Of course, the most important aspect of this whole transporation legislation is this: We as legislators, must ask ourselves whether we consider the railroads in Canada to be corporate entities with no obligation other than to make a profit for their shareholders, or do we consider them still to be providing a public service and to be partially, if not completely, public utilities? This is the question we must ask ourselves before this bill passes or even before too many clauses are dealt with. When we reach clause 16, say, we will have to decide whether we consider railroads to be 50 per cent or 60 per cent public utilities. We will have to direct our remarks to this aspect of the matter and decide whether clause 16 will give the protection necessary in order that the shippers and citizens of this country may utilize the public utilities which we have set up and enjoyed over the years.
In concluding my remarks on clause 1, Mr. Chairman, I point out that I will be moving an amendment to this clause. I will not do so at this time because it would be fairer if the minister had an opportunity to consider my suggestion. The suggestion is to include the word "adequate" in the clause. I hope the minister, his officials and the government, will consider the inclusion of that word because I

December 20, 1966
Transportation
believe it should be in the clause. I think that all people in this country, particulary those in the west, believe we must have an adequate, economic and efficient transportation system.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
This was suggested in the brief submitted by the Manitoba government.
I will conclude my remarks with the suggestion that if the bill is passed at this time-even if it is passed by December 31 as the minister urges that it should be-we will be adding fuel to the inflationary fires because the costs of transportation will go up. 1 believe that this point should be considered during the debate on the bill. We should remember that inflation has been one of the greatest problems which has faced Canada during the past year.


Mr. Schreyer:: Mr. Chairman, the preamble to the bill advises us that the bill is intended to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada. In the minister's own words the intent of the bill is to bring about a fundamental change in our transportation policy, in the freight rate charges, etc. This being so, I think the minister was quite right in pointing out a little earlier that he really does not expect us on this side of the house to hurry along the passage of this legislation. It is unfortunate if the delay in processing this legislation will cause some embarrassment to the government. However, this problem will have to lie on their doorstep because it is the result of their own actions. When the minister spoke about the awkwardness which will result from the delay in the passage of the legislation he must have realized that he will simply have to find ways and means of extricating the government from this awkward position. He mentioned the fact that certain orders in council will lapse at the end of the year. I suggest that if it is only a case of orders in council lapsing, the cabinet will have to deal with that problem as they see fit.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Unfortunately, it is not only orders in council which will lapse but also statutes.


Edward Richard Schreyer: In that case, I expect that the railway companies and the government will be able to come to some understanding so that the spirit and intent of the new legislation will be honoured in the interval until it actually comes into effect.
I wish to take this opportunity to make some remarks on the over-all purpose and

intent of the legislation. It seems to me that in putting forward the legislation the government and the minister have committed one rather obvious error. They have taken the railway transportation and freight charges further away from regulation and have put too much faith in competition as an effective means of protecting the public interest. It may well be that certain evidence has come to light in the past years which would indicate that competition has increased in recent years, and has thereby become more effective in protecting the users of transportation services. That premise is certainly open to debate. But even if it were to be conceded that in some respects competition in the transportation industry has increased, it is also a fact that in certain regions of this country this is less true.
I think that those regions of this country which produce primary products will be adversely affected by the provisions of this legislation when it becomes law. I submit that there has not been sufficient evidence put forward to date to indicate that we would be well advised to consider competition as a proper basis for the control of freight charges in this country. I believe the hon. member for Acadia was right when he said that it is in the national interest to continue regarding railway transportation as a public utility. I think he said this on several occasions. If it is, in fact, to be considered as a public utility then we should continue to rely upon regulation as the proper means of protecting the public interest.
However, I wish to give the minister credit for the fact that, after having introduced the bill and having sat in the committee where representations were made by various organizations, he acknowledged some errors in the legislation. In fact, he proposed a large number of amendments to the bill.
I have made a rough estimate of the amendments which have already been incorporated into the revised version of the bill and they number around 60 or 64. The net effect of the more important aspects of these amendments was for the government to retreat a little way toward a greater reliance on regulation as a means of protecting the public interest. I think the minister, after having heard the numerous submissions made to the committee, realized that too many people were concerned and worried by the tendency of the legislation to emphasize competition rather than regulation. After this was pointed out to the minister, he acquiesced to a certain extent and put forward some amendments to the bill.
December 20, 1966

Even if we acknowledge at this stage that we should rely on regulation more rather than less, it must also be said that if regulation is to prove effective it must be given a chance. By this I mean that the commission, which is the regulating authority, must be given proper terms of reference and proper statutory authority to do its job. However, what do we have in the bill? The most important clauses of the bill having to do with rate control and regulation contain terms of reference and formulae which are not based on reality but on some fictitious standards.
Almost every organization which appeared before the committee and presented briefs has objected vociferously to those standards which, nevertheless, have been allowed to remain in the bill as originally drafted. I wish to say to the minister that, owing to the fact these important objections have not been dealt with and the right kind of changes were not made in this respect, I and several other hon. members here would find it very difficult to vote in the affirmative on these clauses. Of course, it follows that we would find it difficult to vote in the affirmative on the entire bill.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I do not want to take time at this stage to enter into any kind of polemic debate or digression as to the desirability for or relative effectiveness of public ownership versus private ownership in our transportation policy. But it seems to me that if we are to be really serious about defining and implementing a national transportation policy that is rational to the highest possible degree, we must enter upon such a debate, and the sooner the better.
There may be no virtue in public ownership in itself. I submit there is no virtue in private ownership in itself where there exists the kind of circumstances which require pervasive regulation in order to protect the public interest. Yet, that is precisely what we must have; we must have pervasive regulation of our transportation services in order to protect the public interest.
As I have already said, the reason for that is that there is simply not enough evidence to date to show conclusively that we can move toward more and more reliance upon competition as the means of protecting those who use our transportation services in order to stimulate their functions in our economy.
As a member of the standing committee on transportation and communications which was charged with the responsibility of studying
Transportation
this bill clause by clause, may I say I found the experience very worth while. In many ways I felt we did accomplish something. But in one very important respect the work of the committee was an exercise in futility. I refer specifically to the fact that the committee really could not make a proper and definitive evaluation of this bill and its likely effects unless it were provided with certain necessary and crucial cost accounting data which was in the possession of the railway companies.
On one occasion the hon. member for Medicine Hat and myself moved a motion asking that the committee be given precisely this information. Without it, it was simply impossible to arrive at any conclusion as to the efficacy of the proposed section 336 having to do with rate control. The rate control which is referred to in that clause has to do with costs incurred by the railways and the formulas which are based on costs incurred by the railways. The committee could not get this data that related to costs.
My motion was defeated, Mr. Chairman. At that point I did give notice that I would raise in the house, as I am now, this grievance, and I believe it is a real grievance. I contend that the committee was foiled and frustrated in its task by being refused cost data in the possession of the railways.
The ostensible reason given was that this information was part of the proprietary rights of Canadian companies. While the information could be given to the transportation commission, it could not be given to any other group, including a committee of this parliament, because it might break some kind of confidence and put the railways at a disadvantage in relation to their competitors.
I submit that this kind of argument is completely unacceptable. It would not be accepted by any legislative committee of the United States Congress or, I submit, of the British parliament. I might add that the submissions made by the three prairie provinces were to the effect they considered it unfortunate that this information was not provided to the counsel for the three prairie provinces. They mentioned specifically that it was unfortunate this data was not made available to the members of the parliamentary standing committee.
So I must say, Mr. Chairman, that no member in this committee, with the possible exception of the Minister of Transport, can say with any degree of confidence or assurance that he really comprehends the impact of certain proposed sections in this bill, particularly

December 20, 1986
Transportation
section 336 and one or two others. He has never been provided with certain data which would have enabled him to evaluate the effect of those sections. Parliament should be apprised of these facts. In a sense, Mr. Chairman, we are being asked to pass upon legislation the effect of some of the clauses of which is a matter of mystery, doubt and uncertainty. I am wondering whether parliament likes to be put in the position of passing legislation on that basis.
I wish to advise the minister that during the course of the clause by clause consideration of this bill I will have a number of amendments to propose. I propose to move them in such a way as to facilitate discussion, to give the minister an opportunity to indicate why they should or should not be accepted, and then we can move on. I certainly agree it is important at this stage to put this legislation through as quickly as is prudently possible, even though in major respects we find this bill to be based on faulty premises and questionable grounds.
We shall certainly expect from the minister further elaboration and clarification-because he is in a better position to do so than other members here-as to the likely effect of this bill particularly on western Canada and those regions of the country which are primary producing. According to my understanding of the bill and of the formulae contained in it, it would seem to militate against those very regions which produce what might be called heavy loading commodities, bulk commodities

in short, for want of a better term, primary products.
There are, of course, safeguards in the bill with respect to grain and so on. But what about, for example, regions in northwestern and northern Ontario which are dependent upon shipments of lumber and forest products? What about shipments of natural resources in their raw state? How will these areas be affected? It is my opinion that they will be affected adversely by this legislation.
May I also point out to hon. members that in the submissions made by some rather learned men in the fields of transportation regulation and transportation economics, much the same kind of statement was made to the listener or inference left to the reader, namely that it is these I have mentioned that will be at a disadvantage following the passage of this legislation.
If I may make this suggestion to the minister, I would say that the proper basis for
[Mr. Schreyer.l
regulation, whether of transportation of utilities of another kind, is permitted earnings, fair returns and allied concepts. I know the minister does not think much of this basis for regulation bacause I have heard him say, in jocular fashion during the hearings of the committee, that the idea of a fair return is a medieval notion.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
Yet, that is precisely the basis which most of our public utility regulatory bodies use. What other basis can there be? Fictitious formulae, that is all we have in this bill. The idea of a fair return, a permitted level of earnings, is one which has been put forward by the province of Manitoba and by the counsel for the province of Alberta. I do not know whether they have been converted to the politics of social democracy. Nevertheless, they have advocated this basis as a foundation for a regulation in the transportation field.
I do not think there is anything medieval about a notion of this kind. I think it is timeless. I think it has existed in the minds of men for ages, and that it will continue to exist even though it seems to have departed from the minds of some hon. members, who in many other ways are very fine gentlemen but who do not appear to be impressed by such a valid and attainable idea as regulation based on the notion of a fair return.
Before resuming my seat, I want to ask the minister whether he would not take a minute or two for the purpose of elaborating what he had to say earlier about the intention with respect to applications for branch line abandonment. I know that in the past two or three days the minister has been questioned in the house regarding an application which is said to have been sent to the Board of Transport Commissioners by the Canadian Pacific Railway requesting the abandonment of a particular branch line.
The impression I have is that the minister gave an assurance some time ago that all applications for abandonment would be withdrawn, and would not be entertained until this legislation becomes effective. How, then, does he explain the fact, if it is a fact, that the C.P.R. has made an application for abandonment in the course of the past few days? I believe the minister said earlier today that the board would not consider applications. It is my understanding that the board will not even accept applications until this legislation becomes effective.
December 20, 1966

In order to play my part in co-operating with the minister I will confine the rest of my remarks on this bill to the appropriate clauses.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member for Medicine Hat allow me to reply very briefly to the question about the branch lines before he speaks? Then, if he is not satisfied with what 1 say, he can deal with this aspect at the beginning of his speech.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I was about to ask the minister if he would outline the ground rules which are now in effect in this field. It would be useful if the minister would deal with this question briefly, now.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The situation is this: The hon. member for Acadia said there were four thousand miles of line-I have not checked the figure myself, but I have no doubt he is right, or approximately right-which have been the subject of applications before the board for a number of years. The railways have agreed not to proceed with these applications.
Then, one day last September I think it was, the government issued a statement and published a map showing the lines on which no abandonment would be permitted to take place before January 1, 1975, if this legislation passed. We could not give any kind of guarantee as to what would happen if it did not pass, because the law is the law. But we said it would be part of the policy of which this legislation is another part, that these lines would be protected, and if the railways were losing money on them they could in due course under this legislation get a subsidy.
As for the rest of the applications affecting the other 1,800 miles of line, the applications had already been made. To the best of my knowledge no new applications of any kind have been made. Both railway companies wrote to the board indicating that they intended to abandon all their applications affecting the protected lines on the day this legislation received royal assent, and asking the board to take note of this fact. The board undoubtedly did so.
Whether on the initiative of the railways, particularly the C.P.R., or on its own, the board began to gather information about the other lines so that whenever the time came for hearings to be held, those hearings could go forward and the necessary up-to-date statistical information would be available. The board is a court of record, as hon. members
Transportation
know. It does not report to me what it does, as a court. I did not know that this information was being gathered-I say th.s quite frankly-until the matter was brought to my attention, first by a telegram from the Manitoba Branch Line Association and then by hon. members in this house. I inquired promptly about it, and I was assured there was no thought whatever of holding any hearings or dealing with these applications as long as the legislation was before the house. All that was being done was a certain amount of housekeeping, and I have a formal assurance to this effect from the chairman of the board.
The other question which has been raised by the hon. member for Acadia and by the hon. member for Springfield-I am sure it will also be raised by the hon. member for Medicine Hat-is whether, if and when this legislation is passed, the protection of the legislation with respect to branch lines will be brought into effect immediately so that all the hearings and applications will be under the new rules, or whether the old rules will still apply. This is a question which, I believe, is not resolved one way or the other in the bill. When we come to our study of the particular clauses I will be glad to make a more detailed statement. One would have to pay some attention to the fact that it is always wrong to assume that a piece of legislation is ever going to pass. It is, therefore, a little difficult to answer this question right now.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I am aware of it, but one factor will depend upon how long it is before we can expect the legislation to pass. However, I shall be prepared to give a categorical answer to the question when we reach clause 89. I think I have explained what the situation is now. So long as this legislation is before parliament and has not received royal assent, the chairman of the board has assured me no hearings whatsoever will take place on any of the applications, some of which have been before the board for years. I think that is the essential thing for the moment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: That is useful information because I and other hon. members during the last few days received letters from the secretary of the Board of Transportation Commissioners asking us, as interested parties, if we had any objection to certain applications being approved now. As the minister has said, hearings in some of the cases were held a long time ago, and there may not be serious objection, for example, to abandoning a small spur

December 20, 1966
Transportation
line in which there may not be much public interest.
I think the minister, so far as he was able, gave us the ground rules that will be used in proceeding with the applications for abandonment. If I interpret him correctly he has said the status of the applications remains frozen, that they will not be proceeded with until this bill is passed and new rules and regulations come into effect. Is that correct?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would not use the phrase "proceeded with" because it might lead to misunderstanding later on. I do not think there is any objection to the board going ahead and gathering statistical information and things of that sort, to make hearings possible, but there won't be any hearings and there won't be any decisions.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: So far as I am concerned, that is satisfactory and we will have more discussion on it when we reach the appropriate clause. Though I have some criticism of provisions in the bill, the minister may be surprised that I wish to commend him for the attitude he adopted when the bill was going through the standing committee. I also want to express commendation to the chairman of the committee, who I see is now on the right side of the house-


Gerald William Baldwin: Gaining wisdom.


Mr. Macaluso:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I am on the right side of the house geographically speaking but not philosophically speaking.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: In any event, I want to offer my commendation upon the enormous amount of work that went into study of the bill, notwithstanding the fact that I am not completely satisfied with the result. The minister and the department should be commended for making use of a standing committee of the house in the way that I believe such standing committees should be used. The hon. member for Springfield pointed out that there were over 60 amendments accepted by the minister in the committee, in response to representations made by various witnesses and also, I hope, in response to suggestions made by members of the committee.
I was a member, in fact the chairman of the subcommittee that reviewed the committee structure of the house a few months ago. We concluded that if we were going to strengthen and up-grade both the position and the responsibility of backbenchers, and I am one,

then it would be a useful exercise to transfer some real work and responsibility to standing committees. On occasion it is nothing but an exercise in futility to discuss the clauses of a bill in a standing committee, only to find that the minister responsible for it adamantly refuses to accept any amendments, no matter how well founded the arguments in favour of them may be. That was not the case with this particular bill, and the procedure adopted by the transport committee is one that should be commended to the house and to other standing committees.
As I said at the outset, I will be disappointed if the bill does not go through in time, particularly because of the deadline mentioned by the C.P.R. with respect to the making of payments in lieu of taxes to municipalities in western Canada. On the other hand, I accept in part the explanation of the minister that it is beyond his control to do anything about it if the C.P.R. sticks to its suggestion that payments will be voluntarily made in the calendar year following passage of the bill.
I do not criticize the house for giving priority over this bill to the old age security pensions bill. The opposition had a right and a responsibility to debate clauses in that bill. It was completely beyond the control of the Minister of Transport, or of the government as a whole, to determine how long that bill was going to be discussed in the house. Now, it has passed committee stage, and to my knowledge this is the first opportunity the Minister of Transport has had to bring this transport bill back to the house after it was dealt with by the standing committee.
I hope the minister will have some success with the representations he intends to make to the C.P.R., to extend the period further into January, 1967, for the making of voluntary payments to western Canadian municipalities.
The minister has suggested he is willing to accept amendments respecting mergers of transportation companies and the transitional subsidies. I think he also mentioned several other possible amendments. If the minister is still considering additional amendments, I ask him to consider one which would give real meaning to maximum rate control in those areas of transportation where there is no effective competition.
In spite of the 60 or 65 amendments that have been made to the bill, that provision is still absent from it. One of the rules used in other countries, and one which has been part of our transportation policy up until now, deals with maximum rate control where there
December 20, 1966

is no effective competition. I believe such a rule still is needed in the public interest. There should be a provision that no rate can be higher for a shorter haul than for a longer haul, for a like commodity under like conditions. There is such a provision in United States law, and in the railway act which we are now amending there was a lot of protection against discrimination as between one shipper and another.
In most cases, the difficulty was to convince the Board of Transportation Commissioners that discrimination existed, but there was provision for the board to take action if one could convince it that discrimination did exist. [DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
That is no longer in the bill. I look, for example, at new section 16. Even that is an improvement over the bill as it was prior to having this new section 16 included in it; but here again any shipper first of all must prove that the public interest has been prejudically affected. Then, of course we get into the interpretation of what is meant by "public interest". Public interest in so far as the context of new section 16 is concerned never has been defined. The minister knows that members of the committee, including myself, many times have asked what is meant by "public interest". What does a shipper have to prove if he is going to make an appeal to the new transport commission? Up until now no satisfactory answer has been given. Perhaps the minister does not know. He has been asked, for example, whether the shipper has to prove national public interest. Is it public interest in so far as one region or, for example, one community is concerned? Is that sufficient ground on which to plead that the public interest has been prejudicially affected? This is not defined in the bill.
During the course of the committee hearings the suggestion was made that the public interest may be involved only if a shipper is being affected. But we have no assurance of this, and we do not know what the new transport commission will do in interpreting and applying the words "public interest". We do know what the governor in council had to say in order in council, P.C. 1963-1041, passed on July 9, 1963, regarding public interest in so far as an individual shipper is concerned. On the last page of this order in council, it is outlined as follows:
That in any case subsection 2 of section 33 of the act authorizes the governor in council to refer to the Board of Transport Commissioners for investigation of an agreed charge, only in the event
Transportation
that the governor in council considers the agreed charge to be undesirable in the public interest, and notwithstanding that an agreed charge made on a basis contrary to that specified in paragraph 6 of section 32 might give a valid claim against the railway by a shipper who is a party to the agreed charge and who suffers prejudice, however, such an agreed charge would not be a matter of public interest on that ground.
I should like the minister to look this up, but what I think it says fairly clearly is that if a shipper is adversely affected this is not a ground for arguing the case for public interest. Many members have argued in the committee that in invoking the provisions of new section 336, the bill does not give any effective maximum rate control at all. As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Springfield, he and I endeavoured to get some cost figures so that at least we could do some calculating to find out what the end result of using new section 336 would be. We were denied this by the officials of both railway companies. We were also denied it by the minister. The minister did not have it, but I suggest to the minister that if he had insisted that the railways provide him with this information he would have received it.
I wish to repeat the argument we made at that time because I think it is very important that the members of this house, if they are to do their job responsibly in the interests of the people of Canada, should have a right to be able to calculate the result of applying the law which we are asked to pass. Under new section 336-and the minister is familiar with this-there is a very important factor in respect of the variable costs which get into the formula when calculating what the rate will be under the maximum rate control. Unless one has the variable costs, it is impossible to do the kind of calculation which would indicate what the net result of using that formula would be. All we did in committee, when we moved the motion, was to ask for some samples. This was turned down in the committee. I am not going to say why, but it seems that the minister had been convinced there was something wrong with giving the information to the committee.
We have had, I suggest, some of the most eminent experts on the North American continent look at this new section. It appears that it is absolutely impossible to arrive at what the rate would be unless, of course, you have all of the factors in the formula. The variable cost is by far the most important factor. There are other things in the formula, but you cannot determine what the rate would be. It has

December 20, 1966
Transportation
been argued time and again before the committee, by railway officials and others, that there may not be a captive shipper. We do not know what a captive shipper is. It is suggested that the only captive shipper would be someone who has to pay class rates, and so on. It is admitted that there are very few of these.
If we are to have any maximum rate control at all, surely that maximum rate control should be within the realm of reasonableness. If the application of new section 336 is to produce a rate which is three, four or five times higher than the rate which is charged now, then it is a useless part of the bill. It is the law that all rates must be compensatory. Therefore, if there is a rate in effect now for the moving of steel sheets, potash, nickel concentrate, or whatever, and if that rate is only 20 or 25 per cent of what the class rate would be, or if it is only a very small fraction of what the application of new section 336 would produce in rate, then what is it good for.
It is good for nothing, because the railways already are getting at least compensatory rates. That means they are getting their variable costs plus a contribution, albeit a small contribution, to overhead and profit. So, we are disappointed that this information has not been provided by the minister. We believe it is wrong for parliament to be asked to pass laws when members of this parliament are not given an opportunity to anticipate the result of the application of those laws. I think that is a pretty good general statement in so far as our responsibility is concerned, either in respect of this railway legislation or in respect of any other key legislation. We have been denied that information in respect of bill C-231.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
C.P.R. witnesses and others have said that marketplaces, negotiations and so on will determine what will be fair rates. I do not accept that suggestion because I know at the present time the railways are free to charge higher or lower rates in respect of many commodities. Let us take for example the movement of steel sheets from Hamilton to Edmonton, and this is a commodity which was discussed by the committee. We know that the rate at this time is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.86. The same company, using the same cars over the same line through Edmonton to Vancouver, charges $1.05. If the $1.05 rate from Hamilton to Vancouver is compensatory, if it meets all the variable costs, the overhead and provides a profit, then

the $1.86 rate from Hamilton to Edmonton is at least 100 per cent more than the variable costs. Is it fair to charge 100 per cent in one case and 5 per cent or 10 per cent in another? That is the situation which exists at this time. While we do not have any facts because the C.N.R. would not give them to us, if the $1.05 rate from Hamilton to Vancouver is compensatory it is reasonable to assume that the compensatory rate from Hamilton to Edmonton would be about 85 cents to 90 cents. The rate today is in fact $1.86.
We also believe it is a retrograde step to remove the right of a shipper to claim discrimination and ask the transportation commission to fix a non-discriminatory rate. That right is being removed because public interest must be proved. We are particularly concerned in this regard, not for the protection of large companies such as Imperial Oil or International Nickel, but in respect of who is going to have the authority to determine where regional industrial development will take place.
It is common knowledge at this time that the C.P.R. has a wholly owned subsidiary, namely Canadian Pacific Investments, with a portfolio, at last accounting, of some $300 million. That portfolio encompasses investments in mines and in mining industries, commercial enterprises, gas, oil, real estate and other things. If the Canadian Pacific Railway is not required to give the same or equal rates to all shippers moving the same kind of goods over the same line under the same conditions, it will have the power to give a very wide level of rates and discriminate in favour of those companies in which it has an investment.
For example, at the present time the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company is developing a potash mine southwest of Saskatoon. If that company is given a rate at or near variable costs and other companies shipping out of Esterhazy are required to pay variable costs, plus overhead and profits of between 100 per cent and 150 per cent, that is not fair or just competition. It is entirely possible that this is happening at the present time, and I suggest that because we know the rate from certain points in Saskatchewan for shipping grain to Vancouver is between $2 and $3 a ton. We know that because this was brought out very forcefully at hearings of the MacPherson Royal Commission.
The rate for the movement of a 150,000 pound car of potash from Esterhazy to Vancouver is about $9 per ton. If the rate of
December 20, 19G6

between $2 and $3 a ton on grain is compensatory and meets variable costs, then the rate for moving potash represents variable costs plus about 200 per cent. Potash could be hauled as cheaply as grain. This puts our new industrial expansion and development in jeopardy in relation to other nations of the world.
There is a valid case to be made for some control by parliament in areas where there is no effective economic competition. It is our suggestion that there is no competition in the transportation field relating to the hauling of such things as potash, grain, nickel concentrates from Thompson, Manitoba to Fort Saskatchewan in Alberta and lumber from British Columbia to interior markets. There is no effective competition or even an effective alternative to railway transportation in the area. I do not intend to go into this any further at this moment, but I should like to discuss certain other clauses of this bill. The minister is already aware of some objections I have raised.
Let me suggest one simple amendment to the minister, in view of the fact he is considering a number of others. At page 57 of this bill there appears clause 68 which deals with section 381 of the Railway Act. The only difficulty is that this clause applies only to telephone and telegraph lines. A similar clause should be included to deal with railways and their tolls and tariffs in respect of the movement of non-competitive commodities. If that were done, I suggest we would have a bill which would give the measure of political and statutory control needed in relation to monopolistic businesses.
Clause 68 suggests that there shall be no unjust discrimination but that tolls must be just and reasonable. It states that the commission will have the power to determine what is just and reasonable and what is or is not discriminatory. In clause 68, new section 381 (3)<b) it is stated that the new commission shall have the power to suspend, postpone or disallow tolls. That is good in respect of telephone and telegraph lines, but I think it should be written into this bill to apply to railway traffic as well.
The minister may argue that he is going to free the railways to the point that they will no longer be a public utility, yet telephone and telegraph lines will remain as public utilities. I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, and the minister, that in many areas, particularly in western Canada, for all practical purposes railways are still monopolistic public utilities
Transportation
which require political and statutory control so far as rates are concerned.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I shall conclude by recommending that the minister give consideration to this question, particularly in view of the fact that Canadian Pacific Railway is now a gigantic, complex empire that has within its power and under its control by way of investment many companies and enterprises not directly related to the railway business. In the negotiation and setting of rates, it is possible for the C.P.R. to make concessions to their wholly or partially-owned companies, which is an unjust and unfair discrimination against other companies.
Whether or not this bill passes before the end of the year, I wish the minister well in making representations to Canadian Pacific Railway to see that at least finally some justice is done to those cities and communities in western Canada which have been under the burden of the statute of 1881 respecting the forgiveness or non-application of municipal taxes. I should also like him to take into account the fact that there are still some areas of uncertainty in so far as maximum rate control is concerned.
I know the provisions of the bill will be brought into effect gradually because the subsidies now being paid by the federal treasury will be withdrawn gradually. Even if the minister is not disposed to making all the amendments I have suggested, I hope he will consider them very carefully and will watch very closely what the railways do under the provisions of the bill. I hope the minister will be prepared to come back to the house with amendments that will give effect to what we think is just and reasonable as we try to develop a transportation policy that is in keeping with Canada's modern requirements.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder
whether the minister and the rest of us would not better digest the eloquent remarks just made by the hon. member for Medicine Hat if we were to adjourn for an hour or so for dinner?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think there was a disposition, with a view to having an adjournment for Christmas as early as possible, to make use of such time as we had today. I hope I will not be pressed on the point.


Herman Maxwell Batten: Perhaps hon. members
would permit me to interrupt the debate to announce the proceedings on the adjournment motion.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the minister that we are quite willing to co-operate and my remarks will not be very long. We have so many members on this side of the chamber who wish to speak on this policy item that we will have to cut our speeches short in order to get them all in before Christmas eve. It makes me wonder even more about the great desperation of the minister to put this bill through. Although he gave some reasons this afternoon, I wonder whether his reason is not the Senate appointment about which we have been hearing. I am sure great progress would be made if the minister rose and in some way indicated that a Senate appointment for him before Christmas depended upon the early passage of this bill.


Gerald William Baldwin: It would not get through the Senate.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. member for Saint John-Albert say what effect it would have?


Thomas Miller Bell: We love the minister, but I think that if we knew he was going to the Senate he would receive a great deal of co-operation to help him get there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I suggest that the hon. gentleman speculate.


Thomas Miller Bell: The minister asked for the early passage of the bill, or at least the passage of some of its clauses before Christmas. This matter deserves consideration. Without dealing with all the points at length, I believe that one of the matters to which the minister referred was the C.P.R. negotiations with municipalities in the west and the intimation that there may be a hold up in roll-back payments. These matters are important, but we have a greater responsibility as members of parliament to see that this important measure is given full consideration.
[The Chairman.]
We may be criticized in some areas for not rushing this measure through, but I am sure that greater criticism would fall on us if this very important bill were rushed through just before the Christmas recess.
I also believe, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Acadia, that a great deal of the responsibility here falls on the government for its mismanagement. This bill has been considered for a long time, but it could have been brought forward earlier. I wish to compliment the committee on the work that was done. I think we had good hearings, and those responsible for the success of the hearings have full marks from me. I referred to Votes and Proceedings and found that the committee had considered 36 briefs; 73 witnesses appeared before it, and we had 33 meetings. I do not know how many amendments were moved. There must have been more than 100. I attempted to count them once, but because there were amendments to two or three parts of clauses it was difficult to arrive at a figure. The work done in committee is a tribute to the co-operation of members from all sides of the house. Although in the last few days there has been some dissipation of the good will that we worked to build up, I hope we can now co-operate and go forward with this measure.
Some of the amendments considered in committee were of interest to those of us in the maritimes. Although I have remarks to make on the two major clauses and their effect on the nation generally, particularly the west, I want to take a moment before the recess to put thoughts of mine on record in regard to the maritime provinces. They are just as much concerned as any other part of this country about a revolutionary bill such as this which is probably as important as any measure that has been brought before this house in the last 50 years.
The matter of the shipment of flour through the maritime ports was considered. There was great consternation that the bill might bring about a restriction of flour shipments through Halifax and Saint John. Everyone knows there is a very thin spread in the cost of exporting flour, and if this gets out of balance in any way the tendency is to export the grain and mill it in the recipient country. Therefore, we were very much concerned with the briefs put forward by millers and port officials, and through co-operation amendments were made that we believe will protect us fully in so far as the shipment of flour is concerned.
December 20, 1966



We were concerned with the matter of port parity. This matter has not been definitely defined in many of the acts, but it has always been felt that there should be parity of rates through Halifax and Saint John with those of United States ports. There were some fears that the power this new measure gave the railways to set their own rates would bring about a situation whereby Halifax and Saint John would be placed in a non-competitive position with, for example, Portland in the United States, and we would lose business thereby.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
The minister has indicated tonight that an amendment will be put forward in this regard, so we will refrain from any further criticism of that matter. In fact, I have an amendment which I suggest should be considered in this policy clause. It alludes to the matter of port parity which has been considered our national policy and an unwritten law for many years.
Another matter which I think we should keep in mind is the Maritime Freight Rates Act. It comes into consideration because of the new transportation study which is being conducted and other related transportation affairs in the maritimes. The Maritime Freight Rates Act is written into our laws and, of course, cannot be removed except by a special statute. Throughout the years the effect of this act has deteriorated because of the horizontal freight increases, and of course this bill will create an even further deterioration in this respect. The non-competitive rates have been frozen for two years and we envisage a time at the end of the two years, before the report is brought back and acted upon, when there will at least be some concern about the non-competitive rates.
I will say frankly to the minister and to members of the house, that I cannot make up my mind whether it would be better to continue the freeze indefinitely or to have it run out, thereby putting pressure on the cabinet of the day to act in this matter. I am inclined toward the latter solution, but I know that some of my colleagues are still worried about the freeze being continued until there is new legislation.
I should also like to make some general remarks about the maritimes in relation to the national picture. This bill is very comprehensive and far reaching. The minister has lulled us with comporting words and, I find it hard to disagree with them. But
Transportation
we are worried about the unknown and sinister parts of his statements which always seem to appear as far as the maritimes are concerned. At the time of confederation the big problem was the disparities which existed in our nation owing to our geography, and as our centennial approaches we think of them again. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were two of the four partners in the confederation, and we entered into it mainly on the strength of the transportation promises which were made to us.
We were told that subsidies would be granted so as to bring us together and to eradicate the disparities of an economic nature which existed in our nation as a result of our geography. These subsidies-or whatever polite word you want to use-have always been necessary in any national fiscal or monetary policy. However, now for the first time in our history we are confronted with a full national transportation policy with which none of us quarrel in general terms. Nevertheless, I am still concerned as a maritimer about our transportation problems. I wonder where the national fiscal policy fits in with relation to this new transportation policy. Let me go back to the words of the MacPherson report in order to bring to light the relationship which the commission felt existed between a full national transportation policy and a national policy which includes subsidies and other fiscal measures. On page 181 of the MacPherson report the following words appear:
The primary objective of national policy in Canada has always been to preserve and enhance the political and economic welfare of the Canadian people. While many and varied means have been used in the pursuit of this objective . . . experience has proven the use of the means of transport to be of singular importance to its attainment.
Here is a full recognition by the MacPherson Commission, whose recommendations formed the basis of this bill, of the use of a national policy in the treatment of the transportation ills of this country. The transportation and communication committee report No. 38, at page 2719, contains the very interesting brief of the Port of Halifax Commission. It is unfortunate that they were not able to appear but they handed in their brief which dealt with this matter in a very frank fashion. I should like to quote a part from their brief which reads as follows:
There is therefore, and there has been since confederation (indeed, a very little study of the confederation agreements shows that without it the maritimes would not have federated) a national policy the objective of which was and is to provide maritimes manufacturers and merchants with

December 20, 1960
Transportation
railway facilities at rates which would permit them (despite high line-haul costs) to sell on the wider market of Canada, rather than on the restricted one of the maritimes only.
I could go back and quote the preamble of the Maritime Freight Rates Act or the Duncan Commission Report to revive the memory of the inherent promise made to the maritimes with respect to transportation.
I recall that last year I was ambitious enough to go over some of the pre-confederation debates, and I found some very interesting promises contained in the speeches made by the politicians of that day who later became Fathers of Confederation and whom we will be honouring next year. I found many promises of this nature, not only those made to the maritimes regarding transportation but some with respect to the ports of Halifax and Saint John. I only mention this as one of the main worries which we have of a general nature, and I will be watching these two unresolved matters.
I think that consideration should be given to the amendment to the first clause as put forward by the Maritime Transportation Commission. However, I am not insisting on it at the moment. Perhaps this should be subject to the amendment put forward by the minister regarding port parity. In any event we might well consider later the amendment which was suggested by the Maritime Transportation Commission in its brief, as reported on page 2533 of the committee report:
-that Section 1, Subsection (b) should be amended by adding the words "except as may otherwise be necessary for constitutional, statutory or national policy purposes".
These are only words, but such an amendment would give further recognition to that part of the national transportation policy to which I am referring.
Having said this, I will now deal with another aspect of the matter on which there has been some misunderstanding in the maritimes. While I do not think this has been put forward as a deliberate attempt to mislead, an impression has been created that because of truck transportation everything is improving in the maritimes. Hon. members who were on the transport committee will recall that we questioned Professor Borts and Professor Williams very closely on this matter and they said that even in the United States, where there is much greater truck competition, many of the basic transportation problems have not really been solved. I recall asking one of these expert witnesses from the United
fMr. Bell (Saint John-Albert) .3
States whether they felt that the fact truck transportation was on the increase in the maritimes would be of much assistance to us.
They did not give me a completely negative answer, but they were not very optimistic.
This takes me to something that the minister said which was of some significance to me. In his opening remarks, which I think he made in September when the bill was being introduced, he made a statement which I think is very true, and those of us who were privileged to visit the U.S.S.R. recently may agree with the minister. He said that nations such as Canada and the U.S.S.R., with such widespread territory and related problems, pay a greater price for their transportation than any other country in the world. May I add to this that if it is true that Canadians generally pay this high price, the maritimers are paying an even higher price. Therefore, as a matter of simple arithmetic, those who live in the maritimes are paying more for transportation than any other people in the world. I can quote the minister as an authority in this regard.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
This brings to mind what Mr. Craig Dickson, who appeared on behalf of the Maritime Transportation Commission, had to say before the transportation committee. Figures were produced tending to show that truck transportation, on the increase everywhere in Canada, had helped the maritimes. I think it is worth placing on record in this committee what Mr. Dickson had to say. I was asking him about the Department of Transport figures with respect to increases in truck traffic, and it is significant to note that he said this, as reported at page 2501 of the committee report:
The Atlantic provinces is still the area with the least competitive rates and agreed charges. I think this is found in a yellow-covered submission made on behalf of Canadian National and Canadian Pacific, a memorandum on railway freight rates which was submitted the day that C.P.R. appeared.
May I interject here to say that this was an excellent brief, and helped those of us in the committee who found it difficult to understand freight rates. It was a co-operative effort by both railway companies and to my knowledge was not criticized by any hon. member. As I say, it was of tremendous help. Mr. Dickson continues:
It indicates on page 7 that 50.4 per cent of the revenue calculated on the basis of the waybill analysis in the maritime region came from competitive rates and agreed charges. In the eastern region, which is the large block of Ontario and Quebec, 64.7 came from competitive rates and
December 20, 1966

agreed charges, and in the western region competitive rates and agreed charges produced only 39.5 per cent. But I think in fairness, to make a comparison with the eastern region and the mari-times, you must include statutory grain rates, because they did not take any increase at all and competitive rates and agreed charges may have. Therefore, if you include the statutory grain rates, the western region is 69.5. That still leaves us on the low end of the pole.
My contention is that the maritimes are more dependent on the railways than any other section of Canada, and truck competition has not assisted our problems to any great degree; let there be no mistake about that.
These, Mr. Chairman, are my two main contentions. I wish the minister luck with respect to this bill that is being brought in after many years of consideration and study and, I might say, procrastination.
It is significant that in the United States, for the first time, a secretaryship is being established in the transportation field. One of the first speeches of the new secretary contained an appeal for co-operation between all modes of transport. The secretary said that he must have the confidence of all of them; that they must all work together. I am sure that is good advice.
Before I conclude, I cannot resist saying just on a general note that I cannot understand why the government seems to have such a fear of subsidies. It seems to be trying to get away from subsidies, and we in the maritimes are worried about this. We do not know what is going to replace them or where we are going. We think there is too much bureaucratic control in the government which is now running the affairs of this nation. They are concerned with continentalism and are even trying to revive the old myth of liberal free trade, and those of us in the extremities of the nation are going to suffer. I want to know in this connection whether we in the maritimes are going to receive consideration under these new polic es. We did feel we were going places, but where is the great expansionist policy that we need?
How will this new bill, Mr. Chairman, bring about the industrial development for which we are so earnestly seeking? I see the Minister of Industry sitting in the front benches listen'ng very attentively to this plea on behalf of secondary manufacturing in the maritimes. The new industrial incentive act has not helped us. Even if Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton were included, I would still have doubts about what benefit this would be to the Atlantic provinces.
Transportation
I should like to digress for a moment because this certainly ties in with transportation and the development of secondary industry. If the major cities of Halifax, Saint John and Fredericton were brought within the ambit of the industrial incentive act, at least the bill would be strengthened and some of its aims and objectives could proceed. But to us it has been a failure. The St. Lawrence seaway, which was subsidized, of course, has not helped. We do not know just where we fit in many other directions. This government has created grave concern in this regard and seems to be suppressing the development that started.
I think the government is being pessimistic about us by adopting the terms of the present bill. No hope is given. It is taking for granted that we will not be moving ahead, which is not a very pleasant th'ng for two of the original partners to confederation to look forward to in our centennial year. But having said that, let me inform the committee that many speeches will be made by the members of our party. We have amendments to make to many of the sections, especially to the first section relating to policy which is very important because it deals with the objectives of the bill. Amendments will be moved by the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Acadia, and perhaps others. I think its passage will take considerable time. But we are willing to co-operate fully, keeping in mind that we have a great responsibility in dealing with this giant bill which has taken so many years to bring about.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, as I look around this chamber it becomes apparent that the responsibility the government has in the general field of transportation it also has here this evening, trying to fill in the blank spaces. How could anyone look at a map of th s country and not agree wholeheartedly with the Minister of Transport when he stressed the particular importance of this whole problem of transportation and transportation policy? I, for one, can bear witness to that.
Over the last eight or nine years since I have been down here-though not necessarily in direct relationship with the problem-the northwestern part of Canada, that great hinterland north of the 55th parallel and between the Rocky Mountains and the Canadian shield, has seen an enormous change in development as a result of transportation. Gas and oil pipe lines have moved into that territory. Railways have been constructed to the Pacific

December 20, 1966
Transportation
coast, to the Northwest Territories and another one is now being completed. Highways have been constructed.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
These things have all stimulated the development of the northern part of Canada more than anything else could have done.
We are all impressed by the serious nature of our transportation problems in a country the size of Canada, its population situated as it is. In the future, the manner in which we paint on this great map the colours of economic and social development and settlement will make the difference between a great country in which to live and one in which problems will continue to plague us.
I do not intend to deal exhaustively with the bill at the present time, since the various clauses automatically suggest areas in which the appropriate discussions can take place. But I should like to say a word about one of the comments made by the minister when he told us that the C.P.R. had agreed to pay taxes despite the constitutional limitation on the power of municipalities to tax that company. Is it the intention of the C.P.R. to give up, by proper constitutional methods, its power in this regard, or will there simply be a series of undertakings by the company that these taxes will be paid? If the C.P.R. has a constitutional right to its freedom from taxation, the undertakings in this field are undertakings which can be revoked at any time. This is a matter to which the minister might give his attention.
While the minister is too sagacious to say so himself, the impression has been created that this bill contains the ultimate and perfect answer to all transportation problems, past, present and future. Certainly, a number of the news media have conveyed this suggestion. But let us not delude ourselves. From the time over 60 years ago when legislation was first introduced to set up what has now become the Board of Transport Commissioners, and even before that time, we have passed a number of acts of parliament, set up numerous royal commissions and inquiries; the Duncan Commission, the Duff Commission, several reports by Mr. Justice Turgeon, the Macpherson Royal Commission, inquiries instituted at the request of different governments by the Board of Transport Commissioners including the waybill analyses, yet there is still no true, equitable, lasting solution, nor even the appearance of one.

Bearing in mind the vast size of this country, its small population and its disparate economic and social conditions in a changing world, I do not think a complete solution can be found, now or in the future.
This bill attempts to introduce into one measure provisions dealing with air transport, pipe line commodity transport and highway transport, the latter complicated by the spectacular growth of the metropolitan areas. The best anyone can say is that we have pulled back the curtain to peer out at the complex, tangled and ever-increasing possibilities of transportation stretched interminably into the future. At the moment, we are still lost in a labyrinth which seems to have no beginning and no ending.
I am reinforced in this view when I read the evidence of those who appeared before the standing committee. The puzzlement and misgivings expressed, the anxieties and concerns shown, and, above all, the widespread uncertainty as to the effect of most of the key clauses, suggest doubt about the answers and indicate that prospects for finding answers, if there are any, will lie with the super-commission to be set up.
If there is one thing which is common to the evidence given by the representatives of the agricultural and farm organizations, by representatives of all the various groups which appeared, it is doubt as to the effect of the various provisions made in this bill.
The transport commission to which I have referred will have to chart strange courses in unknown seas. The scope of the act is enormous, and equally vast will be the overriding supervisory authority of the transport commission. Let there be no doubt that if this bill is passed without any material change we shall have surrendered to those men who will compose the commission almost complete authority over a variety of subject matters in the field of transportation which so deeply affects every Canadian and every part of Canada.
In doing so we shall be following a general trend, not only in Canada but in other countries, to hack off large areas of our economic and social life and deliver them into the custody of some board or crown corporation set apart from the people and generally placed beyond the practical authority of parliament.
These tribunals tend to cultivate a cloistered existence, developing autocratic characteristics derived not only from the legislation itself but from their own innate character. Irrespective of the personality of the people
December 20, 1966



who compose them, it is but natural to expect that these boards will have a strong inclination to remove themselves from public participation and that they will become intolerant of criticism and opposition. All too often they exercise control without much real appreciation of the consequences which will follow from their actions. All too often the people become mere cogs in the machine, nothing but statistics. I think there is a line in Shakespeare about man "dressed in a little brief authority, most ignorant of what he's most assured" which is applicable to so many of these crown corporations and boards.
This bill, and the establishment of the commission, constitute a tacit admission by the government that it is unable to cope with the problems of transportation, and that the rights of parliament in this field, exercised by hon. members on behalf of their constituents, are to be restricted.
Once this bill has been passed, and once the commission has been established, parliament will have no effective way of dealing with the issues involved. We shall be limited to asking questions or to examining estimates. Too often we shall be met with a bland assertion by the minister responsible that these matters will be referred to the board or to the corporation.
I am not prepared to accept such a situation, having in mind the tremendous power which could be exercised by the transport commission. I suggest there is a way in which we in this house would be placed in a position of authority without in any way curtailing the freedom which the commission must enjoy. I have an amendment to put forward. I do not propose to move it at this point, though it might well be moved as clause 1(a). I think it might better be moved as a new paragraph 28(a). This is the clause dealing with the powers and authority of the board. Since this involves what I believe to be a new concept, I intend to read it. I have some copies here in French and in English.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
On this basis the government might have some opportunity to consider this and, by the time the amendment is formally moved at a later date, to come to some conclusion. Here is the amendment which I propose to move at the appropriate time, and which I propose will be a new clause 28(a):
That, the following clause be added:
(1)	As soon as practical after the commencement of the first session of each parliament, in any event not more than fifteen days after the commencement of the said session, a committee of nine members of the House of Commons (to be known as
Transportation
The National Transport Act Committee) shall be appointed for the duration of such parliament according to the practice of this house with reference to the appointment of members to serve on standing committees.
(2)	There shall be a chairman and a vice-chairman of the committee who shall be elected by the members from time to time provided however that the chairman shall be a member of the opposition.
(3)	Save where otherwise provided herein the general practice as established by the standing orders shall prevail with regard to the meetings and acts of the said committee.
(4)	The powers and duties of the committee are
(a)	to examine the annual report made to the Governor-in-Council by the commission-
Which I think is made under clause 20. and to report to the house with such comments as it thinks fit any items or matters referred to in this report; and
(b)	to inquire into any question which is referred to it by the House of Commons and to report to the house upon that question.
(5)	The committee may, and at the request of the witness giving evidence shall, take in private evidence whether oral or documentary which in the opinion of the committee relates to a secret or confidential matter.
(6)	Where at the request of a witness evidence is taken by the committee in private the committee or member shall not, without the consent in writing of the witness, disclose or publish the whole or part of the evidence.
(7)	Every person competent to give evidence touching any matter under discussion in the committee shall be a compellable witness.
(8)	A person who gives evidence before the committee shall not without just cause (proof whereof shall lie upon him) refuse
(a)	to be sworn or make a statement;
(b)	to answer a question put to him by the committee or member thereof; or
(c)	to produce any document which is required by the committee to produce.
I would have added to that a provision that the committee shall have made available to it such expert and other assistance as may be required in order properly to perform its function. However, I realize such an amendment would not be in order because it involves the expenditure of money, but I hope if the government sees fit to follow along the lines I have suggested in this amendment it will see this is done. Without help of this kind, of course, a standing committee of this nature would not be able to function and perform a service.
I said this is novel in concept, although it is used in one or two other Commonwealth countries. This is a statutory committee. It does not draw its authority per se from the house but from an act of parliament, in this case the bill which is before us. There are terms of reference. Its powers under the terms

December 20, 196G
Transportation
of reference are statutory powers, and while it is possible under the amendment for the house to add to these terms of reference, there are certain terms of reference imposed upon the committee without needing to wait for the government to suggest these to the committee, nor need we wait for the government to establish the committee.
There is the right to take evidence in camera. There may be hon. members who take exception to this, but after listening for a number of years to evidence before the sessional committee which has dealt with the national railway and national air line, and after reading the transcript of the proceedings taken before the standing committee, it is .quite obvious that there are and will be a great many instances where people in order to .establish a point, do not feel free to expose in public the details of information which they have every reason to feel should be kept confidential.
True enough, I assume the transport com-mission will have the right to hear all evi-.dence, and the people who appear before that commission in order to make a case will give .all evidence, whether in camera or publicly, but I think the committee should have this .option. This is a concept which might well be applicable to other corporations. I am thinking of the C.B.C. and the problems which are going to be faced by the government and the house shortly as to how to deal with the [DOT]C.B.C.
I feel a small committee of this kind, established under statute and its powers given un-.der statute, will be able to exercise the type of watchdog function which is going to be essential if this parliament, composed of the representatives of the people, is going to retain *some measure, not of control, not, I suggest, as an appellate tribunal, but simply the power to see what is happening; the power to see the impact and the effect of the regulations and -functions which this transport commission is going to exercise.
It may be suggested, why not leave this to *the standing committee? As I said, I read the *evidence given before the standing committee. I think it did a tremendously important job. Its functions were exercised to the fullest. I -think the chairman and the members of the committee are entitled, as I said before, to the gratitude of the house for the way in which they performed. But this standing committee [DOT]will be seized, as usual, with the jurisdiction in connection with examining the estimates of fMr. Baldwin.!
all the various crown corporations and different bodies, and generally will be dealing with the whole question of transportation. Of course, the estimates of the Department of Transport will be before the standing committee. It will, of course, deal with legislation and it will, no doubt, be exercising some jurisdiction over what was formerly done by the sessional committee examining into the C.N.R. and Air Canada.
I suggest that a body of the kind I envisage will be competent to do what must be done if parliament, and this house in particular, is not to surrender the authority which I suggest it should continue to have within its four corners. By examining the report it will have the right to look at any of the operations of the transport commission.
Surely, there is a need to have parliament clothed with a method to bring to the attention of the commission, the government, and the public, the actual effect of the proposals and actions of the commission. In my judgment, the lines of communication from people to their members provide the best means of relaying to this committee, and thence to the commission, the knowledge, the interest, and the inquiries which will be provoked throughout the country.
In my view, Mr. Chairman, it is going to be many, many years before the actions of this committee will have had their impact, before we will be able to see precisely what is happening. It will be many years before we will know the effect of the regulations and orders made by the transport commission in respect of the number of diverse subject matters which have been assigned to it.
I suggest, therefore, the establishment of this committee is the most effective means presented to the House of Commons whereby we can continue in a proper way our right to evaluate, to examine, to criticize, and to suggest.
I do not accept the proposition that parliament should be asked to abandon its responsibility in such a vast field of operations, and yield in a practical sense the powers and the authorities to the commission without a safeguard of some kind. I use the words "in a practical sense" because this, of course, is what this bill will do. The government may retort and say, "We have always the power to legislate." But, Mr. Chairman, we have given this tremendous authority over these various fields to the commission, and I am quite sure the commission will continue to be seized of them without too much change for a number
December 20, 1966

of years. It is my belief this house should not be asked to yield up, without some safeguards, its rights and responsibilities to the people who have sent us here.
If this is not done, I am quite convinced that the powers of the commission will grow swiftly and, in due course, it will become harder and harder to find any method of examining or suggesting changes and alterations when it is essential to do so. Once we give up this right, I doubt that we will ever get it back.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Mr. Fawcelt:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up too much time of the committee, although I should like to say a few words in respect of this bill. I was a member of the committee on transport and communications which sat fairly consistently all through the summer studying the bill and the briefs submitted in respect of it. We had the opportunity to question the various witnesses. At the outset I should like to say that I agree with the other hon. members who have spoken that the committee members were very attentive and attempted to do a good job not only in respect of Bill C-231 but also in respect of everything else which came before the committee during the summer months. I wish to congratulate the minister for having given an attentive ear to the various briefs. As a result he came up with a number of amendments which were in line to some extent at least with the points raised in the briefs presented by the various provinces and other parties concerned with the provisions of the bill.
In so far as the intent of the bill, to define and implement a national transportation policy, is concerned, I am sure all members of our party are in agreement that this is something which is very necessary in a country such as ours where the geography is such that we have miles and miles of sparsely populated land and thousands of acres of land which are not productive in the sense of providing something which will assist the various modes of transportation. This bill deals with an over-all transportation policy and provides for the setting up of a commission which will have some control over the various modes of transportation, but the fact remains that basically the bill deals with railway transportation. I think this indicates that the railways are still one of our major modes of transportation, particularly for bulk goods such as concentrates, potash, grain and so on. Because of the tremendous amount of these commodities which the railways are called upon to handle, when we
Transportation
move away from some kind of regulation of such operations I think we are doing something which has an effect on people all across Canada.
The purpose of this bill is to provide an economic and efficient system, making use of all modes of transportation. This too is a very worth-while endeavour, but I am wondering how far in this direction we can go through the medium of this bill when it deals almost completely, I would say, with railway transportation. There is not too much in it which ties down other modes of transportation. It only deals with them, one might say, in a negative sort of way.
I believe the railway strike last fall is one of the main reasons that the presentation of this bill was expedited. At that time it was felt that we cannot afford to have such things as general railway strikes. We saw the effect that the railway strike had on the economy of our country. Therefore we felt we had to look at this whole situation from the point of view of how further strikes might be avoided.
I believe it was brought out very clearly that the problem which had developed between the railways and the unions was created because of the fact that the railways to a great extent had been restricted and were not able to operate as other industries operate in a free enterprise system. Therefore labour and management just could not get together. Management would not move to try to negotiate with labour because in the first place the railways thought they were so restricted that they could not afford to negotiate. As a result we had a major railway strike. Out of this railway strike came Bill C-231. It, of course, is the offspring of another bill, C-120, which I understand never reached the floor of the house.
I am wondering how we can provide an economic and efficient railway system-here I am dealing with railway transportation only
when at the same time we are removing the regulations which now are in effect in respect of the railways. We must take into consideration that the railways are restricted, as they must be, in a good number of areas. There must be regulations in respect of the handling of grain and other commodities. The maritime freight rate freeze is another example. This leaves a limited number of areas wherein the railways can increase rates.
I am afraid of one of two things, either that freight rates will be increased to such an extent that they will be excessive and will be

December 20, 1966
Transportation
a real burden on the people who must use railway transportation or, on the other hand, the railways will price themselves out of the market when they are free to increase rates. Perhaps they might even do so deliberately if they see that the present restrictions are too onerous on them. I believe that if we are to provide an efficient and economic system of transportation we cannot get away from our system of subsidies. I think it was the hon. member for Saint John-Albert who said something to this effect-why are we so afraid of subsidies. I think the use of subsidies is perhaps one of the fairest ways to allocate the cost of railway transportation in a country such as ours. Perhaps this is not the case in a country which is as heavily populated as the United States, for example, but I believe it is certainly the case in a country such as ours where many areas are sparsely populated.
I do not think we should place the burden on some small areas. I think this would be the result were we to remove the regulations in respect of railway transportation, and 1 am afraid this is what will happen when Bill C-231 comes into effect. I am not too critical of the bill because, in the first place, I do not think I have any right to be critical of it. I sat through all the committee meetings, as did numerous other members. We certainly tried our best to come up with something which would be of some benefit to the people as a whole. Sometimes, however, as was the case after we had gone through the bill very thoroughly, one keeps mulling things over in one's mind. I am still wondering what Bill C-231 is going to accomplish.
I come from an area in respect of which the latitude to be given to the railways will have a detrimental effect. We all think in terms of the areas from which we come. I think it is perhaps good that we do this. I come from an area where great amounts of pulp chips, lumber and timber supplies of all types are being shipped constantly. I am afraid that the latitude which the railways are to have may have a very detrimental effect on this area. This is an area where I think the railways will be given an opportunity to move fairly freely when it comes to increasing rates. I do not intend to go into the implications of clause 314d because the hon. member for Medicine Hat and my colleague the hon. member for Springfield dealt with it thoroughly. Let me point out that one of the real weaknesses of this bill is to be found in this clause and I hope that when we reach discussion of

it we will devise something much better than it now contains.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
Even though we were told by representatives of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. that they could not think of anyone who could be considered a captive shipper at this time, the hon. member for Medicine Hat made it clear that a person who is now paying a class rate can in many instances be considered a captive shipper if we follow the definition of a captive shipper as outlined in Bill No. C-231. Many of these people have to pay a higher rate than a competitor who is better able to negotiate with the company.
I do not intend to take up very much more time but I should like to give notice now that I intend to move an amendment having to do with abandonment of branch lines and dislocation of employees. The proposal embodied in my amendment is one which was recommended some time ago and can in fact be found in the proceedings and evidence of December, 1963, of the standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines. Nothing in this bill even touches upon the difficulty I have in mind and I hope consideration will be given to my amendment which I intend to propose at the appropriate time.


Mr. Pascoe:: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Peace River very carefully referred to the inherent dangers of Bill No. C-231, and I hope the minister will pay careful attention to his suggestions regarding the preservation of the rights of parliament and the responsibilities of this committee.
The hon. member for Acadia was very forceful in his remarks and I do not intend to repeat his arguments. The hon. member for Saint John-Albert spoke just as concisely about the difficulties in the maritime areas.
As a representative of a developing area in southern Saskatchewan I intend to consider this bill from a prairie point of view. I realize, however, that each one of us must have a national as well as a regional outlook. My first concern is that the bill in part is based on conditions which do not exist at this time. The Minister of Transport has emphasized the fact that government transportation policy has been influenced by the MacPherson commission report. This commission conducted an exhaustive inquiry into railway problems and made a very complete and comprehensive report, but let me draw to the attention of the committee that it was set up in 1958. Its recommendations related to railway problems
December 20, 1966

as they existed eight years ago. Advances in transportation facilities and equipment since that time have rendered some of its recommendations obsolete. This is exemplified by the forerunner to this bill introduced in 1964, Bill No. C-120, which was also based on the MacPherson report but was left to die on the order paper because of criticisms expressed before the transport committee. Bill No. C-231 has been introduced in its place.
The general purpose of Bill No. C-231 is to remove present transportation regulations and controls to allow more freedom to vary charges on the basis of competition. It has been proposed that there will be a 17-member commission, the Canadian Transport Commission, which will attempt to integrate rail, air, water, truck and commodity pipe line operations in order to give greater freedom to transport agencies in the setting of rates for shipments without rigid government control. It is expected that competition will eventually control the fixing of rates.
When the minister made his opening statement he sounded hopeful of early passage, but a practical and workable transportation policy cannot be evolved so easily. There is only a short time before the Christmas adjournment to discuss this bill, but I think it is important to make a start in order that the general public will at least be partially informed as to government intentions in this latest attempt to solve the country's transportation problems.
I made a recent week end trip home to discuss this bill with usually well-informed constituents and I found they had very little knowledge of how the proposed legislation would affect their particular area, and I refer particularly to southern Saskatchewan. They also had little knowledge of how it would affect the country as a whole.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
The whole impact of greater rate freedom must be realized, particularly in inland areas such as southern Saskatchewan, and for that reason I hope we have a lengthy debate on this bill during our consideration of clause 1. On clause 1 we are, of course, speaking in general terms. We will be going into a more detailed consideration of the bill during the clause by clause study. I think probably all of us have some amendments which we shall move at that time. I consider that the general policy should be carefully scrutinized first as,
I repeat, a means of informing the public, or perhaps I should be more forceful and say alerting the public regarding some of the proposed transportation changes.
23033-721J
Transportation
There will be no opposition to the stated objective of the bill as outlined at the beginning of clause 1:
-an economic and efficient transportation system making the best use of all available modes of transportation at the lowest total cost is essential to . . . the economic . . . growth of Canada-
Just what the government considers to be the best use of all modes of transportation and what the cost will be must be our main concern. In an earlier statement the minister said:
This proposed measure provides the framework for a national transportation policy and establishes
new machinery for carrying out that policy.
The words I want to emphasize in that quotation are "policy" and "new machinery". Those are the debating points for this committee, namely, the government's proposed policy and the new machinery it advocates for administering this policy. I repeat once more that these matters must be brought fully to the attention of the public before definite action is taken under the terms of the bill. What is decided in this committee and finally approved on third reading will have a large part to play in deciding the economic future of Canada. This is the reason for the necessity for slow and very careful passage of this bill.
The standing committee on transport and communications, of which I am a member, had a very busy time with this bill, as other hon. members have pointed out. The first meeting to consider Bill No. C-231 was on October 6, 1966. The committee held 33 meetings, morning, afternoon and evening in many cases. It received and studied 33 briefs and heard evidence from 73 witnesses. As I said before, I am speaking mainly in the interests of the area from which I come, southern Saskatchewan. Among the witnesses from this area and from the west generally were members of the National Farmers Union, the three western wheat pools, the Saskatchewan government, the Manitoba government, the Alberta government, the Manitoba Branch Lines Association, the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce, the Coal Operators Association, and opposition members of the Saskatchewan legislature. There were others, of course, but I just mention those in passing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: And the leader of the Liberal party of Manitoba.


James Ernest Pascoe: Yes, and the leader of the Liberal party for Manitoba. He presented a brief. In the briefs presented there were at least 75 recommendations for changes to the bill. I

December 20, 1966
Transportation
shall not refer to them all, but I have them all here. I shall refer to one or two. I mentioned the three western wheat pools, which are joined as the Canadian Co-operative Wheat Producers. I will read one or two of their recommendations:
Provision must be made to introduce in commission membership perhaps three or four informed laymen.
This point was expressed several times by witnesses, namely, the need to have laymen on the commission who could take a clear look at the whole situation. The thought expressed by some of these representatives from the west was that the commission, with all the members of the Board of Transport Commissioners embodied in it, would be fairly well railway-oriented. The purpose of this bill is to integrate all forms of transportation and that is why they asked for laymen to be on the commission. They said that this would guard against the possibility of the new look in Canadian transportation being thwarted or upset by those called upon to administer it.
I repeat that their thought was that the commission may be too much railway-oriented. They also made this statement:
We are unsure about the provisions which have to do with railway freedom in rate-making, unjust discrimination and undue preference, especially in an area like the prairies where there is really no effective competition to the railways.
That is a point I want to bring out again, that Saskatchewan is fairly well tied to railway transportation. They also said:
the province of Saskatchewan did not participate. Saskatchewan is the province that could be most seriously affected by the provisions of Bill No. C-231, and to me it was very surprising that the Saskatchewan government's views were not more forcibly expressed. Saskatchewan has the greatest number of branch lines open to possible abandonment, despite the freeze on many lines until 1975 as indicated by the minister.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
The departmental map which was issued from the minister's office clearly shows the number of branch lines in Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan produces the most wheat which has to move by rail for export. The province's potash industry is expanding rapidly, and reasonable freight rates are vital for the long haul by rail to market. Sodium sulphate also moves to market mainly in rail hopper cars. When a shipper has no effective alternative means of shipping his product, as I have indicated is the case with regard to potash, sodium sulphate and other products, he becomes a captive shipper. The minister is aware of the arguments which were advanced on the definition of a captive shipper during the committee's hearings. As other hon. members have pointed out, Bill C-231 is supposed to protect the captive shipper from expensive transportation rates. For the economic welfare and in the interest of all the areas in our country-again I am speaking for Saskatchewan in particular-we must make absolutely certain that this protection is provided.
We want an opportunity to be heard in advance when the ground rules for costing procedures are being worked out by the commission, especially in connection with Crowsnest Pass rates.
They also made this recommendation, and it is the last one I shall quote:
There should be powers to allow for the refusing or granting of government payments where they are provided as a railway subsidy and for the withholding or granting of permission to abandon trackage or discontinue a service.
A great many changes were made to the bill as the result of the hearing of witnesses before the transport committee. With at least 60 amendments, the legislation we now have before us bears little resemblance to the bill
I will have more to say regarding the maximum rate formula for captive shippers as set out in new section 336, clause 53 of the bill, when that clause comes up for consideration. All I wish to say now is that the proposed formula of variable cost for a 30,000 pound car plus 150 per cent would produce a rate which would be three or four times greater than the present rate. I am mentioning this to indicate that the bill provides very little protection to captive shippers such as I have mentioned. In spite of the consideration which we may give to the minister's plea for fast passage of the bill we must ensure that every clause in the bill meets the needs of all parts of Canada.
initially given to the transport committee last October. That is why I think it is important that we spend a great deal of time on the clause by clause study of the bill. I have referred to some of the western presentations. There was also a combined brief from the western provinces and the maritimes in which
The minister will be familiar with the following point which I wish to bring to his attention because I referred to it several times in the transport committee. I am referring to the proposed removal of the $7 million a year bridge subsidy for the long haul north of lake Superior in northern Ontario. The proposed
[Mr. Pascoe.l
December 20, 1966

removal of the bridge subsidy, which has served a very definite purpose in the development of the prairies, will in my opinion greatly affect the cost of transportation. At one of the committee meetings the minister said it was not possible to legislate for geography. We from the prairies consider that the bridge subsidy was an attempt to give due consideration to geographic areas and distances. At one of the meetings of the committee during which the bridge subsidy was discussed a witness stated that the payment of the subsidy represented a saving of, I think, 10 per cent in the cost of farm machinery to the prairies. I could hardly believe it. I will have more to say later on the long-haul problem when the clause regarding the bridge subsidy comes up for consideration.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Would the hon. member permit a question? It is my recollection that I did not say we could not legislate for geography. I think I said one could not legislate to remove geography.


James Ernest Pascoe: I do not see much difference between the two statements. I am still pleading for consideration for the prairies with regard to this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After all, I represent Bona-vista-Twillingate.


Mr. Nielsen:: They did it with Lake Centre.


James Ernest Pascoe: Much of Saskatchewan's future development depends on fair rates for long-haul marketing of low grade heavy commodities, and I am again referring to potash, sodium sulphate, coal and timber. I warn the minister that I intend to speak at greater length later with regard to this matter.
I should like to ask the minister to give us a definite assurance regarding the date of what he said was a commitment by the present Board of Transport Commissioners that there would be no abandonment of branch lines until Bill C-231 comes into effect.
I have a letter from Mr. Rump of the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada dated December 14 and I trust that the minister's statement was made subsequent to that date. The letter states definitely that the application of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company to abandon its Kelfield Subdivision from Brass to Kelfield in northwest Saskatchewan, a distance of 27.9 miles, is on file with the board. The letter states:
The line is in the "eligible for abandonment" category without waiting upon the pasage of Bill C-231 and the board is prepared to proceed with the application.
Transportation
I ask the minister to give us a definite assurance that this does not mean that the board has made a decision to abandon that line, and again may I point out that the letter is dated December 14.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I gave my assurance since then. I repeat that I gave it after the hon. member for Springfield spoke and before the hon. member for Medicine Hat spoke. I have had an assurance from the chairman of the board since that date that while they may go on gathering statistics and other information of that sort no hearings will be held and no decisions will be made while the legislation is before parliament.


James Ernest Pascoe: I thank the minister. I wanted those words put on record to ensure that this commitment was made after December 14. I shall therefore make no further reference to this matter.
I have one or two further questions. Last week I asked the minister a question but I did not press him for an answer because I knew that the transportation legislation would be coming up soon. I am referring to a news report in the Moose Jaw Times-Herald, saying that the C.P.R. was raising its passenger fares for one month starting December 9 during the Christmas and New Year holiday season. It said that this increase was in line with the C.P.R. policy of raising rates at a time of greater demand for space on passenger coaches. It said that the fare increase would vary in different parts of Canada. It gave two or three examples and said that the fare from Moose Jaw to Calgary during the holiday season would be raised by $5, that is, from the regular rate of $16 to the special holiday rate of $21. It said that the fare from Moose Jaw to Winnipeg would be increased from $16 to $17.50 on week days and up to $18.50 on Fridays and Saturdays. The fare from Moose Jaw to Toronto was also raised, in accordance with the C.P.R. policy to raise fares during times of greater passenger demand, from $30.60 to $39.10. I asked the minister at that time if the company had the authority to make th s decision on its own or whether it had to receive approval from the Board of Transport Commissioners.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
While I was in my constituency I consulted an official who is very well connected with transportation agencies and he told me definitely that the trucking industry, which according to the bill is supposed to be in competition with the railways so as to keep rates

December 20, 1968
Transportation
down, was going to raise its rates as of January 2 by 10 to 15 per cent and that the railways, particularly the C.P.R., would follow suit. I have a few more remarks to make but perhaps the minister would let me know whether raising rates without reference to any commission is in line with his idea of competition as we remove the present government regulations.
I conclude with a statement that has been made by others in regard to what the minister said was one of the main purposes of the bill, namely, to remove the necessity for the government paying a subsidy to the railways out of the federal treasury, which now amounts to around $110 million. The railways were questioned about this and I think they indicated they would have to make up the subsidy somehow. If they could not get more business they would have to increase rates to make up the $110 million, which to me is certainly an indication that there will be further increases in rates.
I should like the minister to answer these three points. The first concerns the provision of passenger service and whether the railways need authority to raise fares. I have also been given what I consider official notice that the truckers will be raising their rates by 10 to 15 per cent on January 2, so how will the railways meet this? Third, how does the minister think the railways will make up for the removal of the subsidy of $110 million?


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the committee will permit me to give very brief answers to the three points made by the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre I will be glad to do so but I do not want to restrict the opportunity of anybody else to speak. I am in the hands of the committee.


James Ernest Pascoe: I should like to hear the answers if possible.


John Whitney Pickersgill: After the hon. gentleman asked his question the other day I made inquiries and was told that the C.P.R.'s rates, even their holiday rates, are lower than the rates that have been prescribed by the Board of Transport Commissioners. I gather one can look at it two ways. Either their rates are lower when there is little traffic in order to attract more traffic-and, of course, as the hon. member knows, the air lines do the same thing-or their rates are slightly higher when more traffic is involved. However, I am told that both ways the rates are well below the ceiling and therefore are not under the control

of the Board of Transport Commissioners. I am told that the same thing was done last year as well as in other years. I am just telling the hon. member what I was told. I do not know of my own knowledge.
As to the second point about whether or not the truckers are going to raise their rates, I do not know if they are. They are not under the control at the present time of any agency of the government of Canada. If they want to raise their rates and think they can get enough traffic and can increase their profits, I suppose there is nothing to stop them. As we all know, their costs have certainly gone up because there have been very substantial increases in labour costs. Under the law as it stands the railways can raise their competitive rates whenever they feel inclined to do so as long as the usual notice is given to the board. So really that has nothing to do with this bill.
As for the much bigger question, which was also put by the hon. member for Acadia, about whether or not railway rates will go up, I think the passage of this bill will make very little difference. The freeze is a voluntary freeze. If the bill is not passed within a reasonable time, under the existing law the railways can apply for a horizontal increase.
Mr Pascoe: But they must apply for the increase?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Yes. As everybody knows, all they need do is to show that their costs have gone up fantastically since they had their last increase in 1958. So the idea that the passage of this bill will make it easier to increase rates is quite wrong.
Unless parliament is willing to freeze the rates indefinitely and to pay for that freeze, there are going to be changes in the rates whether or not this bill passes. It is important that we get this through our heads. As hon. members know, the great objection to the present system is that the horizontal increases apply almost entirely to the non-competitive rates. It is our hope that when this bill passes and there is greater freedom on the part of the railways they will be able to operate faster with competitive rates, get a bigger share of the traffic, and therefore will not have to put up their non-competitive rates as much to recover their costs.
That is my great defence of this bill, Mr. Chairman. I agree that in the really monopolistic areas we must give protection to the shippers, but in the competitive areas I think we must let the railways have a chance to
December 20, 1966

compete. It is obvious that as between the truckers and the railways commodity rates on items which could be carried by trucks are competitive, and they are at the present time not under any control.


Mr. Rock:: Mr. Chairman, speaking on
clause 1 of Bill No. C-231, an act to define and implement a national transportation policy for Canada, to amend the Railway Act and other acts in consequence thereof and to enact other consequential provisions, my immediate interest will centre upon clause 78 which pertains to level crossings and the grade crossing fund. The government provides up to 80 per cent of the cost of such works, with a maximum of $500,000, 15 per cent being payable by the highway authorities be they municipal or provincial and 5 per cent being payable by the railway companies. This bill extends these provisions for a further three years.
The Minister of Transport is aware that I have asked him to study the possibility of amending this bill in order to give the new commission the power to initiate, plan and execute works to eliminate level crossings. At that time he referred me to the transport committee of which I am a member. I have had occasion to ask whether this could be done and I was told by legal advisers of the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. that they believed that the present board has this power but has never exercised it. Some of the officials of the transport department, backed up by justice department officials, are of the opinion that the commission does not have this power. They believe it would be unconstitutional for the federal government to impose works and costs on a provincial department or on a municipality which comes under provincial jurisdiction. For this reason I intend to ask that clause 78 stand until the minister can explain whether we can or cannot bring in such an amendment. If we can, I should like to have the opportunity to put forward an amendment of this kind.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
All members of the house are aware of the serious level crossing accident which occurred in Dorion. A day later another occurred on Sources Road which divides Dorval and Pointe Claire. Recently there have also been serious level crossing accidents at Port Hope and Pickering, contributing to a total of 480 serious level crossing accidents in Canada ending in death or serious injury. The average is more than one level crossing accident a day.
Transportation
The general public, and especially those who live in my constituency, are concerned about safety. Recently the officials of the city of Dorval requested that a pedestrian underpass be built beneath the Pine Beach pedestrian level crossing at Dorval. The Board of Transport Commissioners has informed me that the roads department of the province of Quebec will execute works to separate the grade at Sources Road in Pointe Claire-Dorval and St. Charles Road in Beaconsfield immediately after Expo closes.
The reason the roads department is holding back construction is that they feel it would cause undue traffic delay during the period of Expo. Officials of the city of Pierrefonds are meeting with an official of the board on Thursday of this week to discuss the possibility of separating the grade at Monte de Liesses.
What disturbs me is this: suppose the grade crossing fund has been depleted as a result of the interest shown lately by municipalities which stand to benefit from it. Will the minister ask that a supplementary amount be voted in order that no shortage of finances will cause delays in the construction of overpasses or underpasses to eliminate dangerous level crossings?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps I might be permitted to say that I will consider very carefully what the hon. member has said.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: Mr. Chairman, to my knowledge BiU No. C-231 is probably one of the most comprehensive and most elaborate bills ever introduced in this house.
I do not intend to read over the national policy, as it is described in the first paragraphs, since all my colleagues have had the opportunity to read the bill.
I will simply say to the minister that, in my opinion, this appears to me as very timely legislation, since there seems to exist, in the Canadian transportation field, a situation reminiscent of the Middle Ages, because of the extent to which it has become unable to keep up with events. It was time we looked into the situation.
I will not analyse in any definite way all the clauses of the bill, because I went over it rapidly, but I do want to hear the opinion of all my colleagues concerning some of the clauses before I make up my mind. Let us simply say that, in general-and I repeat what I said earlier-it will help to clarify a chaotic

at present. This would not involve extensive outlays and would probably prompt both railway companies to provide an adequate service in the area I represent which numbers from 350,000 to 450,000 inhabitants.
Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the service is rotten all along the line. It is not the fault of the service agents who are doing their best in hopeless conditions. The staff is reduced, trains are cancelled and the cars are dirty. The railway stations in the province of Quebec are in a shameful condition. I am not speaking about the other provinces, because I know my colleagues will want to do so. Some of those stations would never be tolerated in cities; they would be considered hovels. I am of a certain age, Mr. Chairman, but I think a few of those stations have never been painted in my lifetime.
It will soon be the time of Expo; we are going to invite millions of visitors and show them along our railway lines, hovels used as stations and surrounded by dumping grounds. We could at least cut the grass, prune trees, paint buildings if we do not want to rebuild them.
I would say that the Board of Transport Commissioners should have a lot more power to control those public companies which have taken the cream of the natural resources of Canada. They were granted so many things that they grew rich, but now they have to meet some public obligations, they refuse to do so.
Mr. Chairman, I would have many things to say on this matter, but I know some of my colleagues would like to make a few comments. Some hon. members have already expressed their views and by repeating unnecessarily what has been said I would only extend the debate. However, I just want to point out that, in most railways, I think labour-management relations have been pitiful up to now, but some provisions in this bill will tend to improve those relations and boost employee morale sufficiently to ensure passenger service with a smile.
Mr. Chairman, there is another important matter to which the Board of Transport Commissioners could give full consideration, and that is the trucking industry. It is up against a kind of competition that trucking companies feel unjustified, since railways are receiving grants which, of course, are not available to trucking firms and which place the latter in a most difficult position.
Mr. Chairman, I think we should look into this situation, because the trucking industry 23033-722
Transportation
has its justification. The private companies who have set up truck transport, incurred the risks, invested the funds needed, and they are not very happy with the competition of railroad companies, which obtained from the Canadian government or the Canadian people all the privileges we know-which they placed in other companies that they now operate to enrich a large number of their directors.
Then, they demand subsidies to compete against private enterprise which tries to meet the needs of the Canadian economy. The Board of Transport Commissioners will need the authority, the will, to straighten out that situation.
Mr. Chairman, I note that the bill tends to standardize the various provincial legislative measures on transport. That, I think, is wise. When one is familiar, for instance, with the type of jungle found in the U.S.A., where each state has its own laws, where it is practically impossible for transport companies to give decent service because of wide differences in their respective governing legislation, I feel it is wise, with all due deference to those provincial ministers of transport who think differently, for the government to assume its responsibilities and ensure trucking some kind of uniformity, in order to avoid the expensive complications which lead to delays and are detrimental to our Canadian economy. I will not go so far as to advocate, in a definite way, perhaps, that truck transportation should be subsidized also, but I believe that this industry is faced with problems which must be examined and considered carefully, at least so as not to favour competition.
Mr. Chairman, with your permission-I do not know whether this is in order-I still have a few remarks to make, but I see that the Minister of Public Works and house leader (Mr. Mcllraith) would like to ask for the unanimous consent to take up another measure. I am prepared to resume my seat, provided you agree to recognize me again upon resuming consideration of Bill No. C-231, because I would need about five minutes more.


Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I should answer the hon. gentleman now and say that we propose that this measure will be before the house tomorrow when he will have full opportunity to continue his remarks. I want to thank him for his courtesy in enabling me to rise now. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether I could ask the committee to rise,

December 20, 1966
Business of the House
report progress, and ask leave to sit again, in order that I may detail some plans for the further business of the house.


Maurice Rinfret: Shall I rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit later this day or at the next sitting of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, there have been some discussions among the house leaders and with some other members about the business and we have some suggestions we would like to put forward which we think will meet the wishes of all hon. members. They are that we now proceed immediately to deal with third reading of the old age security supplementary pensions bill. When that is completed tonight we will consider certain items which I shall outline now. They are items Nos. 93, 100, 79, 96, 104, 110 and 117. The first two items, the one dealing with the export credits insurance bill and the other with incentives for scientific research, we would wish to have finished.


Michael Starr: Would you repeat them again in sequence?


George James McIlraith: Yes. The export credit insurance measure would be first. That is item 93. The second would be item 100, the legislation for incentives for the expansion of scientific research. We might not complete the other five of the seven items I have mentioned, but we would like to complete the first two if we could tonight and we would like the consent of the house to continue our sitting after 10 o'clock tonight in order to accomplish this.
Tomorrow we expect to be able to have royal assent to the old age security bill at or about ten o'clock. We would, of course, continue tomorrow with the transport bill, and we would need the concurrence of the house to continue our sitting tomorrow night after six o'clock. We would then adjourn the house for a recess and the adjournment would be until January 9. I shall have the formal motion for the adjournment on the order paper tomorrow. I have given notice of it this afternoon and it will be on the order paper for tomorrow. If that course of action is agreeable, I should like it so ordered and to proceed in that way.

[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the house leader. He specifically mentioned that items 93 and 100 on the order paper would be dealt with tonight after the normal sitting hour. On the other hand, he also mentioned there were some seven items. How will we be able to deal with the other items? Will they be dealt with tomorrow?


George James McIlraith: I should like to deal with them tonight if it is possible to do so. I would not like to undertake to call them tomorrow. We might not proceed with some of them.


Michael Starr: Is the time for sitting after ten o'clock any particular time?


George James McIlraith: I would be glad to put some reasonable limitation on it which would accomplish the business we have in mind. I should like to get the old age security measure and these first two measures through in any event. But if we finish those items before 11.30 we would then take any of the other items I have mentioned. That might be a fair suggestion if it could be so ordered.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the house leader has accurately stated the conclusion we reached at our meeting this afternoon. We are prepared to agree to the house order which he suggests. Perhaps I should emphasize our understanding about tonight. It is that we are prepared to sit after ten o'clock for whatever time is necessary to complete the old age security item and the first two items which the minister mentioned. What we do after that will depend on what time it is, the mood of the house, and so on.


George James McIlraith: That is right.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is it agreed by the house that following the discussion of the business of the house third reading of Bill C-251 will be taken?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house also agree to sit beyond ten o'clock this evening?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that in sitting beyond ten o'clock no time limit has been set. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Michael Starr: Provided, Mr. Speaker, that we undertake only the legislation which has been mentioned and not the transport bill.


George James McIlraith: That is right.
December 20, 19S6	COMMONS


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It having been agreed that the house will sit beyond ten o'clock, I understand that the two bills which are to receive priority are those set out in order No. 93 and order No. 100 on today's order paper.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems a little difficult to make an order on this, but I understand that if possible consideration will be given to orders numbered 79, 96, 104, 110 and 117.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But it was decided that-


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: The government
house leader also asked the consent of the house to sit beyond six o'clock tomorrow. Again, does the suggestion of the house leader that we sit beyond six o'clock tomorrow contain no time limit?


George James McIlraith: Until ten o'clock tomorrow night. From six until ten o'clock tomorrow night.


Michael Starr: Or sooner.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So that there will be no misunderstanding, may I go over the different points again. Following this discussion we will have third reading of Bill C-251. We will then discuss items 93 and 100 on today's order paper. If there is time remaining we will consider items 79, 96, 104, 110 and 117. The house will sit after ten o'clock this evening with no time limit specified. Tomorrow the house will sit from six o'clock to ten o'clock. Does the house agree that it be so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



OLD AGE SECURITY ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: the third reading of Bill No. C-251, to amend the Old Age Security Act.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, in order to conform to the geniality which exists I will be as brief as possible in making my point. First of all, I think I should bring to the attention of the house the fact that in the course of this session we have passed a very substantial amount of business
Old Age Security Act Amendment and legislation. I understand we have dealt with 100 items, which is far in excess of the amount of work done in one or possibly two normal sessions. Be this as it may, and inasmuch as we are dealing with the supplementary payment to old age pensioners, I should like to say to the house and through the house to the country that it seems that quite a substantial number of senior citizens will benefit from this legislation, with which principle I heartily agree, but regrettably a good number of those who will benefit from it will be placed in a position of prejudice.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that if I thought for one moment the amendment would carry I would move that we stand this bill and return it to committee for the consideration of a flat payment to all recipients of old age security today. All these people have assisted in the growth of this country and we are now enjoying the fruits of their efforts. All these people have assisted in making a contribution to our society and our economic position in the world today. I think they should have the right to share in this. They unquestionably pay for this privilege because those who have the income or who have the money behind them are assessed accordingly. I feel it would not cost the taxpayers the money that this bill and the resultant mini-budget will cost the taxpayers of Canada.
I know th's whole question has been discussed, but I think we should consider a few ways in which prejudice will take place. Since this legislation has been under consideration I have received calls from many people. In particular I should like to mention a few just to indicate what it will mean. A lady who has passed the age of 70 and is very adept in the art or craft of dressmaking probably makes $40 or $50 a month under present circumstances. Of course it will be to her advantage to stop doing the work she is do'ng. Then there is the elderly gentleman who finds it beneficial to do a job after he has reached age 70. Now he w ll say to himself that it is no longer right or good for him financially to do this, and he will quit. So, as has been said, in my humble opinion this legislation will be a detriment in these cases. These people are discriminated against and will be prejudiced as a result of this legislation. I have heard these people say that they are prepared to settle for less than $30 a month provided it is on a flat rate basis. Surely the people who are concerned are the people who should know.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
The government has taken the position that this is not the case. They have said no. It
11406	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment astounds me when I think of the ability of this government to turn the people and society against them. When I think of what this government has done or has omitted to do I think of students, medical people, paramedical people, workers, unions, senior citizens, farmers, and I would have more to say about them had the minister remained in his seat but he has gone. I also think of the people who should receive the benefits inherent in the designated area program, and I think of the investors in this country who do not receive the consideration of this government. I am reminded of what has been done on an international basis as a result of the actions of this government.
Having regard to the budget brought down last evening it seems to me that the government did not inform Canadians that they are now going to have to pay for what we now know old age pensioners require. In other words, the old age pensioners are being blamed for the increased taxes announced last evening. That is wrong because there is approximately $330 million now in the fund. With that knowledge I am sure every Canadian must realize that it was unnecessary to increase taxes for this purpose.
Let me now refer to the different segments or classes in which old age pensioners are to be placed. We are to collect taxes to pay for the $75 basic old age security pension, taxes to pay for the Canada Pension Plan and taxes for supplementary payments. It is high time that we should think about efficiency instead of recruiting a vast number of bureaucrats to tidy up the existing mess. The government is overtaxing so far as the old age security plan is concerned, and it is overtaxing to pay for the Canada Pension Plan. It now intends to overtax, bearing in mind the $330 million in the fund, to pay for supplementary payments to old age pensioners. All this overtaxation is unnecessary because the necessary amount of money could be saved by increasing administrative efficiency. We should have one administrative staff instead of three to handle social security measures.


An hon. Member:: How do you pay for them?


Eric Alfred Winkler: We certainly are not going to find the money by hiring an additional but unnecessary administrative staff, and if the hon. member does not realize even that much he has not been here long enough to know what is happening.

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
All our social security measures should be put under one administrative staff in order that we can be efficient. The extra taxes now being imposed are unnecessary. Rather than thinking of the various segments of our society that can be taxed to a greater extent we should think of saving money. All we are doing is creating a bureaucratic kingdom without end. That is a Grit philosophy, not one of ours. I hope the press will take up this point and bring it to the attention of the people. We have three small but very important segments of taxation for the same purpose; yet we are being totally inefficient in the administration of our social programs.
While I feel it necessary to vote in favour of supplementary payments to our old age pensioners I am obliged to bring to the attention of the house the fact that our taxation policies are unjust. This government has not even thought of efficiency with regard to handling our social measures on behalf of the people who have built this country. It has not adopted an honest attitude in building a future for those people who will enter our economic society in days to come.
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, before the house is asked to give third reading to Bill No. C-251 I wish to make one more appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and to the government of the day to transform the bill into the kind of legislation it ought to be. We welcome as heartily as we can the fact that a new figure has been set for old age pensions in this country, namely, $105 per month, but we regret that this bill involves a retrograde step in its departure from universality in that the government is applying what it calls an income test but which most people in this country will call a means test. I intend to give effect to our appeal on third reading by moving an amendment, but let me hasten to say that the minister need not regard my amendment as a motion of non-confidence.
It is my belief that if the minister were willing, as I am sure in his heart he is, to accept the proposition we intend to put from this side of the house and go back to the idea of a full pension without a means test, he would find the house prepared tonight to pass all stages of whatever legislation is necessary to provide a pension of $105 per month to all pensioners without a means test. I can speak only for myself in saying there would be no debate, but I am fully confident that would be the attitude adopted throughout the house. I
December 20, 1966

am confident that if the government said that the house need not vote on the amendment moved by the member for Winnipeg North Centre and was prepared to bring in a simple amendment to the Old Age Security Act providing a pension of $105 per month without a means test it would receive the complete support of th.s house and such a bill would move through all stages tonight.
Let me appeal to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, who is responsible for this legislation, to throw it out. I ask him to do this on the basis that in our kind of society an income test, calling it by the government's name, is _ inherently wrong so far as our old age pensioners are concerned. Other members during the course of this debate, including the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) just now, have drawn attention to the horror with which many of our pensioners face the fact that a means test is coming. Attention has been drawn to the elements of discrimination in the test, which need not be repeated now.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I do want to say to the minister that what we are creating as a result of this legislation is a jungle in the field of old age pension legislation. There was a time, after many years of coping with this problem, when the parliament of Canada set up a special joint committee which went into the matter very thoroughly and came up with the recommendation of old age security, namely, a pension without a means test to all who reached a certain age. For a time that plan seemed to meet the needs of the aged in this country. True, the original amount had to be increased but the general plan seemed more or less satisfactory. But the time came when it was realized that old age security as a fiat-rate program had to be matched with an earnings related program. Thus the Canada Pension Plan was evolved.
I am still prepared to say that those two plans, properly integrated, properly thought out in relation to each other, made a good pension package, the fiat-rate old age security and the Canada Pension Plan on an earnings related basis. However, not enough thought was put into the relationship between the two plans. Not enough thought was given to what the amount of old age security should be in relation to the Canada Pension Plan. So the day came when the government began to try to fill the gaps. The first attempt to fill the gaps was the Canada Assistance Plan.
For a number of weeks we were told that it would solve the problem. The government soon discovered that even that plan did not fill
Old Age Security Act Amendment all the gaps, even that plan did not solve all the problems. So the government came along with another gap-filler, namely, this means test supplement to old age security. In addition to the four programs which I have named m this brief historical summary, there is also the Old Age Assistance Act. I recognize that it is phasing out as the eligible age for old age security drops year by year until it gets down to 65, but at least at the moment when this bill has been passed we will find ourselves in this country with five pieces of legislation respecting retirement in old age. Those five pieces of legislation are the Old Age Security Act, the Old Age Assistance Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan and now supplementary old age security payments.
This is not a well thought out plan. It is not the kind of plan that will stand for all time as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said when he introduced this bill on second reading. This is not the kind of complete system of old age pensions that is good for all time, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said last night. If I may repeat myself, it is not a well thought-out plan. I suggest that the word used by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken), namely, "jungle", does apply to this arrangement. I regret that the confusion that was already there confusion brought about because of this business of filling the gaps instead of thinking through the whole situation, has been compounded by the action the government is now asking parliament to take.
But it is not too late to improve this situation. The kind of improvement that is really needed, of course, is to go back and think through the whole scheme, the whole program, the whole plan. At least until such time as there could be a recasting of the whole program we could avoid adding this fifth method of dealing with retirement and old age, namely, a $30 supplement on a means test basis. The way to avoid that is simply to add the $30 to the basic old age security pension and to pay the full $105 without a means test of any kind.
I say to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and if he were free to say so I think he would probably say he agrees with me, that the five-part plan we now have, or will have if this bill goes through, will not last; it will not be very long before changes will be made to it. In fact, I would not be surprised if the government in power today were to propose changes to it before the next election. If
December 20, 1966
11408	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment it does not propose changes before the next election, it will probably go into the next election promising that it will make changes. One of the promises I think this government will make, even if it does so under pressure, will be that it will remove the income test as the Liberals call it, or the means test as the Canadian people call it, from the extra $30.
If this does not happen at the next election, it will happen in a matter of a few years. Canada will not be satisfied with this five-part confusion which we have built up with respect to old age security. We could simplify it. Time will take care of the Old Age Assistance Act as the eligible age for old age security comes down to 65. The Canada Assistance Plan is mainly a plan for other areas of social need. If we were to take the proposal that is before us tonight and incorporate it into the basic old age security pension, we would be back basically to a two-part plan-on the one hand a flat-rate benefit, and on the other the earnings related benefit in the Canada Pension Plan.
I believe that those two schemes, if given the chance to work together as they ought to, would produce a good pension package. My theory is that this fiddling around we are doing with supplementary means test payments, with the Canada Assistance Plan and old age assistance, is unfair to the principles of the Canada Pension Plan in that the legislation this government brought in is being interfered with by this kind of arrangement.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is my earnest plea to the government to take one more look at this matter before it asks us to give third reading to this bill in its present form. I could go over all the points about this bill that were gone into on second reading and in committee of the whole. I will not do so. I could read, if there was plenty of time, the mail I have been receiving in the last few days from people who are horrified and mystified by this arrangement, who cannot understand why the principle of the last 15 years cannot be continued. I will not do that tonight. I have such letters by the score upstairs.
I am making my appeal to the government on the basis of its own approach. I believe there was a time when the Liberals who now occupy the government benches felt that we had to do something to improve the old age security system and they came up with the idea of the Canada Pension Plan. If they had just put more thought into making these two plans work together or making them fit into


each other, instead of coming up with the hodge-podge of a jungle that we now have, we would have something of which we could be proud. The document from the Liberal federation that I had here last night ended with the sentence that the means test supplement in the proposed scheme is a plan of which Liberals can be proud. I do not think that the Liberals who tried to build up the pension program in the days when they were on this side of the house, who tried to improve the pension picture in this country, are proud of what they have now achieved, namely, this five-part jungle of old age security, old age assistance, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canada Pension Plan and the $30 means test supplement. This is not worthy of the parliament of Canada in the 1960's. We can do a great deal better, and we can start on that road tonight by saying here in this House of Commons that we are not going to go for confusing the situation by building this means test into the pensions which our senior citizens receive.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
Therefore I urge that before we take the vote on third reading the government think seriously about this matter. As I said, I will give effect to this appeal by making the appropriate amendment on third reading and I hope that the government will consider my suggestion that a vote on it is not necessary if the government is prepared to bring in a simple bill amending the Old Age Security Act and raising the pension to $105 a month. I say to the government that if it is not prepared to do it tonight, if it is not prepared to do it at this session, it will be done some day by the parliament of Canada. If this is the case, then why not do it now so that the older people today will enjoy the dignity and selfrespect of a pension free of any test and so that Canada will continue to be a country with a pension plan which respects the rights and the dignity of our older people?
Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That Bill C-251 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the income test provided in clause 3 thereof.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that I have drafted this amendment in line with citation 415 on page 287 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, and other citations immediately thereafter. Under our rules we are entitled on third reading to ask for reconsideration of a matter with which we have dealt in committee. I ask
December 20, 1966	COMMONS
for a reconsideration of what the government calls the income test and I hope that that reconsideration will result in the test being removed. We are asking for the $105 pension to be universal. If this amendment comes to a vote, this is what we shall be voting for. We will be voting for a pension free of any income or means test, for a full $105 to be paid to all our eligible old age pensioners, and I ask the house to support this amendment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: For the benefit of the house I shall read the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
That Bill C-251 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the income test provided in clause 3 thereof.
I would invite comments from hon. members regarding the acceptability of this amendment.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the reasons for referring this bill back to the committee of the whole. In the first place we believe that this legislation, if it goes through, will create so many problems that within five years it will have to be changed beyond recognition. We have pleaded for an increase in old age security to $100 per month as a matter of right because we believe in the wisdom of the joint committee and the wisdom of the parliament of 1951 when they stated that there must be no means test.
We came to this conclusion for the following reasons. First, we consider that all senior citizens have contributed to the building of this country, and not to give them an increase would be unfair. In 1951 we believed that the means test was demoralizing and destructive to our senior citizens, and this is still true today. We also believe that the cost of administration of this program would be so high as to eliminate any savings which might be effected. If this bill is passed and put into effect we will reach the conclusion in a very short time that the administrative costs are too high.
No longer do we want our senior citizens to be hauled into court as if they were common criminals. This can and may happen under the legislation. We believe that this so-called income test is just as irritating and severe as poison ivy, and whether or not it is scented it will be just as troublesome and even more so. We have taken the attitude over the past three years since the old age security payments were raised that during that time the cost of living and rents have increased so
Old Age Security Act Amendment rapidly that strikes have taken place all across this land. In the last year wage increases have been as high as 30 per cent, and two thirds of our senior citizens were in difficulty through no fault of their own.
In 1951 the gross national product amounted to $21 billion. In 1966 the gross national product is approximately two and a half times that figure. It is our opinion that since it was felt in 1951 that the figure of $40 was fair and equitable we can assume that old age pensions should be raised now by two and a half times which would bring them up to $100 a month. We feel that our senior citizens are entitled to share in the growth of this country and that since they have contributed to that growth they should be entitled to a pension of $100 a month as a matter of right.
We feel that this pension is a necessity since the cost of food alone has gone up 10 per cent in the last year and rents have gone up as much as 20 per cent and in some cases more Taxes have gone up. In the last three years there has been an 11 per cent sales tax and a provincial sales tax of 5 per cent. Last night we were told that taxes would be increased by another $290 million. This increase will hit hardest the person on fixed income, the pensioner. In my opinion it wifi increase the demands on the Canada Assistance Plan.
I have another criticism to make. I believe that the cost of administration of the program will run close to $10 million. I also feel that there will be a great deal of duplication of services. Let us take the case of a pensioner who receives $105 a month and for whom this amount is not sufficient. In such a case the Canada Assistance Plan will come into play. In other words, the person who requires $125 a month will have an investigator inquiring into his income up to $105 a month and another group of federal civil servants checking on the remaining amount. This is the duplication to which I referred which will increase the costs tremendously. These pensioners will have two groups of investigators riding on their backs.


Mr. Munro:: As the hon. member mentioned, there may be areas in this country where people may need $125 a month. Would he recommend a flat increase in the old age security pension which would bring it up to $125 a month?
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)


Philip Bernard Rynard: I made myself perfectly plain.
I recommended up to $100 a month without a means test, and I will give my reasons later.
Old Age Security Act Amendment Mr. Munro: What about those who need $125?


Philip Bernard Rynard: I have come to the conclusion that the hon. gentleman does not realize what the Canada Assistance Plan is about.


John Carr Munro: Does the hon. member not object to some type of needs test under the Canada Assistance Plan?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Simcoe East wish to accept a question?


William Heward Grafftey: You are going back to the 19th century; you are embarrassed and you know it.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Not only that, Mr. Speaker, but let me recapitulate that the senior citizens of this country who qualify for both the supplement and assistance will find themselves with two groups of civil servants, one at the federal level and one at the provincial level, on their backs. This is unnecessary duplication and we will get into a morass of legislative difficulty.
We are opposed to this bill, Mr. Speaker. What happens to pensioners at age 65 as far as medicare is concerned if they get this $30 a month? In the province of Ontario one month's increase, $30, will be taken away, so instead of receiving $30 for each of the 12 months they will lose one month's increase.
Let me go a little further and ask what becomes of the man who finds himself in a home, either in the province of Ontario or any other province? He will find the province deducting another $30, so he will be short two months' increase. I go even further and ask what becomes of this new income tax payment for which they are liable, and what about their hospitalization? The $30 a month which we are so magnanimously granting them will be whittled down and they will only receive nine months' payments if they are lucky. These are some of the reasons we in this party cannot agree to accept this bill. It is a bad measure.
Last night in the house the Minister of Finance added another 1 per cent to the sales tax. So in effect a 2 per cent tax is being imposed at retail level upon the people least able to pay it. This is why we oppose the bill. It is true we brought in two amendments and that the major part of one was recognized, resulting in stopping the interdepartmental snooping envisaged by the Department of National Health and Welfare and the Department of National Revenue. We felt this 
December 20, 1966
was a terrific abrogation of people's rights. The minister straightened this out, at least part of the way, and we thank him for that crumb.
We are also grateful that some further consideration was given married couples, one of whom is over 65. If we are forced into the position of denying senior citizens eligibility for this increase and make them accept a makeshift loaf, then in the very near future the minister will find himself amidst a forest of legislative tangles from which he will find it hard it extricate himself without destroying the whole thing. It is just a jungle, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we are opposed to the bill because in 1975 the $30 a month will be withdrawn, and with the erosion presently taking place under this government the value of the $75 pension will have fallen to about $55.


Mr. Fulton:: Maybe $40.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Maybe $40, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggests. The only provision the government has built into this legislation is a 2 per cent erosion. But last year alone there was a 10 per cent increase in the cost of food and a 10 to 20 per cent increase in rents. So you do not need much imagination to figure out what the $75 pension will be worth by 1975.
What are the thousands of Canadians across the land who will receive no benefit from the Canada Pension Plan going to do with a pension that will have decreased in buying value to say $50 or, as the hon. member for Kamloops suggested, perhaps $40? What in the world will become of them? Are we going to increase the legislative tangle in an effort to look after these people? In my opinion this legislation is so full of loopholes that I believe that in five years it will have to be drastically changed or we will have to dispense with it entirely and bring in a new bill. I suppose that in the final analysis we are placed in the philosophical position of either giving the pensioners half a loaf or no bread, in view of the fact that the government is continuing to be stubborn by applying a means test. We in this party have shown that we appreciate fully the plight of our senior citizens.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the third reading stage of the bill is the stage when the members of the House of Commons stand eyeball to eyeball with the bill, with its principles

December 20, 1966	COMMONS
and with its provisions. I was not sure from the comments of the hon. member who has just taken his seat whether his confrontation with the bill would lead him to support it or to oppose it on a vote.
Rarely, Mr. Speaker, has legislation before this house produced such chameleon and contradictory comments from hon. gentlemen opposite. On the one hand, the program is condemned as iniquitous and parsimonious, an attempt to legislate guaranteed annual poverty. Yet in the next breath we are urged to extend the program into perpetuity and to apply its provisions without qualification to Canadian pensioners residing in 60 different countries.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, with all the hand wringing and haranguing, hon. members opposite have failed to meet or to overcome the crucial and central advantage of the guaranteed income approach, which is that it does more than any alternative proposal for those older people who are most in need of additional income, those who are now trying to get by on the $75 a month old age security cheque.


Mr.   Mc@: Could I ask the minister a question. Who wrote his speech?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be happy to give a speech without a text if the hon. member insists.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
Hon. members opposite, especially the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Alkenbrack), painted a compelling picture of those older persons who have only $75 to get by on each month. The hon. member said that the poor senior citizen who now receives a pension of $75 a month must reveal all of his private affairs to the government before he can receive any supplementary amount up to $30 a month. I simply remind the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox that the people he describes-


Mr.   Mc@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister is even more short-sighted than we are accustomed to his being in this house. In the second place, he appears to be reading from a printed text, which is not permitted by the rules of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr.   Mc@: Let those opposite sigh and bleat like sheep, but I am raising a point of order. If the minister has anything to say out of his heart or his mind, he should be able to
Old Age Security Act Amendment say it without a printed text. I am merely invoking the rule which has been invoked in the house for a long time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It appears that the minister is following his notes very closely but we shall probably find that as he proceeds he will be able to depart from the text.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I assure the hon. member that I do have notes and that I intend to extend them a great deal, if only for the purpose of satisfying the petty attitude of the senior member from Halifax.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: It would be much more appreciated if the minister would shorten them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will make my comments as brief as the situation requires but I would remind hon. gentlemen opposite that they occupied four days on second reading of this bill, five days in committee, and on third reading, which has just commenced, they have engaged in a series of destructive comments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I rise on a point of order. The opposition has made a concession to the government by agreeing that the third reading of this bill may be considered this evening. We did not do so in order that the minister might get up and make a political speech as he is doing now and as he did on another occasion when the opposition allowed him extra time beyond the limit allowed even to a minister. If he persists in doing this we shall continue the debate on third reading for the balance of the evening and tomorrow. He will either have to change his mind and co-operate or this is what we will do. The minister has to give consideration to this point if he wants the bill to go through tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not a point of order. I propose to answer the comments which have been made about this legislation and it is the responsibility of the opposition if they wish to pass it or not.


Michael Starr: You have said it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will not be blackmailed into curtailing my comments by the remarks of the opposition house leader.


Michael Starr: You will never get it through tonight.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I made no request to the official opposition at any time that they should
December 20, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment shorten their comments on this bill at any stage. I have waited and I have listened to their comments and I expect members of the opposition to do the same for me. If they wish to hold up the passage of this bill, that is their responsibility.


Mr. McCleave:: That is fine.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I repeat what I said earlier. By using the guaranteed annual income approach we are able to put an additional $30 million a year or more into the hands of the 500,000 to 600,000 older Canadians whose only declarable income is the $75 a month old age security benefit. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) attempted to get round this point by raising his party's flat-rate ante to $105 a month. But I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that this auctionary manoeuvre on the part of the N.D.P. in no way changes the basic question of policy, which is whether any additional amounts available for old age pensioners should be distributed among the low-income groups or whether they should be diluted over the entire band of old age security recipients. Merely to escalate the amount of the flat-rate increase does not effectively resolve this basic policy question.
The government has carefully examined all aspects of this question and has decided that the amount of money available at the present time can best be deployed through an income guarantee program. The question raised by the N.D.P. is simply this: shall we tax wage earners more in order to pay flat-rate pensions of $105 a month in perpetuity to those who really do not need them? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre accepts an affirmative answer to this basic question.
But let us examine his solution for a moment. First of all, a flat-rate pension of $105 per month will not put an additional penny into the pockets of those 500,000 to 600,000 whose sole source of income is now the $75 a month old age security. It may mean extra dollars for some of those 300,000 Canadians who will be eligible for partial benefits under the guaranteed annual income approach. But by far the greater portion of the additional $170 million which would be required to finance the N.D.P. proposal would go to those in higher income brackets, above the guaranteed income limits set out in this legislation. In other words, of the additional $170 million which the N.D.P. proposal would cost, close to 60 per cent of it would go to the 25 per cent of the people in higher income brackets. This would mean, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and

his colleagues would impose additional taxes on Canadian wage earners to put extra money into the pockets of a relatively small number of retired persons in the higher income brackets.
The supreme irony of this proposal is that it would transfer tax moneys from present wage earners, many of them supporting young families, to those whose income in many cases would be higher than the incomes of those workers who would be financing those additional benefits through taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can only say, Mr. Speaker, that this indeed is a curious argument coming from a corner of the house which has so carefully and assiduously cultivated its image as the Holy Grail among the workers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I ask hon. members who have participated in this debate and who have argued against this proposal, should we as responsible legislators tax wage earners of this country to give pensions to people whose incomes are greater even than those from whom taxes are collected? That is the basic policy question that has not been answered by any criticism coming from the other side of the house. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and his colleagues have given their answer to this policy question by their amendment. The answer of the government is embodied in this bill, and I am quite prepared to accept the judgment of the Canadian people on this particular approach-


Stanley Howard Knowles: So are we.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -because I think the majority of the taxpayers of Canada and the people of Canada will regard this approach as a responsible and realistic approach.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Sherman:: Would the minister permit a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would be glad to answer any questions after I have completed my remarks. I have been asked to be as short as possible and I will answer questions when I have completed my remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You will have all day tomorrow.
December 20, 1966


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hon. gentlemen opposite, especially the hon. member tor Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. lady from Van-couver-Kingsway, have been eager to put their correspondence from old age pensioners on the record, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has constantly referred to the fact that he has scores of letters from old age pensioners who are saying in a united chorus that the approach the government is taking is wrong. Well, that is their correspondence. I have had correspondence from old age pensioners and I would like to read a paragraph from one of the letters because it underlines the point that I have been making up to this moment. The first sentence is flattering but I do not read it for that purpose.
My wife and I send you our congratulations on your personal perseverance in presenting . . . the increase of $30 a month. As my wife and I are in our 70 year bracket and (get) $150 for us both, I can tell you it has been hard sledding, but the fact that neither of us smoke or drink was a big factor in getting along.
Referring to this legislation, the writer says:
This, in my mind, is the only legislation where the poor gets more and the rich gets nothing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: "Where the poor gets more and the rich gets nothing" is the defence for the approach that the government is taking, the approach that no hon. member has tackled on its merits in the course of this debate. I say it is important that the government and Candian society maintain some equilibrium, some equity between our responsibilities to the taxpayers and our responsibilities to the older people, and I repeat again that the guaranteed income approach provided for in this legislation achieves the most judicious and realistic balance between these important responsibilities.
As I noted earlier, Mr. Speaker, and I put it on the record again, in 1967 this program will cost taxpayers approximately $100 million less than the least costly of the alternatives put forward by members of the opposition. Yet despite that feature of this legislation, because taxes are being raised to finance it, the tax raising process has been bitterly denounced by hon. members this very evening. This variation in the cost will increase as time goes on, as more and more Canadians become eligible for higher and higher benefits under the Canada and Quebec pension plans. Indeed, by 1970 the cost of the guaranteed income supplement will be almost $200 million less than
Old Age Security Act Amendment the flat-rate increase advocated by members of the official opposition.
Hon. members opposite have criticized this proposal because it is a transitional program and, notwithstanding its inadequacies, they have urged that the program not be transitional but that it be applied in perpetuity, that it be made to apply forever. All I can say in reply to that argument is that the government accepts the recommendation made to it by the joint Senate and House of Commons committee.
That committee, of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was a most vocal and active member, recommended that some additional form of income maintenance be made available to those persons who, because of age, could not benefit in full or could benefit only in part from the Quebec and Canada pension plans, and the purpose of this legislation is to put into effect the recommendation of that joint committee with respect to this specific identifiable group.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was not the only recommendation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, this is the recommendation that is being put into effect by the legislation before us tonight.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you ignored the other one, which was more important.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there is one other point that I would like to cover in some detail, and it is the subject matter of the amendment that is now before the house on the third reading of the bill. This is the question of the income criteria used to determine the level of benefits under this program.
Hon. members opposite have done, in the word of the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron), their disingenuous best to distort this feature of the program and to spread what I regard as false fears among the older people of Canada. The hollowness and the hypocrisy of the amendment that the house is now asked to deal with-and I repeat the word "hypocrisy"-are clearly exposed when one compares the comments of the N.D.P. in December with those of last June.
I have already placed on the record the statements made by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), and it might be appropriate to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of the summertime romance that the deputy leader of the N.D.P. carried
December 20, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment on with the guaranteed income approach. This is what he said in reply to a question I put to him, and I asked him the question because I had in mind this very point, this very amendment, when we were considering the Canada Assistance Plan. I asked him, "How do you find out the income", and he replied:
Obviously, If you have an income maintenance program you have got to find out what income a person has ... I am sure the minister knows that as well as I do.
Of course we know that, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) might suggest that we would get this income information by some process of extra-terrestrial perception, as he calls it, but this is an uncertain method to derive the income information we require for this program. In this legislation we are carrying out precisely the recommendations of the Senate special committee on aging, proposals which were energetically and enthusiastically endorsed by the leader of the N.D.P., by the deputy leader, and by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis). We are putting into effect the proposals made by the Senate committee on aging which the N.D.P. endorsed in June. But this is December. This is what the Senate committee said:
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
The establishment of an income guarantee program to provide allowances throughout life to all persons, beginning at age 65, on the following lines:
(c) that the procedure call for the completion of a simplified income form annually and that the amount by which the declared income falls short of the established minima in any year constitute the benefit of the year following.
That is the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging. The next point is that there be sample checks periodically to catch abuses but no means or needs test inquiries on traditional lines. That is precisely what we are doing in this legislation. We are carrying out the recommendation of the Senate committee. I should like to remind the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) that this is a report which has been endorsed by some of the leading luminaries of his party such as a former cabinet minister, a former minister who served with him in the former government, the party's one-time national organizer and a one-time adviser emeritus from the home territory of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. Do the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and his colleagues suggest that these venerable and respected followers of the Conservative party

are snooper-lovers as he has suggested in respect of this bill, legislation which follows the Senate committee's recommendation? I wager that when this bill gets to the other place none of these Conservative gentlemen who served on this committee will have a word to say in opposition to these proposals.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has stated: When we are using the Senate recommendation, the proposals endorsed by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party, we do so because we do not trust the old age pensioners.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I did not say a word about what the minister has just mentioned.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, at page 11,065 of Hansard the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is reported as having said:
He-
Referring to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
-obviously does not trust the old age pensioners.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What does that have to do with the report of the committee?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker-*


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, I said nothing about the report of the Senate and House of Commons committee. That is what we were talking about.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I quite agree. I am just saying that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre has stated that we do not trust the old age pensioners.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is right, and I repeat it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Of course we do not accept such a view nor the view expressed by the hon. member, for example, for Prince Ed-ward-Lennox who said:
There will be many instances of unrecorded income . . . people are not dumb; they will not always report everything.
We do not accept that view. We believe that most of the old age pensioners will report their incomes and that the check that will be made in the manner in which it was described yesterday will be effective, will be humane, and will respect the dignity of the Canadian old age pensioner. The purpose of this amendment is to strike out, to reconsider the income test in respect of this legislation. We regard it as an important feature of the legislation and
December 20, 1966

in putting it in the bill we are taking into account the recommendation of the Senate committee on aging.
The senior member for Halifax talked about the need for checking fraud in cases where it might take place. He suggested that neighbours could be asked to inform on pensioners. Well, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Jardine McCleave: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I never suggested that neighbours might be asked to check on fraud. I said that under the legislation presented by the minister neighbours would be encouraged to inform in respect of fraud. There is a definite difference between those two points.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The words of the hon. member, as reported at page 11,270 of Hansard, are as follows:
If somebody is going to set out to defraud the taxpayers a check could be made in other ways. Perhaps neighbours would tell on him-


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I ask the minister a question?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Those are the words of the hon. member for Halifax. Mr. Speaker, that really would be snooping; it would establish an underground army of super-duper snoopers. I cannot understand what the great fuss is all about. People are asked to fill out income tax forms accurately and to the best of their ability, and most of them do. Pensioners will be asked to fill out declaration forms to the best of their knowledge and most of them will. Undoubtedly mistakes will appear when declarations are cross-checked and I venture to say that on occasion the correction of these mistakes will work to the benefit of the applicant.
There are no penalties for those who make mistakes. Pensioners who fill out their forms accurately and to the best of their knowledge have nothing to fear. Mr. Speaker, I do not have very much more to say, except that I should like to remind-


Michael Starr: You have said too much already. You have ruined everything.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to remind the house of the words spoken by the hon. member for York South, who unfortunately and regrettably is not present to hear my comments. He had some rather pungent comments to make in an earlier debate about
Old Age Security Act Amendment public disillusionment with parliament. He traced this cynicism and disillusionment to the callous way in which promises made at election time are disregarded, ignored and betrayed. Maybe that is a source of cynism, but if there is cynicism there are other reasons for it. The hon. member for York South himself suggests there are other reasons. One of them is the wide discrepancy between how members in the opposition talk and how they vote in this House of Commons.
I cannot match the hon. member for York South in making sermonettes in this house or in delivering judgments on mere mortals from his Olympian heights, but I venture to suggest that members do nothing to foster faith in the institution of parliament when they take a totally destructive line in respect of legislation and then turn around and vote for that very same legislation.
I have already put on the record what the hon. member for York South and his colleagues had to say last June about the guaranteed income approach. Now, simply because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre refuses to be switched on to mid-twentieth century thinking, they have performed a graceless, mass philosophical flip-flop. The summertime romance has ended in a December divorce court simply because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre cannot forget that committee of 1951.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is right. Its principle still stands.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He cannot forget it, and he convinced his leader, his deputy leader and the member for Vancouver-Kingsway that what they said in June was incorrect, and they performed a graceless and mass flip-flop in the period from June to December.
I suggest that members of this house who have termed the provisions of this legislation "iniquitous", as did the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), "a guaranteed pittance", as did the hon. member for Burna-by-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), "petty in mind and petty in heart", as did the hon. member for York South, "guaranteed annual poverty", as did the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, "a sham, a hollow mockery", as did the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), "inherently wrong", as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, "wrong and unjust", as did the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, and "a retrograde step", as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre,
11416	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment should be expected to be prepared to follow through and accept the responsibility of voting against this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this type of behaviour cannot help but erode parliament's image. There is only one word to describe it and that word is "hypocrisy" or if you want a word more in keeping with the season and the tone of the opposition's epithets to me, that word is "humbug".
Hon. gentlemen have raised the "Dickens" in connection with this program and have attempted to give "Scrooge" a new currency. One is tempted to explore this area even further, and, if one does one must conclude that this house is fairly filled with Dickensian characters.
The 'umble and unctious Uriah Heep? He is reincarnated at least several times in the diagonally opposite corner to my right. When considering Mr. Gradgrind of Nicholas Nickle-by, ladling out specious knowledge and soupy sustenance to his cringing charges, one does not have to look beyond the front benches of the official opposition to see where and how Mr. Gradgrind lives on. While the possibilities are limitless, I will not develop them further except to say this: one thing about Scrooge, pre-ghost and post-ghost, and he was a very unpleasant person, was that he had one outstanding quality. He was a person of conviction by word and by deed. Perhaps the N.D.P. might learn something from that characteristic.
At the end of my comments let me say that almost every speech made by members of the opposition has contained provocative and destructive statements about this measure with which I cannot agree. Let me remind the hon. member for Oshawa, who spoke earlier-


Michael Starr: Ontario.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I was referring to the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) and I apologize for that mistake. It is my duty to reply to the criticisms which have been made in respect of this bill, but before we vote on the amendment to third reading of the bill let me say that we spent a whole day debating the resolution preceding the bill, four days on second reading and this is the fifth day on committee and third reading. We now have an amendment before us that the bill be sent back to committee for reconsideration. This bill has been considered fully in committee of the whole and its provisions have been studied

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
thoroughly. The very purpose of this amendment has been fulfilled by discussion on amendments already proposed.
Last Friday the hon. member for Ontario-suggested that we could complete the committee stage of the bill in half an hour or an hour. All I can say is that up to that time and since criticism has been levelled and every possible amendment has been moved. There could be no benefit from acceptance of this amendment to send the bill back for further study. It is time we came to a decision for the sake of Canada's old age pensioners. The house should know that for every additional day spent on this legislation our old age pensioners must wait another day for income support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a question. He referred to the proposal put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre regarding the flat-rate increase. I gather from what he said that he feels such an increase would become inequitable for people in the higher income brackets rather than those in the lower income brackets. I am wondering where the inconsistency is between an approach to pensions on this level and an approach to pensions on the basic level. Do not the same mathematics and the same ethics apply to granting a pension on a universal basis on all levels?
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has made a point. There is a consistency between establishing a floor, which the $75 per month represents, as a matter of universal application, and further income support on the basis of income levels. I do not think they are necessarily inconsistent but I am not arguing that point strongly. I am suggesting that there is a difference in approach in deciding to spend a given sum of money among the whole income spectrum or deciding to weight it in respect of the lower income groups. Th s is the point I am making. I think they are different approaches.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps fortunate that not very often one finds oneself in the position of having of necessity to discuss a measure of this importance and deal with such a partisan diatribe as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) has just delivered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
December 20, 1966	COMMONS


Edmund Davie Fulton: I say it is fortunate that one does not find oneself in that position of necessity very often, but the minister has placed us in that position tonight because he has given not one argument or answer to the merits of the proposals made on this side of the house or the amendment now before us on third reading. About all the minister has done is pose. Pose, I say, and I say it deliberately. It is a pose that ill befits him as a friend of the old age pensioners, because he is not. He is their enemy.
We hear about the Christmas spirit. In this bill, whether the minister likes it or not-and I know it is not deliberate on the part of the hon. gentleman-he is not serving the best interests of the old age pensioner. We hear a great deal about Scrooge. I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare must have observed well what his colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) said last night. This minister had a good lesson in Scroogeship last night. We hear about other Dickensian characters. We had before us in the speech given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare a perfect illustration of another children's rhyme. I refer to the rhyme about Little Jack Horner. You remember that Little Jack Horner sat in a corner, eating his Christmas pie, and he stuck in his thumb and pulled out a plum and said, "What a good boy am I". And all the good Liberals applauded him as he said, "What a good boy am I". But he pulled out a plum only for this government; he pulled out no plums for the old age pensioners.
The minister spoke a great deal about hy-procrisy. At the conclusion of his speech he accused those on this side of the house of hypocrisy, and he used the word "humbug." He said, "How can those who used these words", which he placed on the record, "to describe this legislation follow a course, if they are sincere, other than to vote against it?" I tell the minister that the word "humbug" ill comes from him and his government who have adopted in connection with this legislation the most hypocritical attitude of any government in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We recently passed, against a good deal of opposition and constructive criticism, a measure to implement medicare. With regard to medicare the government clutched to their bosom the principle of universality. These social measures, they said, had to be universally applicable and anyone who opposed the principle of medicare was opposing
Old Age Security Act Amendment the best interests of the country. That was the attitude of the minister, who now pretends to be disinterested in this discussion. He looks up to the gallery where sit the officials of the Liberal party who provided him with his partisan speech.
The attitude of the minister with regard to medicare was that everything must be universal. This is the minister who repudiates that principle when he brings in a measure which he says is designed to assist the old age pensioners of Canada. Now it must be carefully selective, and selective on the basis of snooping. The minister's officials will determine who is qualified to receive this benefit. We are going to be selective on the basis of the government's say-so. If there was ever an example of hypocrisy, it was revealed in the reversal of this government from their stand on medicare to their stand on the old age pension legislation. It is a complete and typical illustration of hypocrisy.
I say to the minister that we are not going to be frightened by his ranting and roaring. We shall vote on the amendment to third reading moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-


Erik Nielsen: Next week.


Edmund Davie Fulton: -next week, or whenever it comes up for a vote. We will take our stand on it. We are not afraid to take our stand. We are not going to be bamboozled by this loudmouthed minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Edmund Davie Fulton: We shall also take our stand on the vote on third reading. Little Jack Horner may have put in his thumb and pulled out a plum for himself, but he has pulled out a very small plum for the old people of Canada. They will understand perfectly well that after fighting as best we can to get this wretched bill improved, and having all our amendments rejected by the minister, it remains almost as bad a measure as it was when he first introduced it. But it still gives the old people a small plum, a plum which the government is trying to make a big plum for itself, and we would rather see the old people of Canada get a small plum than nothing at all. That is about all they are going to get-small plums from this government. There is no inconsistency, shame or hypocrisy on our part in voting reluctantly on third reading for this inadequate, pitiful, miserable measure in order that whatever may be derived in benefit therefrom may be secured for the old people
11418	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment of Canada. That does not prevent our criticizing and exposing the weakness and hypocrisy of the government's stand.
The minister opened his remarks tonight with some extraordinary words. He said that on third reading the house stands eyeball to eyeball with the bill. They are rather odd words for a minister introducing a pet project. It reminds me of nothing more than a myopic individual who cannot see the print that is before him because he has left off his spectacles. So the minister stands eyeball to eyeball with his bill, the victim of the dictates of the Minister of Finance and the reactionary wing of the Liberal cabinet, and because he cannot see the weaknesses of his bill he keeps it close to his face and defends it. Eyeball to eyeball, indeed. The minister does not dare stand eyeball to eyeball with the old age pensioners of Canada.
The minister describes the criticism of the bill, in language of personal affront, as having been hand-wringing and haranguing. Seldom have I listened to more roaring and ranting than was indulged in by the Minister of National Health and Welfare this evening. He read us some letters.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One letter.


Mr. Fulion:: He read a carefully selected expression from one letter he has received.


Gordon Minto Churchill: He wrote it himself.


James Ross Fulton: In that letter appeared the phrase that this is the only legislation where "the poor gets more and the rich gets nothing." The minister said that is a characteristic description of this legislation. What about last night's budget? Are the poor getting more and the rich getting nothing? Who is going to pay the one per cent increase in sales tax? The minister, with tears in his eyes, tells us he is trying to help the old age pensioner. The person who has nothing but his old age pension to live on will have to pay. What about the 2 per cent increase in the cost of living because of the budget introduced last night by the minister's colleague? What about that for hypocrisy? The poor will not only have to pay the cost of this proposal but they will be subject to the greatest extension of snooping by super-duper snoopers in the history of this country. Their affairs will be pried into; their confidential returns will be exposed to the gaze of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and possibly to the courts in the course of prosecution.

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
What about the number of questions in connection with the legislation to which answers have not been provided? What about old age pensioners in the province of Quebec? Not once have we had an answer from the government on that very important question. We still have some time left on third reading and I hope that the Minister of National Health and Welfare will direct his attention to some of the real problems in connection with the legislation instead of skirting around the edges as he has done in the debate so far, because these are not hypothetical questions.
I now address my remarks to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) because the Minister of National Health and Welfare could not be less interested in the discussion of his own bill.
What about the position of the old age pensioner who is a taxpayer in Quebec? Notice was served upon us that the government of Quebec intends to take over the administration of the old age pension system in that province. Let me ask the Minister of Labour, who is a responsible and serious-minded minister although his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare is not, what will be the position of the taxpayer in Quebec when the government moves into the field of old age pensions because a tax measure was imposed by the Minister of Finance of Canada?
Has the government addressed its mind to this question? The Minister of Labour is silent, which shows that obviously it has not. The Minister of Transport is silent and so are the Ministers of National Defence and of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Not one of these great wizards opposite has thought about the implications of the measure which they are presenting to the House of Commons. Will they give us an answer? Their silence is an eloquent tribute to the lack of thought on the part of the government.
What about a bill which penalizes the principle of thrift? The Minister of National Health and Welfare talks glibly about a guaranteed income program, but what does it mean? Has he defined it? Has he said anything which will convince us otherwise than that it may mean in many cases a concession to mediocrity because it penalizes thrift?
There are many people in need of a guaranteed and stabilized income, but why should those who have observed the principles of
December 20, 1966

thrift, of self-reliance and of storing for a rainy day be penalized and deprived of this increase while many who took no such precaution and paid no attention to these principles which the minister espouses by lip service will benefit? Why should those who in days gone by followed the time-honoured injunction of laying up a store for themselves be penalized?
In the measure that is before us on third reading and in the speech which the minister made to the house tonight we find complete and absolute support of the statements made by Mr. Peter Newman, a friend of the Liberal government. In today's Toronto Star there appears an analysis of last night's budget speech. Mr. Newman has frequently exposed the cynicism of this government, a cynicism exemplified in the attitude of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, a minister who talks about cynicism displayed by the difference in attitude of people who talk one way and vote another.
What about the cynicism exemplified in the conduct of this government which promised medicare by July 1, 1967 and then turned around and said, "You will not have it until July 1, 1968"? What about the cynicism of the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, above all others, identified himself with the program of medicare to be put into effect on July 1, 1967 and then supinely stood up and supported the proposition that we could not have it until July 1, 1968? What about the cynicism of the government which, having decided to postpone medicare until 1968, then brought the measure before the house in advance of the old age pension legislation and now has the hypocrisy to say, "If you talk about old age pensions at this stage you will be depriving the old people of Canada of their much needed benefits"? Who deprived them of those benefits? It is the government who put the medicare plan which it decided would not be effective until 1968 ahead of old age pensions and then had the effrontery to try to bluff and blackmail parliament by saying, "If you do not pass medicare tonight you will be the ones who will be denying the old people their much-needed assistance".
In this attitude we can see exemplified perfectly that which Mr. Newman said about the budget last night. I have here some choice quotations illustrating the victory of the right wing reactionary section of the Liberal cabinet, the cabinet which refuses to answer any questions regarding the implications of this

Old Age Security Act Amendment pensions bill. Here is what Mr. Newman said as reported in today's Toronto Star:
The message was unmistakable:	Under Mr. Sharp's stewardship, there will be no more social welfare benefits, unless they're directly tied into an equivalent tax increase. This will be true, whether or not the government actually needs the extra revenues.
What does the Minister of National Health and Welfare say to that? Little Jack Horner is so pleased with himself that all he does is congratulate himself on his own speech.
Then Mr. Newman goes on to say:
After a decade of carefree spending, this amounts to a brand new budgeting approach. It casts the tone of government finances back to the pre-election budget of 1957, when Walter Harris, the then finance minister had a budgetary surplus of $258 million, but for what he considered to be sound economic reasons, paid out only $100 million in additional welfare payments.
We used to talk about "six buck Harris". Now we apparently have "thirty buck needs test MacEachen".
Mr. Newman goes on to say:
In his budget, Mitchell Sharp moves even further toward fiscal orthodoxy, by pegging not only the amount but the exact timing of the new benefits to the collection of the new taxes.
We understand that the increase in pension cheques will not be effective until March or possibly April of next year. Might one not ask the following question? Why then do we need a budget harming the very old age pensioners whom we are supposed to benefit on January 1st of this year? Why should they be paying extra taxes for three months before they get any benefits? Can the minister answer that? Can the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development answer that question? Can the Minister of National Defence answer that, or is he supremely indifferent? Can either the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Labour answer that? I also see the Solicitor General, the Minister of Industry and the Minister of National Health and Welfare. They are all here but none of them is sufficiently interested to answer the very important question of why old age pensioners who will not receive any benefits until March or April should start paying the taxes in January of next year.
This is an example of the solicitude of this government for the old age pensioners whom they are supposed to be helping. We have not heard from them one word of explanation. Again their silence gives assent to the criticism that is made.
I will give another quotation from Mr. Newman's analysis of the Sharp budget.
11420	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment There are one or two other passages which I think should be placed on the record because they are very appropriate in this context. He wrote:
Not the least of this budget's many implications is that wage earners can expect a sharp boost in their tax liabilities when the government's medicare scheme goes into operation, 19 months from now.
So the principle is pretty clearly established. It does not matter what the increase in the gross national product is and the increase in the revenues of the government resulting from the increase in the gross national product. It does not matter about that. The old people of this country, those who need the benefit of increased social security payments, are going to have to pay every last dollar it costs. This is a government which says that it is going to soak the rich to pay the poor-a government that increases sales tax by 1 per cent.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
Again, Mr. Newman says:
This deliberately grey, neutral budget confirms the fact that the Pearson government has completed its cycle of welfare legislation, and that from now on the administration's legislative initiatives will be in other directions. It may have been this realization which has reportedly pushed Walter Gordon, Mr. Sharp's predecessor, to take the final step and sever his last remaining ties with the Liberal party.
More significant and more dramatic for the Minister of National Health and Welfare is this concluding paragraph:
But the Sharp budget, as it stands, confirms a drastic alteration in the style of the Pearson government. The period of progressive experimentation has ended, and the era of meticulous orthodoxy has begun.
What an interesting and sorry conversion we have seen over the past two or three weeks while this house has been discussing welfare measures. On the one hand, we have seen the spectacle of the reluctant but complete conversion of the Minister of National Health and Welfare from a rather attractive era within which he experimented, within which he wedded himself to forward-looking and progressive policies and identified himself with the needs and interests of those who need help, to the tame, lame and partisan recital of the financial orthodoxy dictated by the Minister of Finance on the other hand.
In this house, sir, perhaps we may have some sympathy for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As members of parliament we can understand the pressures which have been brought to bear upon him. But as

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
members of parliament concerned about the welfare of Canadians, particularly older Canadians who need help, as members of parliament concerned with the maintenance of the principle of self-reliance and selfsufficiency, and as members of parliament concerned to oppose measures which will penalize those who have subscribed to those principles, we can have nothing but condemnation for the retrogressive and backward step taken by this minister under pressure from his cabinet colleagues.
As members of parliament concerned about the general economic climate and the welfare of Canadians, we can also have nothing but condemnation for a government which so cynically reverses itself. Here I refer once more to the minister's criticism of the hon. member for York South. This is a government which promised universality, which pledged and wedded itself to this principle in connection with medicare on the one hand, but which reverses itself and adheres to careful selectivity determined by departmental officials in connection with old age pensions on the other hand.
How dare this government and this spokesman criticize anybody for hypocrisy when the government made such a complete reversal itself. This is a government which pledged itself to introduce a far-reaching social welfare measure by July 1, 1967 but which reverses itself and said it will not come into effect until July 1, 1968. How dare this government have such effrontery to criticize anybody in this house and allege hypocrisy. How dare the minister, speaking on behalf of a government that has played so fast and loose with every principle of sincerity, which has made the most far-reaching and extravagant election promises but fallen so far short of their implementation, criticize anyone in this parliament for the exposure of the weaknesses of this bill.
These are the questions in the minds of members on this side of the house, Mr. Speaker, as they examine the details of this legislation. What has the minister said? Having tried our level best to improve this legislation, being rebuffed on almost every occasion by the government majority, now faced with a bad bill but admittedly a bill that does a little something, he now accuses us of hypocrisy if we do not vote against the bill.
The minister shakes his head now, but carried away by his own eloquence and pomposity that is what he did say. This is typical of
December 20, 1986	COMMONS
the whole sorry, shameful and shoddy performance of this government in connection with this bill as well as the other social welfare measures it has brought before the house.
What is the reaction of the people in this country, Mr. Speaker? I bring as witness a paper from the minister's own province, the Halifax Chronicle-Herald which carried an article about this bill the heading of which is "Many Pensioners To Pay Income Tax For First Time".


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Does the minister deny that that is the effect of his own legislation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I do not deny it because one of the effects of the legislation is to bring people into the class in which they do pay income tax.


Edmund Davie Fulton: In other words, you give with the one hand and take away with the other.


Mr. Crouse:: Ebenezer exposed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: My colleague has characterized the minister better than I can, but I still think he is a little Jack Homer sitting in a corner, putting in his thumb and pulling out a plum for the government. That is my primary concern.
This is the article carried by the Chronicle-Herald for December 20:
The Introduction of a supplementary $30 a month in the old age pension for recipients on limited income will push many thousands of pensioners into the income tax paying bracket for the first time.
Again:
But persons of 68 and 69 years who receive the maximum pension next year will be required to
pay taxes.
These are facts the pensioners should know about.
In the case of the average single taxpayer with no other source of earned income the levy will be on $160, after allowing for the standard $1,000 exemption plus $100 for medical expenses.
For maried couples who are both in the 68-69 age group, and with no other source of earned income the levy will be on $420, after allowing for $2,000 exemption plus the $100 for medical expenses.
So we see, sir, the kind of effect that this government's so-called generosity toward the old age pensioners is going to have upon those whom they allege they are trying to help.
One could go on to expose the weakness of the legislation, but I think it has been sufficiently analysed in the debate in committee.
Old Age Security Act Amendment The analysis we have had of the bill there, plus the example of the minister's speech on third reading tonight, has in my view been enough to convince this house and the country that it is a bad bill, that there is nothing to be said for it except that it is partisan hypocrisy on the part of the minister. No amount of bluffing on his part will persuade us to alter our position on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Reluctantly, when that is disposed of and the minister's dictatorial attitude is finally forced upon the house, we shall have no alternative but to vote for the bill. This is not because it is a good measure but because little Jack Horner has given the old age pensioners a small plum, a small and mean Christmas fare. Nevertheless it is a contribution, small and mean though it is, of which it would ill behoove us to deprive the old people of Canada who desperately need not just this but a little more besides.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question and a supplementary question? First of all, has the hon. member for Kamloops read the new section 7 set out in the bill as part of clause 3? If he has read that clause, does he not agree that the guaranteed income payments become effective on January 1, 1967, not in March, 1967 as he suggested earlier?
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: I did not say a word about a guaranteed income. My remarks had to do with the cheques which would reflect the increase in pensions. Is the Minister of Labour telling us that the cheques reflecting the increase will go out on January 1?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, but I understand that payments will be retroactive to January 1. I say this in view of the earlier observation by the hon. member that there should not be legislation to collect taxes on January 1 when the cheques will not be paid until March 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Why should a tax be placed in advance on the very old age pensioners who will benefit from it? What is the justification?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: It is easy to answer that question. The payment will be retroactive to January 1.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Let us be clear about this. This is the first time it is clear.


An hon. Member:: It is in the bill.
December 20, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment


James Ross Fulton: Is the minister telling us something the Minister of National Health and Welfare would not tell us? I am asking for an interpretation. Will the payments be made on January 1?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The minister is telling you that payments will be made as provided under new section 7 in the bill, and I do not think you need to be a lawyer to interpret that provision.


Edmund Davie Fulton: This obviously means that the increases will not be received until March or April but the recipients will be taxed on January 1.


Mr. Chretien:: Is the hon. member serious when he says that the government will give with one hand and take with the other, when the sales tax increase is one per cent and an old age pensioner will receive $360 a year more and in order to pay that back to the government, with the new one per cent sales tax, will be obliged to spend $36,000?


Edmund Davie Fulton: My point is this. We believe that those who need help should not be taxed in order to pay for that help. If hon. members opposite were sincere in their applause of the statement of the Minister of Finance last night and of the Minister of National Health and Welfare this evening when he said, cynically and hypocritically, that this is the only measure from which the poor will get more and the rich wil get nothing, why do they tax the poor by imposing a tax on the articles which the aged people will have to buy? And what will the hon. member do about the people of his province of Quebec when they are subjected to double taxation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member is supposed to know that it is not possible to do things in that way.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me it is an exercise in futility for the two hon. members who are indulging in this exchange to try to convince each other. They have made up their minds and are not listening any more. They do not want to be confused with the facts.
We in this party are keenly interested in getting the increase to the senior citizens of this country as quickly as possible and I suggest that the most expeditious way of doing so is by voting against the amendment and for third reading of the bill and doing it soon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am really surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) should move an amendment of this kind at the present stage.


An hon. Member:: Pure hypocrisy.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: We know that over the years he has tried to create an image of himself as the champion of the senior citizens whether they are recipients of old age security benefits or the recipients of civil service pensions.


Mr. Byrne:: As long as they have a vote.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He is also one of the most experienced and knowledgeable members of the house with regard to the rules of procedure. Of all members, with the possible exception of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), he ought to know that the effect of passing the amendment which he has proposed would be to kill the bill. He knows this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: He knows it perfectly well, but he cannot desist.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member not know from his own experience of procedure that there is a difference between an amendment of this kind on second reading and an amendment of this kind on third reading? He is applying a second reading argument to a third reading situation.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre knows very well that the effect of carrying the amendment he has proposed would be to refer the bill back to the committee of the whole, the committee which considered it after second reading. He also knows very well that in committee of the whole he or any other member on this side of the house is prevented from moving the kind of amendment he has put forward. Nevertheless, as I was about to say, neither he nor the other members of his party can resist the temptation to try to make a little political hay at the expense of the old age pensioners even though they know very well that what they are asking cannot be done by them.
Let me give an illustration which will add more weight to what I am saying. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tried to move an amendment in committee of the whole, the committee to which he now wishes to have this bill referred. As reported on page 11255 of Hansard he said:
Therefore, in order to give the minister an opportunity once again to consider removing the test
December 20, 1966

and making this $30 increase an across the board improvement in the pension, I move:
"That clause 3 of Bill C-251 be amended by deleting from subsection 1 of the new section 8 being enacted thereby, the words "minus one dollar for each two full dollars of his monthly base income, being one-twelfth of his income for the preceding year", as found in lines 1, 2, and 3 on page 3 of the bill.
Then he used these words:
So as to be clear, if this amendment is accepted it would remove the test and make the $30 increase in 1967, and the 40 per cent of whatever the basic pension is after that, across the board without the kind of means test or income test that is presently in the bill.
That is exactly what he is seeking to do in the amendment before us. He knows very well what the result was. If we turn to page 11256 we find that the Chairman ruled the amendment out of order. If he was ruled out of order in committee of the whole when he tried to do this previously, then surely if we are to be consistent in our rules he would be ruled out of order again. As recorded at page 11256 of Hansard for December 16, the Chairman, after listening to argument as to the propriety of the amendment, gave his ruling as follows:
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre reads as follows-
I shall not take the trouble to read the amendment again. The Chairman continued:
This amendment too has received the careful attention of the Chairman, and it is the opinion of the Chair that if the amendment were adopted it would have some very far-reaching effects. Indeed, one of the effects of this amendment would be to repeal the latter part of the resolution adopted by the house on December 5. It would eliminate the supplementary nature of the payments envisaged by the bill, and would substitute therefor a fixed and certain payment of 40 per cent of this pension payable to recipients under the Old Age Security Act.
The Chairman went on to explain the other reasons why the amendment was out of order, and then he said:
I recognize that this is the third amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I regret that on this particular occasion I will have to spoil his batting average by declaring the amendment out of order.
How can the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre come before the house now and expect hon. members to believe that he has any better chance of having this amendment accepted if the bill is now referred back to the committee than he had on December 16 when he tried to move the other amendment? He
Old Age Security Act Amendment knows this is nothing more nor less than a waste of time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does he not think it would have some bearing on the situation if a majority of the house voted for this amendment? Would that not give a guide line to the committee, to which it would have to pay some attention, if he would only vote with us?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows better than I do that there is only one person who is competent to move an amendment which involves an additional charge on the treasury, and that is a member of the treasury board or of the cabinet. The hon. member has heard the minister explain that he is not prepared to accept that kind of amendment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is a great waste of time. It represents the kind of political tactics we have seen in the house from time to time where some members are not interested in reaching a practical solution and finding some way of doing something effective. All they are interested in is holding up, invoking all the rules of procedure and wasting time hoping they will gain some kind of political advantage. I think it is wrong to use the senior citizens of this country as a political football.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to repeat what I said at the outset. The mover and all other members on this side of the house who intend to vote for this amendment know very well that the effect of doing so is not going to add one iota to the benefit of the old age pensioners. It is going to waste time, and I suggest that they set this political boxing aside for the time being and get on as rapidly as possible to do something positive and effective for the senior citizens of our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, tonight we have added a new phrase to the English language. We have had Santa's little helper and now, thanks to the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson), we have Scrooge's little helper because he, sir, is trying to exculpate the Minister of National Health
December 20, 1966

Old Age Security Act Amendment and Welfare (Mr. MacEachen) from a purely-I have used the word "purely" but I prefer to withdraw it and substitute "impurely"-political speech that he made earlier this evening. I would like to place on the record the fact that not one member of the cabinet on the front benches on the other side applauded the speech of the minister while he was trying his best to talk out this measure tonight. I suppose any hon. member could call it ten o'clock but I do not intend to do so. I simply want to throw back at the minister all the mistakes he has made in trying to bring this measure before us for third and final reading.
He has tried to twist any word of criticism that has been uttered against this measure, and there have been many. There has been criticism of snooperism, criticism of bureaucratism, criticism of the easy way out by a government that fears that somehow, somewhere, some person of 70 years of age is going to take $2.20 out of the treasury of Canada to which he is not entitled. That person is to have the whole establishment of government come down on him. He is to have the R.C.M.P. march upon him, he is to have the Department of National Revenue march upon him, he is to have the Department of National Health and Welfare march upon him, and he may be subjected to any type of malicious letter, signed or not, which can be brought against him. None the less, witting or unwittingly-and I would not like to think a fellow Nova Scotian would take an unwitting approach in a case like this-this is exactly what will happen.
We in the opposition are castigated and categorized because we simply want to bring some small element of common sense into the supplement to old age benefits. The minister has been given a chance to be one of two Scrooges. He can be the Scrooge that was or the Scrooge that would be, and our society has not dealt very kindly with the Scrooge that would be.
We have taken the abject, loathsome figure, hard on his employees, hard on society in general, and depicted that figure as the Scrooge. Yet there was the latter Scrooge, the one who was motivated by Christian kindness, by the spirit of Christmas, who wanted to do something better for his employee and for the world around him. This is the chance we have given the minister from the word go on this particular bill. But in response to our rather kindly offer of metamorphosis he has chosen to take the speeches made by those in the
[Mr. McCleave.l
official opposition and in the N.D.P. and has twisted them and attacked them, as he did earlier with respect to my efforts, the efforts of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and others. This, sir, is no way to accomplish legislation on behalf of the old age pensioners of Canada.
We have gone through Bill C-251 clause by clause and have tried to make it a little less harsh, a little more humanitarian and understanding. Our purpose on this side, once we got past the great battle of a means test or no means test, was simply to make the legislation work to the benefit of the aged. I do not think anybody should really quarrel with that, no more than anybody should quarrel with what the minister originally started out to do before he began to play partisan politics.
[DOT] (10:30 p.m.)
We have been met with ridicule and abuse from the other side. That surely is not justified. We are not here, if I can turn a phrase back on myself, as Scrooge-like people. We are here to do our duty for the constituents whom I, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and other members in the house represent. Surely it is uncalled for for the minister to ascribe motives to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) or to other members of the official opposition, to members of the unofficial opposition or to those few members in the comer who rarely are heard except to sing out praises for the government. We have taken the attitude that surely nothing should require the great resources of government to be used against the simple resources of the individual citizen of Canada.
What is wrong with that approach? If we are going to haul somebody into court and say to him that somehow he has received a couple of miserable dollars out of the treasury of Canada more than he is entitled to, why should we throw the whole of the weight of a government department against that lone individual? We have made a partial correction in respect of income tax returns. Why should we use the full weight of the state, why should we use the police and other people, including the minister's 500 or so permanent new additions to his staff and whatever others he may add?


An hon. Member:: Investigators.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, investigators. Why
should we place the crushing weight of all these people against somebody who probably quite innocently has managed to get two or three dollars or $36 or $40 extra a year out of
December 20, 1966

the Dominion of Canada? Yet that is what the minister in his zeal, in his endeavour to push his legislation through, has in mind. We are asked to use the whole strength of society, the stringent means of the police and the bureaucratic establishment against people such as these.
I believe we are making a reasonable plea to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the government. In fairness I must say that some of our pleas have been met but others have not been. We make the plea that the minister try to ameliorate the legislation in some small way so that receiving the old age pension supplement will not be a disgrace to the citizen and so that it will not put him in the position where he must crawl. He should not be placed in the position that if he has received a penny more than he is entitled to some fearsome apparatus will descend on him and squeeze him like people in the middle ages were squeezed in iron maidens and the like.
We have simply endeavoured to bring some element of common sense to the situation. I think we have tried to say that government is big enough in Canada today and that if some citizen somewhere has figured out some way to get a few dollars more, that person is entitled to it. To bring into play the whole impact and intent of this legislation is, as I said earlier in the debate, similar to using nuclear bombs to crush mosquitoes.
Until tonight I think the Minister of National Health and Welfare did very well, but when he made that fierce speech directed partly to the official opposition and partly to the New Democratic Party I think he was preaching for a call. Heaven only knows where he thought he was being called to.


An hon. Member:: He is not going to get there.


Robert Jardine McCleave: He is not going to get there tonight, as someone has kindly pointed out. The fact is that the front bench, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), and a few other ministers here when the Minister of National Health and Welfare was preaching for a call, refused to respond to the siren song of a man who was going nowhere with his speech.
I suggest that we have gone through a great deal of debate in this house to provide these old age pension supplements. I say that we have settled the main issue, that is, whether it
Old Age Security Amendment should or should not be on the basis of a means test. Admittedly, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has his amendment before the house. I for one intend to vote for it because 1 believe in what has been said during these days of debate. We do not need partisan speeches. If I am giving one, and I am sure I am, then I am doing so because the Minister of National Health and Welfare provoked me to the point where I felt I should rise to my feet. Otherwise I would have remained silent. That is a courtesy which we Nova Scotians owe each other. Once having disposed of this issue, then let us get on, pass the measure and do what we can to help the old age security pensioners.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Aware as I am that this amendment will go down to defeat, I know that the bill will pass with the amendment made and that this legislation will come back to haunt all parliamentarians. There are people in this country who simply cannot understand what we have been up to for the last couple of days. When it is their turn to receive these benefits, when they realize the mill they will have to go through in order to receive these benefits, when they realize that when they fill in these forms people will descend upon them and say that they are not entitled to this or that, when they see the police descend upon them, then they are going to vent their wrath upon this parliament, and it will be a justified wrath.
[DOT] (10:40 p.m.)


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson) is quite capable of making an eloquent and constructive contribution to the debates of this house when he is talking about something on which he is knowledgeable and, indeed, I thought he was doing that this afternoon during the debate on the transport bill. However, the hon. member does from time to time lapse into a narrow procedural argument in an attempt to justify the unjustifiable. At such times he becomes less eloquent and less logical with every word he utters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Since he has raised this narrow procedural question in reference to the amendment moved earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), one should take a moment or two to deal with the matter.
11426	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment
The hon. member was obviously confusing the amendment before us with an amendment during second reading stage of a bill. Apparently he forgot we are now at the third reading stage, or he does not realize there is a difference between a vote in the committee of the whole and a vote in this house. I do not profess to be a procedural expert, but I have been around long enough to understand perfectly well what the purpose of this amendment is. I have listened to the hon. member for Medicine Hat at times when I thought he did know something about the rules, and I am sure he understands perfectly well the purpose of this amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Would the hon. member permit a question? Can he tell us whether he understands perfectly well what the effect of this amendment will be?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: That is exactly the point I had in mind. The effect of the passage of this amendment, and perhaps it would pass if the hon. member for Medicine Hat would vote for it, would be to force the government when we return to committee of the whole to take some action in accordance with the terms of the amendment.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Has that ever happened in this house?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Perhaps not, but it could happen a first time, and it would be more likely to happen during this parliament that any other of which I have been a member. In falling back on this narrow procedural argument the hon. member for Medicine Hat and his colleagues are passing up a great opportunity to do a real service to the senior citizens of Canada. The passage of this amendment would place before the government a clear choice. Either get off the treasury benches and let someone occupy them who can bring in good legislation or vote for the amendment, go back into committee of the whole and immediately bring in a proper amendment to the bill according to the wish expressed by this house.
The proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is simple and clearcut, and I am sure the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) understands it even though the hon. member for Medicine Hat may not. I really do not want to take up too much time in respect to the procedural argument because I think what is involved in the substance of the amendment is much more important.

DEBATES	December 20, 1966
In reference to what the government has proposed let me say that I felt that the minister's speech was one of the most pitiful spectacles I have seen in this house. The minister, understandably goaded by some of the discussion which took place in the committee, admittedly fairly extensive, made a reply during the third reading stage in respect of the amendment now before us. As he continued he slowely fired his own imagination with his own eloquence. He must have sensed that his colleagues sitting behind him needed some kind of lift as a result of the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) last night. In response to the urge to create an element of enthusiasm within his own party he went on and on and referred to remarks by the hon. members for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) and York South (Mr. Lewis) in another debate in an attempt to suggest there were inconsistencies between those remarks and the proposition put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in this amendment.
When the minister came to the conclusion of his statement we heard a round of applause from backbenchers on the government side such as we have not heard for a long time. When the applause subsided the minister was reduced to the confusion of a trembling jellyfish by one question. If I recall correctly the question was posed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South (Mr. Sherman). That hon. member suggested that as the minister's speech progressed it had become more and more apparent there was an inconsistency in his argument. His question was whether the minister by arguing in the way he did was introducing legislation to abolish the present $75 old age security pension. That was the only logic to the minister's speech.
Far from accusing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre of being inconsistent and not being able to get beyond the ideas of the 1951 committee, the minister ought to take a quick look at the logic of his own point of view. Perhaps one of these days we will reach a stage of development in this country through technology and technocracy where we can have a guaranteed basic income for all citizens of our community which will make irrelevant questions regarding basic and minimum levels of income for senior citizens. That time has not arrived, and probably it will not arrive with the kind of government we now have.
[DOT] (10:50 p.m.)
It is complete and utter nonsense for the Minister of National Health and Welfare to
December 20, 1966
stand up in this house and suggest that the statement made by the leader of my party regarding the bill now before us has no basis in foundation or logic. If the minister wishes to follow the concept of old age security on a universal basis without a means test as established by the committee in 1951, let him stand up in this house and say so. Let him not waffle arund with the meagre provisions of the bill he has brought in.
As to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, it should be apparent not only from its terms but from what the hon. member said when introducing it that this is the central issue on which he is seeking to focus the attention of the house at this time. We all know that the substance of this amendment if carried would in effect increase the universal old age pension, without a means test, from $75 a month to $105 a month.


Mr. Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Where would you get the $100 million more?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: We can argue about what is an appropriate level but the fact that the amendment has been proposed from this quarter of the house indicates that we believe this would be an appropriate level. If the minister wants to think we are turning and twisting in this respect, I suggest that he look at his own face in the mirror and decide who is doing that, because we are standing foursquare behind the amendment and the basic concept now in the Old Age Security Act.
We say that this basic concept should be maintained and enhanced because it is necessary in this country in the foreseeable future. This is the issue involved in the amendment. This is why we are asking support from hon. members in all parts of the house. The house by its vote can give clear instruction to the government on its desires and wishes. We would expect that even this government would then act upon the clearcut view expressed by parliament assembled, as we now are, with the Speaker in the chair.
One can brush aside the specious and narrow procedural argument advanced by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson). If the members of his party are interested in the welfare of the older people of this country, as he said they were, they would support this amendment. 1 am sure the hon. member for Medicine Hat would agree with me. I have cleared up the procedural misconception that he obviously had when he spoke earlier.
11427
Old Age Security Act Amendment


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. If it is the wish of the house, I am prepared to make a ruling on the admissibility of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On the motion that Bill No. C-251 be now read a third time, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre moved:
That Bill C-251 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the income test provided in clause 3 thereof.
In considering amendments to a bill on third reading three considerations at least must be taken into account. First, does the amendment offend against the resolution preceding the money bill? Second, does the amendment contradict the principle agreed to when the bill was adopted on second reading? Third, does the amendment include matters that are not contained within the bill itself?
There can be no doubt about the intent of the amendment now before the house. If it were to have any real and practical effect it would indeed offend against the resolution which preceded the bill, it would be contrary to the principle adopted on second reading, and it would introduce a matter different from that contained in the bill. But the Chair is concerned too about the wording of the amendment. First, the amendment recommits the bill to the committee of the whole. It is not out of order to recommit a bill. May I read citation 415 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, paragraph (2), page 287:
Bills may be recommitted a number of times with or without limitation;-
Having considered the fact that a bill may be recommitted. I would say to the house that, whatever the intent of the amendment may be, the purpose as expressed in the amendment is to "reconsider" the income test provided in clause 3. To reconsider a bill in committee of the whole may not be out of order under certain circumstances, although in this particular case I would have very grave doubts that any practical change could result from such reconsideration.
However, in view of the wording of the amendment and having weighed in my own mind both sides of the question, I propose to rule the amendment in order, and I do so now.



December 20, 1966
Division


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the house ready for
the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that in the course of the vote it was not ascertained definitely whether Mr. Drury voted for the yeas or the nays.


Mr. Drury:: Yeas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Starr: I hope, Mr. Speaker, that it is recorded that he voted for the yeas.


Mr. Speaker:: It will be so recorded. Did I understand that the minister votes "yea"?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker. Nay, nay.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yea, he voted nay.
Messrs:
Addison	Hellyer
Asselin	Isabelle
(Richmond-Wolf e)	Johnston
Basford	Lachance
Batten	Laflamme
Beehard	Laing
Beer	Langlois (Chicoutimi)
Berger	Laniel
Blouin	Laverdiere
Boulanger	Leblanc (Laurier)
Byrne	Lefebvre
Cadieux (Terrebonne)	Legault
Cantin	Lessard
Chatwood	Lind
Choquette	Loiselle
Chretien	MacEaehen
Clermont	Mackasey
Comtois	Mcllraith
Cote (Longueuil)	McWilliam
Crossman	Marchand
Davis	Matte
Drury	Mongrain
Duquet	Munro
Faulkner	Neveu
Forest	Nicholson
Gendron	Nixon
Gray	O'Keefe
Greene	Olson
Guay	Orange
Haidasz	Otto


An hon. Member:: Give him another chance. And the result of the vote having been announced:


Robert Jardine McCleave: I am sure I was paired with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo (Mr. Jamieson).


Lawrence T. Pennell: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I was paired with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Andras). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Habel:: I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted against the amendment.


Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, before the motion for third reading is agreed to, I would like to move an amendment concerning the fiscal compensation for any province deciding to occupy the field of old age security itself.

December 20, 1966

Several members have asked the minister and the government to express their opinion on the matter. The minister did not answer the question; he is probably in favour. At all events, I want to move this amendment without resuming the debate, since I expressed my opinion this afternoon. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Chapleau, Mr. Laprise:
That Bill No. C-251 be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole house for the purpose of reconsidering the advisability, while being of the opinion that the necessary steps be taken to ensure to senior Canadian citizens an adequate pension, that no legislation providing for a service of old age security in Canada would be sufficient, unless providing for a system of fiscal compensation for any province wishing to establish its autonomous old age security program.


An hon. Member:: The amendment is not in order.


Mr. Speaker:: As hon. members will have surmised, there is some question in the mind of the Chair at the moment whether this amendment is acceptable. I do not propose to rule on it without inviting hon. members to express their opinions on the procedural aspect of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, though I might say that I have serious reservations about it.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am prepared to make a ruling now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I would refer hon. members to May, seventeenth edition, at page 571, and perhaps more particularly to Beauchesne, fourth edition, at page 288, citation 418. It will be found from these citations that the proposition advanced by the hon. member is beyond the scope of the bill and is actually not included in the principle of the bill.
[DOT] (11:30 p.m.)
Hon. members know that there is an essential difference between amendments which may be moved on second reading and amendments moved on third reading. The scope of amendments on third reading is much more limited than on second reading, and this is borne out by citation 418 in Beauchesne's fourth edition. I do not think it is necessary for me to read it for hon. members, and if they consult it I am sure they will agree with the Chair that the amendment cannot be accepted at the present time.
Division

For those reasons, I must rule that the amendment moved by the hon. member for Sherbrooke is out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on the main motion. Mr. MacEachen, seconded by Mr. Pickersgill, moves that Bill C-251, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act, be now read the third time. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please
say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Edmund Davie Fulton: You will observe, Mr. Speaker, that they are voting against their own bill.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
[DOT] (11:40 p.m.)


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I was paired. Had I voted I would have voted for the bill.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to rise on a point of order in connection with the vote. I should ask that the record of the vote be read but on account of the lateness of the hour I do not intend to do that. However, I should like to reserve the right to raise a point of order tomorrow after I have seen the record of the vote in Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a point of order to raise, I suggest he should do so now.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe the point of order which I wish to bring to the attention of the house is a rather important one. I hesitate, however, to take the time of the house at this late hour. It is in connection with a principle which I consider to be very important, namely, that when hon. members rise to challenge Mr. Speaker's interpretation of the sense of the house they automatically are declaring themselves to be in the group which Mr. Speaker has determined to be the minority. Therefore those members who rose tonight to call for a formal vote should have their names recorded with those who voted against the measure.
This, Mr. Speaker, is a very important point to me. If one refers to clause 48, I believe, of the British North America Act it will be seen there that questions in the House of Commons are decided by the voice of the house. I am quite familiar with rule 9, I believe it is, in our rules which states that five members may rise and therefore require that a vote be recorded. I suggest that that rule is deficient. If you refer to rule 1, where there is no precedent for this sort of thing in our rules, and refer to the rules and customs as they exist in the British House of Commons, you will find, of course, Mr. Speaker, that although the system of taking a recorded vote is different there than it is in our House of Commons, there is one principle which is an obvious one. It is that when Mr. Speaker estimates whether the yeas or nays have it, it is only those whom Mr. Speaker has deemed to be the minority who have the right to call a recorded vote, because the voice of the house is what decides whether a matter is carried or not and the recording of the vote is only to determine the voice of the house when it is nearly even or when it is not clear that the Speaker is not in error.
I should have liked to do this tomorrow when I will know what the vote has been. In order to save time I refrain now from asking that the vote be read by the clerk, which I believe is my right in circumstances of this sort. It is clear, however, that under our rules, upon a division the yeas and nays shall not be entered upon the minutes unless demanded by five members. But it implies that these five members are members who are challenging your decision and therefore they are in the group which Mr. Speaker has declared to be the minority. There are many references to this in the British rules. For example, Mr. Speaker, in respect of the British House of
December 20, 1966

Commons May's Parliamentary Practice, sixteenth edition, has this to say:
In the Commons the Speaker takes the sense of the house by desiring that "As many as are of that opinion say, 'Aye,'" and "As many as are of the contrary opinion say, 'No'".
Then it goes on to say that members cannot give one voice when the yeas and nays are called and then vote contrary to that. There are many references to this in British practice and in the British rules which make it quite clear that votes which are recorded can have no other effect than to do again what has been done by the voice vote and which has been declared by the Speaker as carried or not carried as the case may be. Our practice is a frivolous waste of time of the house because it can have no effect. I am perfectly aware of the fact that this practice has gone on in this House of Commons for many years but I believe it is a practice which originated in an error and that this error has been compounded by references to errors in the past.
The situation is such, Mr. Speaker, that if the respect for this House of Commons is to be raised in this country we should start by eliminating frivolous procedures which have no effect on the passage of legislation in the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr, MacLean (Queens):: There are many cases, Mr. Speaker, with which you are familiar-although this is a slightly different point or a development of the point-which establish that in the British House of Commons the Speaker has the power to declare that the recording of a vote would be frivolous if only a small number of members stand. There are many cases, for example, where the Speaker so declares.
Finally, to make this brief at this late hour I would refer you, sir, to the third edition of Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure at page 500 where we find this statement:
In the commons the yeas and nays can be taken only in conformity with the following rule:-83 "Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered on the minutes, unless demanded by five members".
That is the old rule which is still in existence but which I think can be regarded as being deficient. The note at the bottom of the page has this to say:
[DOT] (11:50 p.m.)
It has often been suggested that it is advisable to adopt the English practice, by which a member who calls out with the noes and forces a division should vote with the noes on the obvious principle
Old Age Security Act Amendment that it is for the minority alone to appeal from the Speaker's decision to the ultimate test of a division.
This is a principle which is long overdue for adoption in this House of Commons. I do not expect you to rule on this matter at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but I would respectfully suggest that you would do a great service to Canadian parliamentary life if you made this your centennial project.
The footnote of this precedent continues as follows:
But such a practice has never obtained in the Canadian House, and whilst attention has been frequently directed to its propriety, no Speaker has ever attempted to enforce it.
I think the time has come when that should be done.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Even at this late hour I feel I should be given an opportunity to rule on the very interesting and important point raised by the hon. member for Queens. I can assure the hon. member I have taken this into serious consideration. In many ways his point is academic because he knows, as intimated by his remarks, that at least to some extent we are faced with a standing order which is part of our Canadian rules and governs the practice of this house. That standing order is to the effect that on a division the yeas and nays shall not be entered unless demanded by five members. Standing order No. 9 states that if five members rise there shall be a division.
As hon. members appreciate, it is rather difficult for the Chair to decide whether the five members rising are among those who said "Yea" or "Nay". Perhaps what the member is suggesting is that Chair at the moment should ask the five members whether they were among those who said "Yea" or "Nay".
The hon. member suggested that this should be the Chair's centennial project, which is perhaps a good idea, but I would suggest that it should be the centennial project of the House of Commons. Hon. members know that the Chair under similar circumstances is bound by precedents. Conveniently it has been brought to the attention of the Chair that in recent years there have been a number of instances on which a division has been held where not one objecting voice was heard. There was one on Thursday, July 24, 1958, one on Monday, September 14, 1958, one on March 4, 1959, one on June 4, 1959, one on June 9, 1959, one on March 7, 1960, and one on August 1, 1960. I could go on enumerating them to hon. members-
December 20, 1956
11432	COMMONS
Old Age Security Act Amendment Mr. Starr: Would you do so for the record, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: I am not suggesting to hon. members that this is the procedure we should follow but-


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, would you kindly continue to record these occasions so we will have a complete record?


Mr. Speaker:: I wish I could do that but I can only read from the incomplete record given to the Chair.


Michael Starr: Did that record stop in 1960?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was done on the Family Allowances Act in 1944.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that going back to 1867 this has been the situation in the house. If ever there was a Speaker who wanted to take it upon himself to change 100 years of practice in the Canadian House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please? If there ever was a Speaker who wanted to change a practice which has existed in the House of Commons for 100 years it is not this Speaker. I can only inform hon. members that the suggestion made by the hon. member for Queens is an interesting and practical one. It may be that the time of the house should not be taken up by the calling of divisions when it is known in advance what the result will be, but certainly it is not for the Chair to make such a decision, and certainly it is not for the Chair to interpret standing order No. 9 in any other way than it has been interpreted over the years.
Suggestions have been made during the last week that a committee should be set up to study changes in the rules of the House of Commons. I suggest to hon. members who may be members of that committee that this is one rule which should be given consideration with a view to eliminating the possibility of votes being held when the result is known in advance. Such a situation took place this evening. I thank the hon. member for Queens for his suggestion which I know will be taken under consideration by hon. members of this house who will be named as members of that committee to study possible changes.
In view of 100 years of practice I do not think I should change these rules at midnight 

today or tomorrow, and therefore I must rule against the hon. member for Queens.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Burin-Burgeo. Had I been allowed to vote I would not have added to the confusion of the recorded vote.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the hon. member for Athabaska; otherwise, I would have voted for the motion.

Bill read the third time and passed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, it being after eleven-thirty, the hour at which we agreed to adjourn, I suggest we do so.


George James McIlraith: We agreed to adjourn when the three bills had been put through.



EXPORT CREDITS INSURANCE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and
Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. C-253, to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee and reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now, or at the next sitting of the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Henry Winters: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (12 midnight)



RESEARCH


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of Bill No. C-252, to provide general incentives to industry for the expansion of scientific research and development in Canada and to effect certain related amendments to the Income Tax Act.
December 20, 1366


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert:: No, Mr. Speaker. In the circumstances, and regardless of the hour, there is no particular reason to gallop. In this case the minister, on behalf of the government, is coming before the house with a rather lengthy bill and the house is entitled to a full explanation. Therefore we now call on the minister to make a statement. We are not going to have any more of this nonsense. The jokes are over for tonight.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, no one is more pleased than I am at being given the opportunity, in spite of the lateness of the hour, to say a few words in support of this bill in which I heartily believe. The purpose of the bill is to provide a new and more effective incentive for research and development in Canadian industry to replace the incentive presently provided by section 72A of the Income Tax Act. This tax incentive is due to expire at the end of the 1966 taxation year.
The impact of science and technology on our economy is reflected in the flow of new products, in more efficient production techniques, in improved services of all kinds, and above all in a steadily rising standard of living. The intensive application of science to industry has also introduced a new and potent force in economic and commercial affairs. With our relatively "open" economy and the progressive reduction of trade barriers throughout the world, Canadian industry will be faced with more intense competition at home and abroad; and that competition is not merely a contest of price. More and more it is becoming a battle of invention and innovation in which scientific superiority and technical excellence are major weapons.
For Canada, the attainment of the desired rate of economic growth will depend to a greater extent than ever before on the expansion of an efficient manufacturing industry: This in turn will necessitate more effective exploitation of new technology. Therefore we must look to research and development to spark the process of industrial expansion and economic growth for the future.
The basic principle underlying the proposed legislation is that economic progress stems from increased productivity which derives in large measure from new and improved technology. Systematic and sustained investment in research and development by industry is no
Research
less important to competitive survival than capital investment in new plant. New technology affords wider opprotunities for investment and generates greater productivity, and thus provides the seed for the long-term expansion of firms, industries and nations.
Looking at the structure of our over-all scientific activity we find that industry performed only 36 per cent of the national total as contrasted with 63 per cent for Britain and 74 per cent in the United States. This anomaly in allocation of effort would indicate that insufficient emphasis is being placed on the practical exploitation of science and technology.
This comparison of industrial research activity in other countries demonstrates the necessity for a major expansion in the current level of innovation activity in Canadian industry. On analysis it would appear that a target almost three times the current figure is required to bring Canada more nearly into line with comparable industrialized countries. The attainment of this target within a reasonable period of time would require a virtual doubling of the previous long-term growth rate for industrial research and development.
This then, Mr. Speaker, is the task we face: to create a favourable climate for industrial innovation so as to ensure the rapid and effective exploitation of scientific and technological advances for the benefit of Canada and Canadians. Obviousy, a "quantum jump" in industrial research and development of the magnitude I have suggested requires special efforts on the part of government and industry alike. The general incentive for industrial research and development proposed in this bill will be one of the key measures for implementing government policy in this regard.
We are proposing that the cornerstone of our various programs for stimulating technical innovation should be a general incentive for increased research and development freely available to all companies carrying on business in Canada for the performance in Canada of bona fide scientific research and development likely to benefit Canada. Our primary objective here is to introduce advanced technology and the associated skills into industry where they can be directly exploited for economic ends. To be effective, such an incentive must cover the broad spectrum of innovation activity from basic research to engineering development with the selection and direction of projects being the responsibility of the entrepreneur. Participation in the program is to be open to all

December 20, 19G6
Research
taxable companies incorporated in Canada without discrimination as to type or class of industry, size, ownership or profitability.
Since 1962 the Income Tax Act has provided an incentive for this purpose whereby companies have been able to deduct from their income an additional allowance of 50 per cent of the amount by which their expenditures on scientific research exceeded their total expenditures for this purpose in the 1961 base year. In the intervening years, this incentive appears to have had a beneficial effect on industrial research expenditures generally, the most marked improvement being in the area of capital expenditures. However, a number of problems and shortcomings in its operation have become apparent which is evidenced by the fact that in 1963 only 265 out of a total of some 600 firms performing research and development were able to claim benefits under the additional allowance. The proposed legislation is designed to overcome these deficiencies.
In the first place, the use of the income tax laws as a vehicle for subsidizing research and development effort is essentially discriminatory since eligibility depends on the firm's tax position. Under these circumstances, many small or growing firms which are not yet in a profit-making position, but which perhaps have the greater need for research and development assistance, are excluded. Hence, in order to broaden the availability of the general incentive and in the interests of equity, it is proposed to remove it from the Income Tax Act and to provide a system of statutory grants, or credits against tax liabilities if firms so choose, for which all firms could qualify. Further, unlike a tax allowance, the cost of a grant system is readily apparent and can be accounted for to parliament in the same way as other expenditures.
Under section 72A of the Income Tax Act, operating and capital expenditures were combined for the purpose of establishing the base and for calculating the additional allowance. Since capital expenditures fluctuate widely from year to year, this provision presented a serious handicap to those firms who had made major expenditures in the 1961 base year.
[DOT] (12:10 a.m.)
In our view, all capital expenditures for new facilities or equipment represent a prima facie expansion in the research capabilities of a firm and therefore should qualify fully for the bonus without regard to any base. Accordingly, we are proposing to treat capital

expenditures separately from operating expenditures for the purpose of the new incentive.
With regard to operating expenditures, the incremental feature is being retained, since the primary objective of the incentive is to produce a major expansion of research and development activity. To retain the effectiveness of the incentive and at the same time to improve its suitability for a program which is expected to continue for some years, a moving average base rather than a fixed base will be employed. Further, with regard to the determination of eligible research and development for the purpose of this incentive we are proposing to adopt a broader definition to emphasize eligibility and to bring the definition into line with the accepted international usage.
Finally, the responsibility for administering this new incentive program will be placed in the Department of Industry which has been charged by parliament with the responsibility for promoting the growth, efficiency and improvement of Canadian industry.
The government is convinced that a substantial increase in the level of industrial research and development is essential if Canadian industry is to accelerate its productivity and grow both in scope and size. The legislation envisaged by the bill before us will make a major contribution to the achievement of this goal.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, there is a question which I should like to put to the minister. I understand that there is some agreement with respect to expediting the passage of certain measures today and I am the last person to suggest that we should depart from an understanding. I regret that I had not understood the implications of the apparent understanding. To my mind this is an extremely important and far-reaching measure and I think it is a mistake to try to pass it at a quarter past 12 four days before Christmas when obviously we are not going to have the kind of discussion which the measure merits. I think that there should be, and there may well be, some discussion going on among the house leaders. I hope I will not be accused of a breach of understanding if I suggest that we should certainly go no further than second reading tonight and be afforded an opportunity to discuss this measure further in committee after Christmas. I say this because it is a very important and potentially far-reaching measure.
December 20. 1966


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think that a number of hon. members are here as a result of the understanding which had been reached among the house leaders. I may point out that one of the reasons for the understanding reached is that the present income tax incentive legislation under section 72A of the Income Tax Act is, as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, due to expire at the end of the current 1966 taxation year. I think that no one in the house would wish a gap or hiatus to be left in which there might be uncertainty as to what the future holds in this very important field. I suggest that perhaps the house would prefer to proceed with this measure which, I agree with the hon. member, is important. I would also suggest that it is necessary that we pass the bill before the end of the current year.


Edmund Davie Fulton: I realize that the calendar year expires on December 31st but I had the impression that the taxation year ends on March 31st. Is that not so?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Although I am not giving a legal opinion, the government's fiscal year ends March 31. It is normal for most corporations to have their taxation year coincide with the calendar year.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the minister. Has he made any calculations as to the amount of money that may be involved in the grants proposed under the bill?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, it is assumed that initially the grants will be roughly the same as those now claimed as deductions under the Income Tax Act because the legislation does provide statutory grants to corporations which are not in a profit position. If the hon. gentleman would like an estimate of the amounts in the past years, I would be glad to provide it.


David Lewis: I think it would be interesting to know, Mr. Speaker. I do not blame the minister for not having the information, but it would be useful to have on record the amount of money which is involved.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on this point I think the minister is obliged to provide the house with an estimate of the cost of the legislation which has been brought in if it does not coincide with the amount which was written off income tax in the past. In addition, the government is under obligation to give an estimate of the total cost of the legislation which is proposed.
Research


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this legislation is what one might call enabling legislation. The amount to be provided to meet these grants, as in other instances, is normally provided through the Appropriation Acts.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all that I find it extraordinary that the minister was hoping that this legislation would go through after midnight. I can do nothing more than endorse most vehemently and with all the energy I have the remarks made by the hon. member for Kamloops. This is a 15-page bill. It contains measures which I am sure have more than baffled the minister in their complexity because these are very complex income tax provisions. This house has not had this legislation for any great length of time. The bill was given first reading on December 6. I find it a somewhat lame excuse for the minister to come forward at this late date and say that we must pass it before the end of the year. I would say that if this is important legislation then, to put it crudely, this is a hell of a way of running the shop because this legislation should have been before the house long ago.
I am sure the minister will appreciate the fact that members of this house should be afforded the opportunity of studying the legislation unless they are to sit here as mute cattle and not say anything. Opportunity should be given to the opposition to examine the legislation in detail. The minister knows that when his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), comes forward with income tax provisions he always affords the house the opportunity of detailed study. Detailed examination of this measure should be undertaken by the bodies which may be affected, namely, the manufacturers' associations and some of the research bodies which might be interested in this type of provision. However laudable may be the government's objective in putting forward the legislation, the very complexity of such provisions may defeat their objective.
Although I must say that I have not been able to give the bill the fine tooth comb treatment I can see already that there are some great lacunae in it. First of all, the definition which has been given to "corporation" will mean that most industries will not benefit from such research in Canada because their operations in Canada are carried on either by divisions of foreign companies or by foreign companies merely registered in Canada. The definition in clause 2 completely eliminates

December 20, 1966
Research
such corporations, unless the minister can tell me otherwise. Forgive me if I make a direct reference to the clause.


Joseph-Alfred Mongrain: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We cannot hear the hon. member. It seems to me that the loud-speaker system is not working; we do not understand anything.


Mr. Pepin:: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) could perhaps move to another place.


Mr. Asselin (Richmond-Wolfe):: If the hon. member would speak louder, we could perhaps hear him.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: If the hon. member would like me to speak French, it would take me twice as much time.


Joseph Patrick Tobin Asselin: Your microphone is shut, the system is not working.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I regret that the loud-speaker system is not working; I will therefore speak a little louder.

I will just have to speak a little louder, Mr. Speaker. Clause 2, subclause (f) says:
"Corporation" means a corporation incorporated in and carying on business in Canada, other than a corporation that is exempt from tax under Part I of the Income Tax Act by section 62 of that act;
Perhaps the minister can tell us which corporations are exempt from tax under the Income Tax Act.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, these are charitable and other non-profit corporations, in case the hon. gentleman does not know.


Mr. Lamberi:: I thank the minister for the information but he will see the point I am driving at. In many industries of this country which have very extensive operations the operating units in Canada are not necessarily incorporated in Canada. I should like an opinion from the minister-he can seek one from the law officers of the crown-whether a foreign incorporated company that is registered to do business under any of the provincial companies acts would qualify under this bill for the grants. That is item No. 1 with which I have found a little difficulty.

However, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the general principle I do not know whether coming forward with this legislation is a confession that the legislation which existed in prior years, the incentives under the Income Tax Act, have failed to do the job that had been claimed. If I remember rightly-I am subject to correction-I seem to remember that a great deal was being made by the minister's former colleague, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), when he was minister of finance and introduced legislation dealing with industrial research incentives, that it was going to be a great boon. I know that a hesitant start was made in years prior, but many of these ideas have humble beginnings. I should like to know why the changes are being made. Why has the system of tax incentives which has been in existence hitherto been found not to be as successful as desired?
There is no question that there must be an almost explosive expansion of industrial and other research in Canada, not only basic but applied research, if we are to keep our trained personnel. There has been a noticeable reversal in the flow of scientific and other university trained personnel; they are now coming back to Canada. But I suggest, first of all, that we have to look at the matter of trained personnel from two points of view. We have to keep them here and we must encourage those who have gone abroad to come back to Canada.
The bill makes provision for research to be carried on at universities in that corporations may pay universities to do research for them. What I should like to know is this. If a consortium of companies gets together in a particular industry and wants to do research, none of them being big enough to undertake research on their own, will they qualify under the bill? I have known organizations which wanted to do this sort of thing.
Some of my colleagues wish to raise further questions with regard to this bill. I have looked briefly at the question of the base period, the period of operation of five years. What about a new firm which has been reorganized and reincorporated or the business has been transferred to other interests? These are all matters which will have to receive very careful attention during the clause by clause study.
My concluding remarks at this stage are these. We will want an indication from the minister of the type of regulations which will be made under clause 14. This is one of those horrible omnibus clauses about which I have spoken many times with regard to various bills.
December 20, I960

In other words, it is legislation that isn't. As a matter of fact, the bill that is brought before parliament is the bare bones. The real operation is conducted by regulations which are not subject to review by parliament. They are merely tabled.
We have before us another bill delegating powers which should be subject to review by a special or standing committee of this house appointed to review regulations made under delegating legislation. I will continue to insist upon this because I think it is a valid principle. This provision exists in the British parliament and is of fairly recent experience. The hon. member from Montreal can grin all he wants, but if he paid attention to some of the bills which come before this house perhaps we would have him on his feet from time to time participating in their discussion, indicating what is his knowledge of such legislation, legislation which he so assiduously supports from the back but never stands up to comment on.
Let me once more indicate that the regulations are highly important and can either make or break this bill. There are some very complicated interpretations of the income tax provisions. For example, what shall be the eligible current expenditures, what shall be the capital expenditures, the recovery of which is subject to regulation? I put it to hon. members that this will require very careful delineation and some explanation from the minister. I hope he will give us his undertaking when we get to the clause that the regulations will be tabled in the house as soon as they are made, not left to be filed on some statutory date according to other requirements of this house.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker-
[DOT] (12:30 a.m.)


Edmund Davie Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek information. I should like to know precisely what undertaking or arrangement was made or what order of the house was adopted at six o'clock. I return to my point that this is far too important and far-reaching a bill to be dealt with at this time of the day-in the early morning.
It is with the greatest reluctance that I even appear to run counter to any understanding which may have been reached but I say again to the minister that we should go no further tonight than second reading and that we should let the committee stage stand over until tomorrow. I realize that there is concern in the mind of the government to the extent that
Research
the bill is supposed to cover research expenditures incurred in a fiscal period ending in 1966. It is supposed to give tax relief for those expenditures. Understandably the government has made commitments in this connection and it therefore wishes to get the bill through before the end of the year, in other words, before the adjournment.
But the Income Tax Act has been and can be amended retroactively. If we do not get this bill through before December 31, 1966, the government could give effect to its undertaking by an amendment to the Income Tax Act made when the Minister of Finance introduces his budget next year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Edmund Davie Fulton: That is quite possible. It is not unusual. In any case there is a principle involved here to which we should not be irrevocably committed at 12.30 a week before Christmas with very few members present. As I say, I am prepared to have the bill given second reading and for it then to be set over until tomorrow for the committee stage. If that is not agreeable I should like to ask the Speaker to tell us what the order of the house was and I would then call it 10.30 or 11 or whatever time was agreed on as the hour of adjournment. I am not prepared to see this bill go through in a rush tonight.
The Aciing Speaker (Mr. Rinfrei): May I
point out that there was an order made by the house to proceed with order No. 93 and order No. 100 on today's order paper and then to adjourn.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would you read the exact words which were spoken about 8.15?


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was no extension of the hour of sitting, was there?


Some hon. Members:: Yes, there was.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What is the wording?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I will read what was said. This is the Deputy Speaker speaking:
Having agreed that the house will sit beyond ten o'clock, I understand that the two bills which are to receive priority are those set out in order No. 93 and order No. 100 on today's order paper.
It was agreed then.


Edmund Davie Fulton: There was no order of the house made?

Decembei 20, 1966
Research


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: If hon. members wish me to read further, I will do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: So that there will be no misunderstanding may I go over the different points again? Following this discussion we will have third reading of Bill C-251. We will then discuss items 93 and 100 on today's order paper. If there is time remaining we will consider items 79, 96, 104, 110 and 117. The house will sit after ten o'clock this evening with no time limit specified. Tomorow the house will sit from six o'clock to ten o'clock. Does the house agree that it be so ordered?
This was agreed by the hon. members.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is nothing there which indicates that this bill should be taken through all its stages. The contention which my hon. friend from Kamloops is putting forward is eminently reasonable. If we gave second reading to this bill and proceeded further tomorrow, that would be agreeable. But I must protest against this inordinate haste in trying to put through a bill which has been brought into this house on the eve of this very day.


An hon. Member:: Fourteen days at least.


Mr. Thompson:: It was generally agreed and it was ultimately passed as an order of the house that after completing Bill No. C-251 we would proceed with Bill No. C-252 and Bill No. C-253. We spent between three and three and a half hours in a somewhat futile debate on Bill No. C-251 which took up most of our time tonight. Be that as it may, I think it is reasonable that we should accept the point of order which has been raised by the hon. member for Kamloops. After all, there are 19 clauses in this bill covering some 15 pages. We cannot do justice to it tonight, though I believe we are in general agreement as to the principle of the bill. So I support what the hon. member for Kamloops has just said, that we pass second reading and then adjourn for the day.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one point clear. The order of the house tonight clearly provided that this bill should be passed. But in view of the obvious desire among members to discuss the bill in some detail and in view of the fact that other bills took longer than we anticipated, I would be quite agreeable, if it meets with the wishes of hon. members, to stop as soon as the second reading stage has been concluded. However, I would like to call a third reading item.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
unanimously agreed that the order made previously tonight be rescinded?


George James McIlraith: No. The order stands. But we ask to proceed to the second reading of this bill at this moment-


Gordon Minto Churchill: And stop there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is the
house unanimous?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I find myself confused by the motion Your Honour has just put. I understood that a motion for the second reading of this bill had already been made.


George James McIlraith: We have just carried it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On a question of privilege, before all these points of order were raised I had been recognized by Your Honour as wishing to speak on the second reading of the bill. My understanding of the agreement-


Mr. Monteith:: It was second reading which was being discussed.


Edmund Davie Fulton: Would the hon. member permit me to make this point? I felt we should not agree to proceed with all stages of the bill tonight as we had apparently been asked to do, and I felt that as a compromise we might agree to second reading and let the bill stand there. We can make any further speeches in committee on the bill tomorrow. Nobody's position is compromised since anything we may want to say on second reading can, I think, be said in committee.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: With all deference to the hon. member for Kamloops, I had been recognized by the Chair and though I have no desire to make a lengthy speech I do wish to make a few remarks on the second reading of the bill. Certainly I was not a party to any agreement that second reading should be deemed to have been passed. The hon. member for Edmonton West made a speech on second reading. The Chair then recognized me. I assure hon. members I have no desire to make a long speech, but my understanding is that we will finish second reading and not proceed with the committee stage. Is that correct?
[DOT] (12:40 a.m.)


George James McIlraith: That is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that we consider this bill in committee of the whole at the next sitting of the house?
December 20, 196S


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify the matter. We have the right to call the items of business that come before the house. I said we would be agreeable to proceeding only with second reading of this bill tonight, and then I made a qualification that there was another item, No. 96, a third reading, that we wanted to call. I believe no one wishes to speak on it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: After this merry-go-round I have almost forgotten what I wanted to say. However, some of the points I was going to raise are now qualified by the agreement which has been reached not to proceed with all stages tonight. 1 agree with the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) that this is an important piece of legislation. It is obvious that his colleague, the house leader, had not appreciated it was as important as the minister and many of the rest of us consider it.
One can readily agree with the basic principle of the bill, the furtherance of scientific research and development in the industrial field, and to that extent at least I am prepared to support its passage on second reading. On the other hand there are what I would call ancillary principles in the bill which raise serious questions in the minds of some of us.
One of the principles in the bill is that it is to be administered directly by the minister and that the determination of who is to get grants and for what purposes grants are to be made rest in the minister's hands. There is a provision that he can seek advice from such bodies as the National Research Council, but I think it is legitimate to question whether this is the soundest approach that could be taken and whether such matters should rest entirely in the hands of a minister or a department of government. It is possible that they could be better determined by some kind of scientific board. Not long ago we set up a science council for Canada. I do not suggest that it could function more effectively than the minister in this connection, but from the opportunity I have had to study the bill I question that the matter should rest entirely with the minister's department.
With respect to a bill of this kind, which will have such far-reaching and permanent effects on the direction in which scientific research is to go in Canada and its relationship to the industrial development of our country, there should be an opportunity for examination in depth before it is enacted as a statute. Though I and my colleagues are prepared to give at least conditional approval to second reading tonight, in our view this kind
Man.-Northwest Territories Boundary Act of bill could be better handled not by desultory discussion in committee of the whole house but by referring it to a standing or special committee where its implications, both financial and scientific, could be considered in depth and where representatives of industry and science could be called to explore the full implications of the bill.
As the hon. member for Edmonton West said, it is unfortunate that we are faced with the suggestion that if the bill is not passed by the end of the year there may be some hiatus in the research programs undertaken by certain firms. But rather than rush an important measure like this through the house, I think it would be better to act quickly to provide for an extension of the provisions of section 72A of the Income Tax Act, so that the present program could continue until this bill, or one which would result from detailed consideration of it, could be enacted.
This bill has appeared but recently on the order paper, with no advance warning until today that it was going to be called before the recess. Thus my understanding of it in some respects is still rather fragmentary. I am sure this is the case with many hon. members. Therefore I would ask the minister to give serious consideration to requesting his colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), to bring forward a temporary solution to meet the particular problem and give the house an opportunity to make a proper examination of what I think basically is a sound idea.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to speak on second reading but since we have agreed to give approval to the principle of the bill, and due to the lateness of the hour, I reserve the right to speak in general discussion when we reach committee stage of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
[DOT] (12:50 a.m.)



MANITOBA-NORTHWEST TERRITORIES BOUNDARY ACT DECLARATION OF BOUNDARY LINE SURVEYED AND MARKED

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Energy. Mines and Resources)'moved the third reading of Bill No. S-47, respecting the boundary between the province of Manitoba and the Northwest Territories.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
December 20, 1966
Business of the House BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we will be dealing with the transport bill and subject to royal assent being given to the old age pension supplement legislation, which we expect to have tomorrow night, we will be proposing that we adjourn for recess until January 9. That notice is on the order paper and I hope we can carry it out.
May I add one cautionary note. We may wish to revert to the bill which was under discussion just now some time during the day tomorrow. If this situation arises, however, I will be speaking to the house leaders about it.


Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker, a number of members have looked at this bill and feel it is a very important one. I understand there will be a great deal of discussion in respect of it, including discussion by members on the government side. I wonder whether the house leader would consider not dealing with this bill tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: I tried to introduce the cautionary note that we might wish to do so and if so I would speak to the house leaders about it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the house leader a question concerning the transport bill? When he introduced the bill today the Minister of Transport suggested he would be willing to stand clause 1 and move on to some of the other clauses if the house was in agreement. I am wondering whether any further consideration is being given to this.


George James McIlraith: I cannot very well settle that at the moment. I understand that this suggestion was made by the minister and I will draw the remarks which have just been made to his attention.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps at this point I should bring to the attention of hon. members who are still here after midnight that earlier in the course of the evening a point of order which I considered was very interesting and important was raised by the hon. member for Queens, at which time certain precedents were brought to the attention of the Chair. Since then additional research has been made on behalf of the Chair, and to the list of precedents which I at that time mentioned I should add the following dates: November 12, 1963, November 18, 1964, and October 11, 1963. I do not suggest this is a complete record of the precedents, because as I indicated at the time the precedents go back to 1867, but

they perhaps may indicate a more objective picture of the situation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.
George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, do I understand you are calling the proceedings on the adjournment motion? I wonder whether hon. members who are concerned in the adjournment debate would consider forgoing it.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I think it should be the prerogative of Mr. Speaker to determine that and simply rule that there will not be a debate on the adjournment motion.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the new rule a motion to adjourn the house is deemed to have been moved, so no formal motion is required. I would suggest, however, that there is no power in the hands of Mr. Speaker to say to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, the hon. member for Lotbiniere, or the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres that they will not have an opportunity to have their say in connection with the matters they raised earlier today.



LABOUR RELATIONS-C.N.T.U.-DEFINITION OF BARGAINING UNIT

Maurice Allard: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday, December 13, I put the following question to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson):
"As the ministerial committee has submitted its report to the cabinet, does the government intend to introduce shortly a bill defining the negotiating units and recognizing them on the natural as well as on the national level?"
The head of the government thought it best at that time not to answer. Maybe he hoped that I would repeat my question on proceedings on the adjournment motion, so that he might have the opportunity to make a more substantial and complete statement. At least, we all hope this is the case, since the controversy was brought up several months ago and has not yet been settled in any positive and efficient manner.
Early in 1966, the C.N.T.U. made violent protests to the cabinet over C.C.R.O. decisions and also protested against the type of representation in this federal organization. In addition to voicing grievances in connection
December 20, 1986	COMMONS
with the lack of equal representation at interunion conflicts, the absence of bilingual members of the C.C.R.O., and the importance of the president's vote whenever a problem opposes unions represented at the C.C.R.O., the C.N.T.U. criticized-and rightly so-the exclusive meaning which the C.C.R.O. attributes to the negotiating unit.
The C.C.R.O. insists that the negotiating unit applies only on the national level and refuses to recognize it on the natural level.
This corrupt and unchanging attitude of the C.C.R.O. is detrimental to the freedom of workers. It is up to the employees to choose their union. This choice must not be dictated by the employer, unless we want to apply to Canada-either directly or indirectly-the theories which are predominant in communist and totalitarian countries.
It must be pointed out that if the C.C.R.O. has limited the scope of negotiating units to the national level, it is because they have-in their narrow-minded way-interpreted the law itself which does not give any precise definition of the negotiating unit.
This is why it has become more than urgent to amend section 2, subsection 3 of the Industrial Relations Act, so that certain unfair and antidemocratic decisions may be rectified, thus allowing recognition of the negotiating units, on the natural as well as on the national level.
This uneasiness is not of recent date. A ministerial committee was set up last April. It took the committee nine months to submit, last December 8, a report of its findings to the right hon. Prime Minister. I hope the Prime Minister or his parliamentary secretary will not go into a prolonged nirvana, but that one of them will assure the house tonight that the act will be amended very shortly, so that justice, freedom and equality may finally be respected in Canada.


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, according to our parliamentary tradition and custom, the proceedings of such a committee can be made available to the public only when its final report is ready for publication. I am surprised that the hon. member is not aware of this basic rule of our procedure.
At any rate, I can assure him that the committee is very active and since its membership includes the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) and the Minister of
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), one can see the seriousness with which this government considers the problem; it ensures the value of the report which will be published in due course.
tt (1:00 a.m.)



CRIMINAL CODE-AMENDMENT RESPECTING CONFESSIONS OF PRISONERS

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I am greatly moved to speak-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under provisional standing order 39A, at ten o'clock p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday or Thursday Mr. Speaker may, notwithstanding the provisions of standing orders 6 (3) and 32(2), deem that a motion to adjourn the house has been made and seconded, whereupon such motion shall be debatable for not more than 30 minutes. This provisional standing order does not say anything about one o'clock on the following day; it refers to ten o'clock p.m. In view of the fact that it is now one o'clock a.m. I suggest that this debate is entirely out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: There seems to have been unanimous consent to proceed with the adjournment motion following the suggestion by Mr. Pepin, supported by Mr. Mcllraith, that we continue with the adjournment proceedings.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I objected to that earlier.


George James McIlraith: No, no one took exception at that point.


Mr. Mackasey:: May I speak on this point for a moment, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: No. I
have ruled that we should proceed on the adjournment motion.


Gordon Minto Churchill: This is a shocking abuse of the staff of this house.


Auguste Choquette: It will only take me two minutes to complete my remarks.


Gordon Minto Churchill: That is a pretty selfish attitude on your part.


Auguste Choquette: You have abused us so much, I shall continue.
U442	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I shall he very brief, hut I want to say, first of all, that I am greatly moved to speak before such a large gathering.
My question was the following, to which I will add a preamble.
In a modern society, Mr. Speaker, every effort is made, of course, to assure its members maximum protection against evil-minded citizens who are a menace to law and order. Police action is an inescapable necessity in a civilized country, and, too often, the merits of the police force are not recognized as they should.
It is therefore of the utmost importance that existing laws do not paralyse crime detection, and sufficient latitude should be given to investigators who, sometime heroically, have to unmask the crimes and wickedness of blackguards who only understand the language of force.
Nevertheless in Canada, considering the advanced stage of North American civilization, our country being foremost in the social field, human sciences are being developed rapidly enough to allow us to resort to something else than brute force on inmates, to serve the purposes of justice.
Therefore, I should like to make some suggestions in regard to the deplorable acts of violence, in regard to which the Quebec Bar requested a royal inquiry. I should point out, Mr. Speaker, that in order to prevent such police brutality against accused persons and inmates, first of all, those in charge of questioning them should have had intensive training, should know enough about human sciences, should be proficient enough so far as the interrogation of inmates is concerned to be able to obtain a confession without resorting to violence and brute force.
Second, I believe there should be close co-operation between the officers representing justice on the one part, and defence counsel on the other part, so that the latter may seek something else than proving at all costs the innocence of their clients. If, on the contrary, they are able to throw some light on the case and serve the purposes of justice, if they are convinced of the guilt of their clients for instance, let them cooperate more closely with justice instead of dealing with lost causes.
Third, the accused should not be requested to make a confession in the absence of his lawyer. This does not prevent police officers from being free to question the prisoner, but 
DEBATES	December 20, 1966
any confession which was obtained otherwise than in the presence of the lawyer of the accused would not be valid.
Fourth, the provisions of the Bill of Rights should be enforced more energetically than they are at the present time. Moreover, the Criminal Code should stipulate that any policeman or any officer of the law who refuses to let a prisoner get in touch with his lawyer is guilty of an offence punishable by summary conviction. And so, the stipulations of the Bill of Rights would be enforced, which they are not today. We know what happens too often: policemen or officers of the law refuse to let their prisoners get in touch with their lawyer.
I shall sum up my considerations. We cannot paralyse police action by cynical laws. The policemen must be given some latitude, for they are often brave or heroic, but, on the other hand, we should censure loudly any brutality on their part. If we applied the suggestions I am putting forward, we could, I believe, avoid the excesses that we had to deplore recently.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that the hon. member for Lotbiniere brings his problem before the House of Commons because his reputation in support of his fellow man is well known in the House of Commons. He has demonstrated that support by his interest in safety measures on the highways at level crossings. It is natural that he should take this opportunity to express his concern in view of the fact that in recent days in the city of Montreal there have been at least six fatalities brought to the attention of the public.
Certain safety measures have already been incorporated by the United States. They have adopted the principle that accused persons should be represented by legal counsel regardless of whether or not they are in a financial position to do so. This is a principle which should be adopted by Canada, and it presents a great challenge to the members of the bar, some of whom are present here. Too many Canadians are penalized, because of their financial position, by being inadequately represented in our courts. I highly commend to the Department of Justice the worth-while and sensitive suggestion of the hon. member for Lotbiniere.
December 20. 1968	COMMONS


Auguste Choquette: I wish to thank the hon. member for Verdun (Mr. Mackasey) for the generous compliments he paid me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I recognize the hon. member for Trois-Rivieres.
[DOT] (1:10 a.m.)



SPORT-PEE-WEES-REFUSAL TO AUTHORIZE TRIP TO EUROPE

Mr.   J.-A. Mongrain@Trois-Rivieres: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of being out of order,
I would like to say first of all how shocked I was at seeing all Conservatives help in wasting the time of the house a while ago and then object to our taking seven minutes.
I shall state my case briefly. What is involved in the question I wish to raise? Two pee-wee hockey teams, in the 10-12 age group, were selected by the Montreal Expo to make a tour in Europe. Then, what is the problem? Well, the problem is that they cannot get on the ice in Europe without the authorization of the C.A.H.A. and of the Q.P.H.A. Now, what we ask is that the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), who is responsible for Expo, and perhaps the commissioner general of Expo talk some sense into the manager of that monopoly, of that trust which goes by the name of C.A.H.A., which so often has been a cause for complaints here, in the House of Commons.
When I make this request, Mr. Speaker, I am in good company, since I have the support of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) and of the hon. member for Saint-Henri (Mr. Lessard). I am also supported by the mayors of Ville LaSalle, Cap-de-la-Madeliene, Trois-Rivieres and Montreal; I have in my hand the documents referring to those matters and I also have the material submitted by the Expo commission which endorses this tour.
What is the excuse alleged to prevent that tour? Trivial, childlike, frivolous, even false reasons have been given in many cases.
They say, for instance, that there is a breach of the rules under which the authorization for such a tour must be requested. We requested it and it is refused to us. We are told that the teams are not permitted to go and play against European teams; they are not going to play against European teams, they are going to play one against the other. One will represent Expo and the other the centennial commission.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
They say that the C.A.H.A. cannot vote against its own rules; we are going to prove to them that it has done so 15 times. Then, it is stupid to think that the men are made to serve the rules. I would rather think that the rules are made to serve the men and that there are some exceptional cases.
They say that there is a rule which forbids the young people to go and play outside the province, outside the country. That is true and we agree to it; we understand the desirability of such attitude. However, we say that on many occasions the C.A.H.A. made exceptions and we feel that Expo '67 and the centennial are exceptional cases.
It is said that those young people run the risk of falling ill if they go to Europe. They will be accompanied by their parents; they will also be accompanied by serious people such as Mr. Jacques Plante, some mayors and city councillors. They will get the required vaccinations before they leave. We could mention the case of 25 young people of the same age going to Europe with their parents, to study, and who are not any the worse for it. They are not going to China or Japan; they are going to England, France, Belgium, Germany.
It is said that some industries would endorse or support the venture for advertising purposes; that is not true. It is said that they are free to go if they want to. Yes, but what is not said is that afterwards they will be forbidden to play in organized hockey for many years because there is a trust, a monopoly called the C.A.H.A. which prevents them from going.
It is said that the C.A.H.A. is afraid of being held responsible. Those who sponsor that trip are taking all the insurance necessary and are ready to sign all the documents needed to release the C.A.H.A.
Now, those who are organizing the trip are not asking anyone for money. They will put up $20,000 to finance it. All they are asking for is to be left alone, to be allowed to advertise Expo, nothing else.
It is suggested that the Physical Fitness Council objects to such things. We understand that, because, as a rule, it is not the policy to allow those young people to go and play abroad. We feel that in view of the precautionary measures taken in the present case and due mainly to the extraordinary event called Expo '67, they should be allowed to go.
Mr. Speaker, we are only asking-and it is not the first time we do so in the house-that
11444	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion the proper authorities bring to reason the responsible people in the C.A.H.A., who exert full control over sports in Canada, so that they will grant the permission being asked in this case. Of course, the unusual circumstances requiring those young people to go and play in Europe are appreciated.
As I said earlier, we are not asking money of anyone, we are accepting all the responsibilities. We are only asking not to be hindered. If we do not get that permission from the CA.H.A., we shall not be able to make a good showing in Europe. Does that make any sense? Those young people are liable to penalties.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to insist on the fact that all the sport reporters in the province of Quebec, without exception, provided all those concerned with a considerable amount of clippings on this subject and endorsed the project. They cried shame when they saw that the C.A.H.A. would not listen to reason in such a case. Like many others, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the time has not come to bring the C.A.H.A. to its senses for good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, following the question put this afternoon to the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters), probably
DEBATES	December 20, 1966
in view of his responsibility concerning Expo '67, the minister contacted the president of the Canada Amateur Hockey Association, Mr. Page.
The minister has asked me to point out to all those concerned the importance of this matter. Indeed, the matter has been brought to his attention by two members, the hon. members for Saint-Henri and Trois-Rivieres (Messrs. Lessard and Mongrain). In view of those representations, the minister felt himself bound to discuss the matter this afternoon with officials of the association.
The minister has reviewed with Mr. Page all the details of this matter and has asked him to make sure that all angles of this problem are taken into full and serious consideration; he also expressed the hope that a decision will be taken only in the light of all the circumstances in order to ensure a just and fair decision.
I expect that the hon. member will be satisfied that the minister went as far as he was allowed to.
I may add, in my personal capacity as member for Quebec South, that I would look favourably upon the Canadian Amateur Hockey Association taking exceptional decisions in exceptional circumstances. I would be happy to wish "Bon Voyage" to our pee-wees.

Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 1.18 a.m., pursuant to special order.

Wednesday, December 21, 1966