1966-02-10

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to advise the house that an objection, signed by the hon. members for Lapointe, Kamouraska, Rob-erval, Medicine Hat, Sherbrooke, Charlevoix, Chambly-Rouville, Waterloo South, Megantic and Compton-Frontenac (Messrs. Gregoire, Dionne, Gauthier, Olson, Allard, Asselin, Pilon, Saltsman, Langlois and Latulippe), has been addressed to me in accordance with section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter 31 of the Statutes of Canada, 1964-65, with regard to the report of the electoral boundaries commission for the province of Quebec on the proposed Lapointe electoral district.

If the house will agree, I suggest that we follow the procedure used on former occasions in this session so that the text of the objection will be printed as an appendix to Votes and Proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



EDUCATION


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies of my letter of January 17 to the provinces dealing with the interim arrangement to increase federal per capita grants to universities and the seven replies I have so far received to that letter. Three replies are to come, from Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and they will be tabled as soon as they have been received.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister would agree that the correspondence be published as an appendix to today's proceedings. I think it would be a good idea to have it on the record.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would certainly agree with that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that this document be published as an appendix to
Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text referred to above, see appendix.]



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he could give the house something of a summary of the representations being made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce to the Minister of Scientific Research of France on the subject of the sale of uranium. Would the Prime Minister say whether the minister was authorized to place before the French authorities changes that might be made in the regulations regarding inspection, so that a sale might be made on the terms offered by France? Are changes being contemplated in this connection, to the conditions agreed among Britain, Canada and the United States?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the minister was not authorized to resume negotiations in this matter, nor did he resume negotiations. Perhaps in reply to my right hon. friend's question I could put into the record the text of the press release which was issued after his talks with the minister concerned in the French government. It reads as follows:
Canadian Minister of Trade and Commerce, Hon. Robert Winters, and French Minister of Scientific Research, Mr. Alain Peyrefitte, had an exchange of views of a general nature today on various aspects of technical co-operation between their two countries. In minister's opinion, their conversation should be seen in the context of growing co-operation between France and Canada, which is reflected in frequent ministerial contacts between the two countries. The conversation enabled the two ministers to review the main question connected with a possible sale of Canadian uranium for use in the development of the French nuclear power program. The ministers had the opportunity during their conversation to clarify the positions of their


Inquiries of the Ministry respective governments. The questions involved will be the subject of further discussion at a later date.
They also discussed the forthcoming international Expo at Montreal, in particular the prospects for French participation in the fields of research and development. The two ministers noted with satisfaction that their conversation had been most useful and they will be reporting on the points discussed to their two governments.
Mr. Speaker, there has been no change in the position, with regard to the sale of uranium from Canada to France.


John George Diefenbaker: Will the Prime Minister say whether there have been discussions among the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada regarding a change in any of the regulations now existing which require, and I think properly so, that any uranium sold shall be for peaceful purposes only and, to assure that, shall be subject to necessary inspection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, our position remains as already stated, that we accept the international controls which have been laid down in respect of this matter. There has been no change in that position. There are no conversations between Canada and any government which would indicate any such change. At the moment, Mr. Speaker, we are concentrating on discussions at Geneva to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons.


John George Diefenbaker: We took that stand in 1962.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: In
connection with the trip of the Minister of Trade and Commerce to France, is one of the purposes of the minister's visit to arrange a deal for the purchase of this small, eight passenger French jet plane, as reported in today's La Pressed


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The night before last on CBC-TV the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in the course of an interview that not only had Hon. Eric Kierans written to the United States authorities regarding United States guide lines, but that the federal government had also written, as well as making verbal representation. I want to ask the Minister of Finance if he has written any

letter to any of the United States authorities regarding this subject, and if so, would he care to table it?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a question that should be answered by my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is the minister responsible for the conduct of our foreign relations.


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there were, of course, representations made.


John George Diefenbaker: In writing?


Paul Joseph James Martin: In the form of aide-memoires to the government of the United States. These were supplemented by consultations by members of the public service of Canada, and those in turn were supplemented by representations made by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. They were very strong representations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. I take it that the Minister of Finance has made no representations. I wish to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, since the representations were made by his department in an aide-memoire, whether he is prepared to table that document.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easi: I will take that question as notice.


Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: A supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of reports published in Toronto that a document has been prepared for the government of Ontario which purports to indicate that the United States guide lines will be detrimental to Ontario industry, has the minister asked for a copy of this document, since its allegations would appear to conflict with the opinions he has delivered in the house?


Mitchell William Sharp: Last week the Minister of Trade and Commerce for Canada reported on the result of his investigation on the effect upon trade of these guide lines. This report confirmed the opinion I had expressed earlier that up to the present time there have been no adverse effects upon Canada. I believe that in this respect we are quite well able to make the required investigation and determine the facts.
[Translation1


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, might I also put a question to the Minister of Finance?


Can the minister tell us if insurance companies, which are subsidiaries in Canada of American firms, have been instructed, in keeping with the new American guide lines, to decrease their investments in Canada and to channel certain amounts to the United States instead?


Mitchell William Sharp: This is a technical question. I do not know whether it would be more appropriate to have it on the order paper or for me to take it as notice, but I cannot answer it now.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffiey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the announcement yesterday by the automobile industry regarding the double braking system and collapsible steering column safety features for new cars. It is addressed to the Minister of Industry. Has the minister been given any details of these proposed changes, and in spite of this announcement by the industry will he assure the house that the government will press on as fast as possible toward the completion of a government code of safety standards relating to automobile products?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: am sure everyone in the house will welcome this further step by manufacturers toward improving the safety of automobiles. I do have some further details which I would be glad to give the hon. member later; I do not think this is the time to do so. I can give the house the reassurance that we will press on as rapidly as possible with the development of standard specifications relating to greater safety.


William Heward Grafftey: I wish to thank the minister for that reply. Does he consider that these proposed changes are significant as long as they cannot be measured against performance standards specified by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is now asking a theoretical question. I suggest it is out of order.
Inquiries of the Ministry INCOME TAX



REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN BASIC EXEMPTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
['I suggest that would not be any more in order than the first question.']
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchester-Hanls):: My
question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the continuing rise in the cost of living, is the minister giving consideration to an increase in the basic exemptions on personal income tax?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a proper question.


Mr. Reg Canlelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that in the Speech from the Throne in the Saskatchewan legislature the government forecast a reduction of 1 per cent in personal income tax, would the minister give consideration to following this policy in the preparation of his budget?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. J. E. Walker (York Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent remarks by the Ontario provincial treasurer, as reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail of February 10, is the federal government contemplating withdrawal from the income tax field in order to avoid double taxation of Canadian citizens?


Mr. Speaker:: Important and timely as the question is, I suggest it is a question on broad policy and could not be considered at this time.



[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: The house will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister yesterday tabled a copy of a letter dated January 24, 1966 received from Ho Chi Minh. I wish to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he or anyone in the government has replied to that letter and, if so, whether he would agree to table a copy of the reply.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No reply has yet been sent.


David Lewis: Does the Prime Minister intend to reply to that letter and, if so, how soon is it likely to be sent?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The question of a reply is now under consideration.


Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has had a chance to read the statement made by Mr. Woodcock, vice president of the United Automobile Workers, concerning parity of prices between Canada and the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that asking a minister whether he has read a document is not a proper way to put a question, and I suggest that it might be placed on the order paper.


Alfred Dryden Hales: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I simply asked the minister if he had read it, and I meant to ask would he care to comment on it if he had read it.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that would not be any more in order than the first question.



OLD AGE SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. E. D. Fulton (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he received a telegram from the gentleman who is now the member for Parkdale and parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Haidasz), urging an increase in pensions and their payment at age 65? If so, what answer was sent, or what action is contemplated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that. I do not think I received such a telegram, but I shall inquire.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of recent alarming reports about bootlegging of the dangerous mind-changing drug L.S.D., a lysergic acid derivative, I would like to ask the minister what steps are being taken to stop this traffic.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minisler of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the sale of this drug is prohibited under the Food and Drugs Act. However, there are certain instances where exceptions are made, where the sales of the drug are not controlled. There are some indications that there is an illicit traffic in it, and at present investigations are being undertaken to see in what way this illicit traffic might be controlled.


Philip Bernard Rynard: As a supplementary question, does this drug come under the Narcotic Control Act?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is under the Food and Drugs Act.


Philip Bernard Rynard: But not the narcotics act?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXCLUSION OF CANADIAN CITIES IN HOCKEY LEAGUE EXPANSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask a question of the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent decision, a particularly unfortunate one, that Vancouver shall not be included in the National Hockey League, and in view of the Prime Minister's commitment made last fall in Vancouver that a federal contribution would be made toward the cost of a new building in Hastings Park, in Vancouver East; and in view of the decision of the local authorities to proceed with the construction, I have been requested to ask the Prime Minister whether he can now give an assurance that the federal offer of a contribution still stands.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, because the proposal had nothing to do with a hockey rink.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. While I do not know whether this falls strictly within the authority of the government of Canada-the Prime Minister shakes his head, so he knows what I am going to ask him-in view of the decision made yesterday by the N.H.L. board of governors that in effect restricts the number of Canadian teams to two and increases the number of American teams, which cannot but have a detrimental effect on Canadian young men desiring to enter that profession, would he, with his interest in sports, bring to the attention of the board-I think members


generally believe this should be done-that we would like to see Canada with larger representation in that league?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, I have a good many problems facing me these days, and I hope I do not have to take on those of the National Hockey League. But my right hon. friend has raised a question which is of great interest to all Canadians, and I think all Canadians will regret that the directors of a professional sports organization, in their wisdom, saw fit to extend their activities into the United States and did not see fit to include Vancouver. But who am I-


Mr. Starr:: The Prime Minister of Canada.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -to assess the reasons behind such a decision? So far as the right hon. gentleman's suggestion is concerned that this might interfere-I forget how he put it-with the activities of young Canadian hockey players, it seems to me it will only decide whether they will be playing in St. Louis or Vancouver.


Gilles Grégoire: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
In view of the fact that the city of Quebec was also refused a franchise in the national league and that most of the players in that league come from Canada and are Canadian citizens, could the Prime Minister see to it that legislation is enacted to protect the rights of hockey players who would prefer to play in Canada rather than in the United States?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume the proposition made by the hon. member has been noted by the government, and I suggest that now we should revert to matters which are of a little more urgent and immediate national importance.


Mr. R. W. Prittie (Burnaby-Richmond):: With respect, Your Honour, I have a further supplementary question on this subject which I would like to direct to the Minister of Justice. Investigations have taken place in the United States concerning organized baseball and monopolistic practices, and I wonder whether the minister could review the Combines Investigation Act to ascertain whether there is a section there under which an investigation could be carried on into the decision to keep Vancouver out of the league.
Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Perhaps this question could be placed on the order paper.



REQUEST FOR ANNOUNCEMENT OF GRANTS TO FITNESS COUNCIL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. W. Groos (Victoria, B.C.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of some urgency I wish to direct to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I could explain the background to this question but I will not take the necessary time to do so. Is the minister now ready to announce the grants to be made by the government to the Canada fitness council for amateur sports?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, within a very short time.


David Walter Groos: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare which arises out of the reply he just gave to my question concerning grants made by the fitness council. Will the minister be able to make this announcement before the end of this week, inasmuch as one of the grants that has been requested concerns a national tournament which will be held in Victoria before the end of this month?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry and Defence Production a question about the Canada-U.S. treaty for the automobile industry.
Will the house be given shortly the opportunity to study that matter?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do hope so.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries in connection with possible legislation to enable foreign


Inquiries of the Ministry draggers to land fish at Canadian ports. Some time ago, in fact on September 24, 1964, the minister indicated that this matter was under study by his department, the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Justice. I should now like to ask the minister whether he has had sufficient time to make this study, and has a decision been reached on this matter?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, in the first place the matter originally referred to by the hon. member and brought to the attention of the house in 1964, was different from the subject matter of the question he has asked today. I wish to emphasize that there has been no change in policy on the part of the government in this regard.



SEALS-INQUIRY AS TO AMENDMENT OF REGULATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: wish to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Would the minister advise the house whether officials of his department have met with ship owners who propose to prosecute the seal fishery next month, and if so have the laws regulating the industry been published?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: In reply, Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the hon. member that some weeks ago meetings took place between the officials of the Department of Fisheries and representatives of the sealing industry, as well as with members of the S.P.C.A. Amendments have been proposed, and I signed a submission for an order in council this morning which would cover such amendments.


James Roy Tucker: Will the minister advise the house if extra precautions will be taken to see that seals giving birth to pups are given protection?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Every possible precaution is being taken.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: have a further supplementary question. Will the minister inform the house if some of his own departmental officers will be on board ships partaking in the seal kill this year, as they did in previous seasons?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in so far as possible there will be a fisheries protection officer aboard every ship engaged in the sealing operation in the gulf.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, this is a kindly reminder to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Having had some hours in which to meditate in respect of the three questions I asked him yesterday, is he now in a position to reply?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am. There are no administrative arrangements for the cold weather trials of the kind referred to in the question raised by my hon. friend. Furthermore, having in mind what the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) had to say the other day on this subject, I have been able to confirm that there have been no mass protests against the proposed talk. In any event, I know of no justifiable basis upon which the Canadian government could deny this particular gentleman the opportunity of making this speech. As I said yesterday, in our country we do not deny or restrict freedom of speech.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the questions raised by the minister in his answer, I will take this as notice and reply tomorrow.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, in view of the hon. member's remark, I wish to raise this at ten o'clock.



EXPO '67 MONTREAL-POSSIBLE STRIKE OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Warren Allmand (Nofre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce or in his absence to the minister's parliamentary secretary. There is a report in this morning's he Devoir that there are indications that there will be a strike in the construction industry in Montreal, which would also affect Expo '67. In view of the fact that I thought Expo was protected from strikes of this nature, would the minister please advise the house whether this report is correct?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question based on a report in the press is not an acceptable question at this time.


William Warren Allmand: Could the minister tell us whether such a strike is possible?



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I am not certain whether it should be directed to the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, because it deals with both departments. Therefore I would ask these two ministers to give recognition to my question. In view of the shortage at the present time of deep sea fishermen on Canada's east coast, is it the government's intention to amend the present immigration laws or to encourage in any way larger numbers of Portuguese fishermen or fishermen of any other nation to emigrate to Canada?
_ Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries): Mr. Speaker, the requirement for a large number of skilled fishermen is certainly being studied very carefully by the Department of Fisheries and the governments of the Atlantic provinces. We are interested in providing facilities for our young men interested in the fisheries to take special courses and qualify to operate the large number of trawlers now being built on the Atlantic coast.
In so far as our immigration regulations are concerned, I understand that no changes are needed to allow a certain number of qualified fishermen to emigrate to Canada.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker,
I wonder whether I may direct a question to the Secretary of State in her capacity as the minister who reports to the house for the C.B.C. I would ask the hon. lady whether it is planned to proceed this evening at 9.30 with the C.B.C. television program that I think is called "Telescope". I understand this program will have as one of its guests a lady by the name of Helen Riley, who purports to be a native Indian of Canada. If it is the intention of the C.B.C. to go ahead with this program, will there be a disclaimer of sorts in the program indicating that this young lady is not an Indian either by ancestry or legal status?
Inquiries of the Ministry Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of Slate):
Mr. Speaker, I received a complaint a couple of days ago with respect to the matter to which my hon. friend refers. I directed an inquiry to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and was informed that there was indeed a woman of this name who was being used in the program, as then planned at least. The message I received was that the allegation that she was not Indian would be investigated, and if this was found to be the truth and the section of the program in which she was to appear was used, there would be no statement that her status was other than what it was proven to be.
[Translation1



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
It has to do with a news report published this morning to the effect that a spectacular demonstration of colour television had been given yesterday morning in the studios of channel 10 in Montreal.
Could the minister tell us whether he intends to take into consideration the recommendations of the Fowler commission on broadcasting so that broadcasting services could be provided to Canadian centres that are still without stations, such as Chibouga-mau and Chapais?


Mr. Speaker:: I would suggest to the hon. member that he put his question on the order paper.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that matter does not come within my particular jurisdiction.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask whether it is the intention of the government
998	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry to call another federal-provincial conference on medicare insurance, or whether the government has decided to proceed with the legislation and abandon any hope of another conference at which the majority of the provinces might agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not the intention to convene another conference of ministers to discuss medical care.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the intention of the government to introduce legislation respecting medicare at this session of parliament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the statement made in the Speech from the Throne still stands.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question, if I may, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. With regard to the letter that was written by the President of the United States to the Canadian government with reference to assistance in Viet Nam, I wonder whether the minister would tell us when he first asked to have that letter produced or tabled for public knowledge.


Hon. Paul  Mariin@Secretary of State for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend may recall that the first time was last August when the Prime Minister indicated that he was going to ask the President whether he would agree to publication, and the President took the position that he could not agree to publication.


Mr. Churchill:: Were they on speaking
terms?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Then on Thursday or Friday, I forget which, our ambassador was notified of the question which my hon. friend had put in the form of a motion, and a request was then made of the President. The President was then, of course, on his way to Honolulu. He has since returned, and when he can find the time he will undoubtedly be faeed with this particular request.
.
DEBATES	February 10, 1986



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindi@Macleod: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister in charge of Indian affairs and ask whether his department has purchased or intends to purchase the Stampede ranch west of Longview, Alberta, for the purpose of increasing the size of the Eden Valley Indian reserve.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that the hon. member place this very important question on the order paper.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, last Monday I asked the Minister of Labour certain questions with respect to allegations of intimidation by the United Press International. The minister said he had received a wire that morning and had given it to his officers for a report to him, but had not yet received a report. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether he is now ready to answer the questions I asked last Monday, which will be found on page 807 of Hansard.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 

FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Yesterday I asked the minister a question about the presence of Soviet trawlers in Dixon entrance on the coast of British Columbia. In view of the fact that the report on which I based my question appeared in yesterday morning's Toronto Globe and Mail and indicated not only the presence of these trawlers but that one had been inside our 12-mile territorial fishing zone and had withdrawn at the request of the Canadian government, I wonder if the minister could clarify the answer he gave yesterday to the effect that there were no recent reports of Soviet trawlers in this area.


Hédard-J. Robichaud: The reply which I gave the hon. member yesterday still stands. The article referred to appeared in the Globe and Mail, and I have since seen the article. It stated that one of our senior protection officers had said he had sighted a dozen or so Soviet trawlers in Dixon entrance during the past month. My officials have contacted the officer concerned, and what he told the reporter was that Soviet trawlers were operating off Dixon entrance, not in Dixon entrance as the newspaper stated.
This incident took place on January 30. It was for this reason I said yesterday I had not received any late report. Since that date there has been no report by our patrol vessels of sightings of Soviet vessels in Hecate strait, Dixon entrance or any Canadian fishing zone.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere):: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Could the minister inform the house whether he is going to suggest, as I feel is necessary, the presentation of a preliminary report of the Canadian committee on penal reform before we deal with the death penalty question?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to give the undertaking suggested in the hon. member's question.
Inquiries of the Ministry IMMIGRATION



REPORTED REQUIREMENT THAT IMMIGRANTS SPEAK ENGLISH OR FRENCH

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Earlier this session in reply to a question I asked the minister assured me that a white paper on immigration was being prepared prior to the presentation of amendments to the Immigration Act. I have in my file a letter from an applicant in Hong Kong who was denied entrance to Canada because he could not understand either the English or the French language. I bring this to the attention of the minister and ask him if these eligibility requirements are being established.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest to the hon. member that the representation he has made will be considered by the minister. If the hon. member wants to pursue the matter, he may put his question on the order paper.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scot! (Danforlh): I wonder if I could direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports of a speech in Toronto by the minister in which he is alleged to have said that the family allowance program needs review, including among other things the amount paid, and in view of the widespread interest in this matter, is the government reviewing this legislation and can we look forward in this session to amendments to the legislation revising upward family allowance payments?
Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I stated at the provincial conference of health ministers, the department is presently undertaking a review of the family allowance program and is considering the points raised by my hon. friend.
I cannot give any assurance one way or the other that the matter will be dealt with this session.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works in his role as government house leader. When


Supply-Transport
does the government expect to table the 1966-67 estimates?


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public Works):: Monday, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO SETTING UP OF JOINT RESTAURANT COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works in his capacity as house leader why, in the tabling of the personnel of the proposed restaurant committee, there is no representation from the House of Commons. I am aware of some of the difficulties, but would the minister be in a position to advise how soon that joint committee can be constituted?


George James McIlraith: I am not able to give that information now, Mr. Speaker, but I shall look into the matter to determine when this special committee can be set up.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Can the
minister also assure the house the committee will have some authority when it is set up?


George James McIlraith: It is a special committee, and the question of its authority is a matter for the house.


William Arnold Peters: When can we expect the government to give consideration to the formal establishment of this committee as a joint committee?


George James McIlraith: I just indicated in answer to a question a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that I was not able to answer that question at the moment. I will look into it immediately.

The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hinfret in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $4,862,900.
John Whitney Pickersgill: Before we continue with another speaker, Mr. Chairman, if I may I should like to complete the sentence I was unable to complete last night because we had reached five o'clock. I was saying I thought it would be in the interests of Canada if a third channel for television were made available to metropolitan Toronto, and if as good service could be given to Barrie as is now being given by the channel there.
.
[DOT] (3:20 p.m.)
I feel that it would be in the interests of Canada to have this channel before anything happens in the United States which may deny to that very large aggregation of viewers the opportunity of having a third Canadian channel. I also said I felt that the protection of the rights and interests of United States channels was something primarily for the United States government and not for the Canadian government.
I noticed, sir, that in the Toronto morning newspaper there was a reference to the debate here yesterday. I should like to make it clear that the writer apparently misunderstood what I think is quite clear in Hansard and attributed an observation which I made about Mr. Douglas Fisher to Mr. Bassett. I said that I did not think Mr. Douglas Fisher could be regarded as an entirely unprejudiced witness, and I think that anyone who reads Hansard will see that he was the one referred to and not Mr. Bassett. I would just like to set the record straight.


Reid Scott: Why do you bring up personalities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I said that he could not necessarily be regarded as an unprejudiced witness. I did not say that he was an unprejudiced witness.


Reid Scott: If the minister mentions personalities he should put some facts behind his statements.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps the hon. gentleman, to whom I listened very politely yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John Whitney Pickersgill: would allow me to finish. Mr. Fisher has made certain allegations about me in his column because I happened to be acquainted with certain people. It seems to me that by the same process of reasoning, reasoning which I do not accept, if it is possible for him to do this it should not be wicked for me, particularly as I do not say that he is an unprejudiced witness. What I am saying is that he cannot necessarily be considered an unprejudiced witness. I do not like making this kind of insinuation in which other people indulge.


Mr. Orlikow:: Who is insinuating now?


Reid Scott: That is what you are making.


John Whitney Pickersgill: No, I am not making any. It was Mr. Fisher who made insinuations in his column, which I would be very glad to produce. All I am saying is that considering that he imputes motives without reason to others he can hardly expect any other kind of treatment himself. Having said that, I am not imputing anything to Mr. Fisher except his usual careless attention to facts.


David Orlikow: You tell us the facts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The hon. member for
Simcoe North asked me a question yesterday. I have had to get some technical advice on the matter since I do not carry these facts in my head and if the committee would bear with me it seems to me the simplest and best way to answer the question would be to give the facts I have, which have been made available to me by the department, with regard to what has so far happened in this connection in my department. That, of course, is all for which I, as minister, have responsibility to the committee and to the house.
I have a note here which states that on October 8, 1965, Ralph Snelgrove Television Limited submitted a technical brief to the telecommunications branch of the department proposing the transfer of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto. This is in accordance with existing regulations, which make provision for applicants to submit technical briefs relating to possible channel transfers. This document was not an application for a licence but a technical document for departmental examination. On November 3 a further communication was received stating that related technical briefs were also being prepared in connection with suggested use of channel 5 at Barrie and channel 4 at Haliburton. On November 10, in order to protect the possible use of channel 3 for Toronto, the telecommunications branch filed a formal allocation notice with the Federal Communications Commission in Washington, acknowledgement being received on December 7. This action was necessary-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Chairman-


John Whitney Pickersgill: -to protect the possible use of this channel in future in the Toronto area.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I was just going to use the minister's own words.
Supply-Transport


Maurice Rinfret: Is the hon. member raising a point of order or a question of privilege?


Donald MacInnis: A
question of privilege, Mr. Chairman. It relates to remarks made by the minister himself yesterday when he complained about the acoustics. I wish he would take advantage of his microphone so that he can be heard.


Mr. Pugh:: Mr. Chairman, a point of order-


Maurice Rinfret: Would the hon. member resume his seat. There is no question of privilege there.


Donald MacInnis: Then I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I think it is the privilege of each and every member of this chamber to hear what the minister has to say. I am only repeating a statement made yesterday by the minister when he complained that someone else was making some remarks that he could not hear. We have as much right to hear as the minister.


David Vaughan Pugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, the minister said at the beginning of his remarks that he just wanted to complete a sentence. I would bring to your attention that this is probably his longest sentence on record.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. That is not a
point of order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am more grateful to the hon. member for Cape Breton South, I think, for wanting to hear me than I am to the hon. member from British Columbia who does not want to hear me.


Michael Starr: He is waiting for the period.


Donald MacInnis: Waiting
for you to put your foot in it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would also join with the hon. member for Cape Breton South in saying that those in the chamber who do not want to listen and want to carry on competing conversations should do so somewhere else. On November 22, 1965, further technical briefs were received relating to possible use of channel 3, Toronto, channel 5, Barrie and channel 4, Haliburton. These also were not applications but technical briefs for departmental examination. On January 10, 1966, applications dated January 6, 1966, from Snelgrove Television were received for (a) authority to establish a new station on channel 3 in Toronto; (b) authority to transfer the


Supply-Transport
channel of the existing station at Barrie from 3 to 5; (c) authority to change the channel of the existing satellite station at Haliburton from 5 to 4 and to relocate antenna site. While there was nothing secret-


Reid Scott: Would the minister permit a question? When the appropriate government department was receiving these briefs for the transfer of channel 3 to Toronto, which in effect is opening up a new channel for the Toronto area, was there any action taken to give the public in that whole area knowledge that it was now possible to have a new channel located in the city of Toronto? If so, what was the action taken?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I understand that that is no part of the functions of the Department of Transport.


John George Diefenbaker: Would the minister allow-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether I might be allowed to attempt to give a consecutive answer to a hon. member who asked a question very courteously yesterday?


John George Diefenbaker: I am trying to ask a courteous question in regard to a matter now being dealt with.


John Whitney Pickersgill: If the right hon. gentleman would do me the courtesy of allowing me to complete this technical statement, I would be delighted to answer any questions I am capable of answering. I do think it is a not unreasonable request for a minister to make to be allowed to make his statement consecutively without interruption, because otherwise it is very hard for anyone who wishes to follow it subsequently when he comes to read it.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister should apply that principle when others are speaking.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


John Whitney Pickersgill: That was on January 10, 1966. I might point out that one of the difficulties I am faced with is that I am not very accustomed to reading aloud, as hon. members know. Usually I am a little more confident about most things than I am about my technical knowledge.


An hon. Member:: It should have been memorized.


John Whitney Pickersgill: There was nothing secret about these applications. It is not customary

for publicity to be given to applications received in the department prior to their technical examination because of the frequency with which delays, changes or even completely new engineering studies are necessary at this stage. Normally the information regarding applications becomes public when they are transmitted to the Board of Broadcast Governors. Applications cannot be dealt with by the government until they have been considered by the Board of Broadcast Governors.
Perhaps I could say a word about the matter of the C.T.V. network which was also raised. Might I point out that it is not in any way the concern of the Minister of Transport. These applications go direct to the Board of Broadcast Governors. I do not feel I should say anything further about it.


John George Diefenbaker: I should like to ask the
minister a question that I had in mind a moment ago. I agree with him that when he is making a technical statement no dog should bark. However, I should like to ask him this. The next Board of Broadcast Governors hearing will be on April 26. The last date for the filing of applications for that hearing was January 11. The only application that can possibly be heard on April 26 will be the Snelgrove application. Therefore, would the Minister of Transport consider doing two things? First, would he postpone the April 26 B.B.G. hearing on the Barrie-Toronto channel switch so that other interested parties can submit applications? Knowing nothing at all of the plans of Mr. Snelgrove and those associated with him, nobody else will be in a position to be able to compete unless such a change is made.
Furthermore, would the Minister of Transport agree with representations made to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in November last that consideration should be given to holding up the reappraisal of channel locations until the whole question can be considered by the C.B.C.?


John Whitney Pickersgill: By the C.B.C. or the B.B.G.?


John George Diefenbaker: Yes. Would the minister let us know the answer to this? Otherwise Mr. Snelgrove, with peculiarly farsighted and secretive prescience, would be in a position where only his application would be before the board with regard to this lucrative channel 3. I know that the minister believes in competition and would not want to do anything that would place Mr. Snelgrove and those associated with him in this lucrative


venture in a position that would not give others a chance to compete.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It would have been easier for someone with a better memory than mine to have replied to the hon. gentleman's question if he had confined himself to the question. If I remember his question correctly, it was to this effect: Would the minister ask the Board of Broadcast Governors to postpone the hearing?
The right hon. gentleman's government, of course, piloted the legislation through the house, which established the Board of Broadcast Governors. He is a distinguished lawyer and I should have thought that he would have known that the minister who answers for the B.B.G. is the Secretary of State and not the Minister of Transport. I would be the last person in the world to seek to usurp the powers, prerogatives or rights of any other minister. I think it would be a tremendous inconvenience to many other applicants, who probably are to be heard by the
B.	B.G., for the hearings to be postponed merely because Mr. Snelgrove's is the only application respecting channel 3.
The hon. member who is trying to interrupt should not try to compete for the headlines with the right hon. gentleman. He will lose anyway. He might let me finish my answer. I have no hope of getting into the headlines but I should like to give the facts and have them on the record.


An hon. Member:: You will make the headlines.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I have sufficient confidence in the impartiality of the gentleman appointed on the recommendation of the right hon. gentleman to be the head of the B.B.G. to feel sure that merely because there is only one application in respect of this matter it will not automatically be granted. I do not think it would be right for me or for anyone else to seek to interfere with or to influence the conduct of the board with regard to a responsibility given to the board and not to the Minister of Transport by parliament. I am sure that on reflection the right hon. gentleman would not wish to have me do that.
With respect to the right hon. gentleman's other question, I asked him whether he was referring to something recommended by the
C.	B.C. or by the B.B.G. I do not know which he means. Whichever body it was recommended by, obviously it is not something that would be within my administrative responsi-
Supply-Transport
bilities, for which I am now answering as Minister of Transport. My job is to take the responsibility for the technical assessment of applications by my department and, if those applications are technically correct, to send them on the Board of Broadcast Governors and in doing so not to seek to prejudice the board in any way. That is the way I shall seek to do my duty.


John George Diefenbaker: I have just one reference. I know that other hon. members want to speak and I shall be short. I was very glad to hear the dissertation on the law. I am not going to express any disagreement with the minister. May I ask first: Has the minister passed this technical information to the Board of Broadcast Governors yet?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will repeat again, sir, what I said. The applications have not yet been transmitted to the Board of Broadcast Governors. The technical review is well advanced but has not yet been completed. When this review has been completed, and it would not be possible until then to do anything about it, a decision will be required whether they should be forwarded to the Board of Broadcast Governors. There are three applications.


John George Diefenbaker: There is only one in this particular situation and that is the one we are talking about.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The three are interlocking.
I would venture the opinion that the Board of Broadcast Governors would certainly not permit channel 3 to be moved from Barrie and nothing else put in its place. If that were permitted I would think that would be a great injustice.


David Lewis: May I ask a question following something that was said earlier? Did I understand the minister to say that if he expressed a view to the Board of Broadcast Governors along the line that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asked him to do, namely, to postpone consideration of this application, it would be improper? Is that what I understood him to say?


John Whitney Pickersgill: It seems to me that each of us in life should accept and take those responsibilities that are entrusted to him and not seek to usurp the responsibilities of others.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
This parliament saw fit to give to the Minister of Transport the responsibility for the technical evaluation of these applications.


Supply-Transport
It also saw fit to give to the Board of Broadcast Governors the opportunity to hold hearings and decide what recommendations it should make. It does seem to me that it would not be proper, particularly for a minister who is not even answerable in parliament for the Board of Broadcast Governors, to seek in any way to direct or influence their disposition of the matter once it is properly before them. Nor do I think it would be fair to applicants to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not before them yet.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Moreover, there have been cases without number since the board was established when they have had only one application before them and it is on the public record that they postponed their consideration of the situation because someone else intervened and asked for a postponement. That is a matter for the board. It is not a matter for the Minister of Transport and I do not think it would be proper for the Minister of Transport to do things which are not his responsibility when parliament has expressly made them the responsibility of a board.


John George Diefenbaker: No matter what the injustice?


David Lewis: I was not here yesterday when the minister spoke but I read his speech with interest. I was very much struck by his somewhat self-righteous homily about a person's duty, particularly since in the speech I read he took it upon himself in ringing terms to urge that a transfer from Barrie to Toronto was a good thing, that we ought to protect the Canadian interest in this additional channel, that there is a large population in metropolitan Toronto which is entitled to another channel, and so on. If the minister is going to take one position at one point, surely he ought to take the same position at another. I suggest it is much less reprehensible for him and his colleagues to make a simple representation to the board that in view of the fact they have only one application they should postpone consideration of it until other people have had a chance to make representations than for him to make the kind of speech he made yesterday about what is necessary for Canada and Toronto.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I simply cannot let the misrepresentation of the hon. gentleman, which I am sure is accidental-he probably read my speech hurriedly-go on record unanswered. I did not advocate the transfer of this

channel from Barrie to Toronto at all yesterday. All I said was that I had been told by people who I understood to be technically competent that this was the only channel now left in the existing spectrum which could be available to metropolitan Toronto having regard to the channels already occupied there and having regard to those which are protected under the bilateral agreement with the United States. I also felt that if that channel could be made available to metropolitan Toronto before it was lost it would be a wise thing for Canadians to take advantage of it. That is all I said. In saying that I was not attempting to make any suggestion as to who should occupy that channel.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, I will not be dealing today with the matter discussed for some time now, but I appreciate the disappointment of my colleagues of the N.D.P. who would have liked to discuss this very matter.


Mr. Smith:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, since the minister has answered a question, I suggest I might be given an opportunity to ask a supplementary question before we go on. I am not trying to steal the floor from the hon. member for Lapointe.


Gilles Grégoire: I agree that if someone wishes to ask a question at this point he should be allowed to do so. I am in full accord with that, Mr. Chairman.


Maurice Rinfret: Order. Will the hon.
member for Lapointe please resume his seat.
[Translation1
I would ask the hon. member for Lapointe to resume his seat.
If the hon. member for Lapointe would kindly relinquish the floor now to allow another hon. member to put a question, the Chair will gladly accede to his wishes.


Gilles Grégoire: Agreed.


Sydney John Smith: I am grateful for the minister's answer though I will have some comment to make on its technical inadequacies as the debate goes along. His opening statement interested me. I am sure all of us here want to see the maximum use made of the television channels available to Canadians. I wonder whether the minister is aware of the study now being carried on by his own department having to do with new developments and technical advances in television


broadcasting as they affect the location of channels all over Canada. These developments will probably result in several new channels becoming available to Canadians.
I should also like to say that the Board of Broadcast Governors themselves, those responsible for the Fowler report and other officials have recommended that there be no tinkering with any television channels in Canada at all until a complete reallocation can be made. I have a further question for the minister. Did the advice given him concerning the possibility of a new station at Buffalo come from people within his department or from people in the television field outside it?


John Whitney Pickersgill: So far as the first question is concerned, the main function of the telecommunications branch of my department in the field of radio and television broadcasting is, of course, to study the possibility of improvement. This is going on all the time.


Sydney John Smith: I was referring to a specific study.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not really a specific study. It is a general study of the whole area. Up to now it has not been the case that applications, except for alternate services -there is already alternate service in Toronto so this case would not fit into that group; otherwise the Board of Broadcast Governors would have very little to do-


An hon. Member:: Here we go.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Applications have been coming forward steadily. This is a matter, after all, for general consideration. I am here discussing my responsibilities as Minister of Transport.


Sydney John Smith: Has it ever been suggested that if this present move is carried out as now contemplated Ontario will permanently lose more than one television channel?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would feel that this is an argument which people far more competent than I will ever be in this field may make before the Board of Broadcast Governors which is supposed to protect the interests of Canada in this field.


Reid Scott: I am sure the minister does not expect us to let his statement go by without further discussion in view of the nebulous nature of the comment he made in response to the representations addressed to him yesterday. It seems to me that the Leader of the Official Opposition has drawn
Supply-Transport
attention to the essential point which was raised yesterday and to which no reasonable answer has yet been given. Instead we have been offered the specious, roundabout observations which the hon. gentleman is so capable of making.
He still has not addressed himself to the real crux of this matter. We want an answer and we intend to get one from him no matter how difficult it may be. The fact still remains that the procedure adopted by these people is in effect a back door, behind the scenes method of opening up another channel in Toronto and of doubling or quadrupling their investment.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
This has been done without any public knowledge. Indeed, as reported yesterday, the application was filed and then the period for making similar applications was closed so that what in fact is happening is that a hearing is to be held in April, the effect of which will be to open up a new lucrative plum, a melon or a "smellon" or whatever it may be called in Toronto, without other interested people having an opportunity to compete and to make representations, people who should be given this opportunity.
The minister stands here today and says he will take no responsibility whatever. He will do nothing to get around this sort of backroom deal and the government will do nothing to see that other interested parties have a right to compete. The minister is so suddenly the very paragon of virtue that he cannot bear to make a suggestion on his own behalf.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we can make a suggestion on behalf of parliament. So far as I am concerned I do not like the looks of the deal, and I think the government has some responsibility to draw to the attention of the B.B.G. the view of members of this house that they do not want this kind of backroom dealing in the granting of television franchises.
We have not received any indication from the minister of what the government is prepared to do to protect the rights of the viewers. I mentioned yesterday that there are a very large number of Canadians who happen to enjoy looking at certain channels. I am not here as a defender or apologist for the United States channels. They are perfectly able to look after themselves. But why is the minister not prepared to take any action on behalf of the public in this matter? Why is he writing off the million or million and a half Canadians who have built up a long-term


Supply-Transport
viewing pattern? Why does he cavalierly dismiss the rights of these people and say that he as a minister of the Crown is not prepared to make any representations so that this particular interest can be represented? I think it is almost reprehensible that this type of thing could come about and then have the minister sit idly by taking no responsibility and saying he cannot act at all.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful to the hon. gentleman, who if he is not always fair is practically always clear, for suggesting that something is the crux of the matter. I will not repeat his adjectives because they are his and he can keep them, but he said that the crux of the matter was this deal. There has been no deal of any description.
These people, exercising their rights as citizens, have made an application to a government department and they are entitled to be treated in exactly the same way as any other applicants would be. The fact that they have made this application does not make channel 3 available for Toronto. All they have done is to apply to the B.B.G. or to seek to apply and they have not even got their application to transfer the channel to Toronto over the first hurdle. The board can perfectly well refuse to recommend that and that will be the end of it. The board can say: We will not transfer it unless it is open for competition.
As I understand it, the members of the board are perfectly free to do that. They are the only people who can do it because this parliament decided that these things should be done by an impartial board, not by the government. If the government sought to do any of these things, the attacks of hon. gentlemen would be twice what they are now.
else in this chamber knows, what the B.B.G. will do when the matter comes before it. I do not know and in order that I will not be accused of any more secrecy I think I should tell the committee I had a letter recently from Mr. Cran of CFRB which I would be very glad to put on the record except that I am not very good at reading, as I have demonstrated. It is a letter saying that he feels that if this channel is to be opened for Toronto it should be open for competition.
I have also had a telegram from another defeated candidate, not a Liberal this time, Mr. Joel Aldred, wanting to know how he could apply. I think he should know without my telling him because he got a licence once in Toronto. Then he had a falling out with someone else and he is now out of the business. I did not take his telegram very seriously although I did reply and say there had been no change in procedure.
There is absolutely nothing about this situation that is not perfectly normal and that has not happened on several occasions since the present Broadcasting Act came into effect. There is nothing whatever the government can do about the transfer of this channel, nothing whatever about who shall have the licence should it be transferred unless there is a recommendation from the B.B.G. after a public hearing, and if the board behaves as it has in the past I am perfectly confident it will hear every interested party before a decision is made.


Mr. Fairweaiher:: I know this does not fall within the immediate ambit of the minister's authority, but will the White Paper on Broadcasting be brought down, or however you get a white paper from where it originates to the public, before this hearing takes place?
It should not be forgotten that the people who now occupy this channel have the licence for it. No one else could have applied for this channel so long as they just sat quietly in Barrie and did nothing. Therefore it is by no means certain, merely because these people have made an application in a perfectly ordinary way, that the B.B.G. will see fit even to listen to the suggestion that it be moved to Toronto, and it certainly does not follow, if the board should decide it could be moved to Toronto, that the present licensee would be allowed to have the licence without any kind of competition.
But here I enter into a field of speculation because I do not know, and I hope nobody


John Whitney Pickersgill: I could not say because we do not even know when this hearing will take place.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the committee listened with interest and appreciation yesterday to the presentation of the hon. member for Danforth as he reviewed some of the circumstances in connection with this matter. I do not propose to go into a great deal of detail but there are a few things that become apparent as the discussion continues. The first is that the minister has elevated himself to a high pedestal of nonpartisan consideration in this matter. Some might be impressed by that but such a transition on his part causes one to doubt that it is



as complete as his capacity for words would indicate it is.
One has to look over this situation and see who comprise this group, how they operate and what has been done within the last year or year and a half in this connection. The minister's explanation does not meet the situation in any way. It is a transparent and, if you will, diaphanous cover-up for a condition of affairs that is such that it surprises me he tries to justify it at all.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
None of this would have seen the light of day if somebody had not found out about the secret plans and manipulations that had their birth last September, I think. Reference will be made to that later. The manner in which this thing has been presented has about it an odoriferous aroma. What is behind all this? If the minister had said, having listened to the argument-I know how impressed he was because he showed it by his appearance-"I feel this matter should not receive early attention", that might have been a different story. In respect of the Board of Broadcast Governors, which exists in name but not in personnel because there are vacancies on the board, when is it to have a full complement of members? This question has been asked but no answer has been forthcoming. This whole thing is surrounded by mystery and, as the minister explains things, by subterfuge. He says: After all, what have I got to do with this? I am the minister and my responsibilities do not in any way encompass the possession of a nose that would smell.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to leave that to the right hon. gentleman.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I am telling you that this thing is so smelly it requires no olfactory excellence in order to understand it. It has got all the appearances of a plan to make millions under cover of secrecy and concealment. We have channel 3 and it is vacant.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not vacant; there is a licence involved.


John George Diefenbaker: The minister is afraid the United States may pick it up. When he wrapped himself in the garments of Canadianism I was impressed, greatly impressed. We do not dare allow the United States to get that channel but there is only one Canadian outfit that is going to be allowed to get it. They have got what the
Supply-Transport
minister describes as the technical qualifications. Even if they have not that they certainly have the political ones.
I asked the minister whether he would give consideration to bringing the circumstances in connection with this matter to the attention of the Board of Broadcast Governors. He is completely right as to his legal powers, and I do not argue with that, but there is something more involved than the exercise of legal powers in connection with this matter.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Perhaps illegal powers?


John George Diefenbaker: I will deal with that. It is surprising that the minister did not state:	I
am beginning to get suspicious myself. On the contrary, he is not suspicious. This is a proposition he says, that is aboveboard and we are looking at it from a technical angle. I asked him two questions in this regard and his answer was: I cannot do those things.
If there is only one application before the Board of Broadcast Governors it is perhaps understandable that the board might hold that this matter should not be proceeded with at this time, but what about the rights of others? I am going to review briefly something of the record in this connection. I have in mind what was said by Mr. Royce Frith, a prominent and outstanding-


An hon. Member:: Grit.


John George Diefenbaker: He is a prominent and outstanding man of affairs. He applied for a station licence in Windsor, Ontario, and after he received his licence he said that-


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the right hon. gentleman would give the date of the application and the date of the recommendation by the B.B.G.?


John George Diefenbaker: I have not got the dates but, of course, the minister is able to look them up.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am sure the right hon. gentleman does not want in any way to be unfair.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


John Whitney Pickersgill: My recollection is, and I think this is quite correct, that the application was made when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister and the recommendation was also made when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, that is exactly right. When we were in oflice there were no politics involved. I thank the hon. gentleman for giving testimony to that effect.


Supply-Transport
I must say that that is the most admirable statement he has made this afternoon.


Miss LaMarsh:: What the hon. gentleman is saying-


John George Diefenbaker: We now hear from the president of the truth squad.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, a while ago members on that side were saying it was too noisy in the house and they wanted silence.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to rise on a point of order. I wonder whether we could arrange to have this show televised?


John George Diefenbaker: Let me say this, Mr. Chairman, that if the Canadian people could see what this government is doing in respect of this television channel it would be a good thing to have the proceedings televised.
After Mr. Frith, this outstanding Liberal, received his licence he said:	"This is a
rare and exciting opportunity for Canadi-anism in the broadcasting media", but a year later he disposed of that station to the Stirling interests.
Who are some of these people who are interested? There is Mr. Snelgrove. In the month of September last he made the announcement that he was going to Ottawa to look after broadcasting for the Liberal party to see that it got a fair deal from the C.B.C. He came and was here throughout the campaign, and it was not very long after that that a most interesting thing took place. On behalf of one of the rival parties in the campaign Ken Soble sent out a letter, which I am not going to go into at the moment, in respect of what was called "Fedmin"-federal minister. This was a wonderful organization and its suggestions for the guidance of radio and television stations were these:
We are thinking in terms of 50 or 60 second excerpts from campaign speeches as they are being delivered from the platform...
The executive assistants will help in pinpointing the part of the address to be sent back. If there is no one travelling with minister, perhaps someone on the scene can select the most newsworthy bit to be sent back.
Then it goes on to state:
Note to News Editors: Assuming that most of these clips are of legitimate news interest, the idea is to expose the minister to his constituents while he's out of the city or province on extended campaigning commitments.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
Introductions to the clips should, if possible, point this out: that the Minister has been spending the last few days in such-and-such an area,

and today from the Prairies had this to report to the electors or people of (name of Minister's riding) :-
Well, this was very good; this was wonderful. This was not part of the propaganda financed by the Liberal party; this was a public service. Then it says:
Following are the stations participating, the ministers they are serving, and the executive assistants attached to those ministers:
CJON-TV (St. John's, Newfoundland) for Transport Minister J. W. Pickersgill. See Alistair Fraser or Eric Facey.
CJCB-TV (Sydney, Nova Scotia) for Labour Minister Allan J. MacEachen. See Pat Lavelle.
CJCH-TV (Halifax, Nova Scotia) also for Labour Minister MacEachen.
CFCF-TV (Montreal, Quebec) serving two ministers, Industry Minister C. M. "Bud" Drury. Executive Assistant is Fred Wanklyn. Also President of the Privy Council Guy Favreau. Executive Assistant is Andre Ouellette.
Then it covers Toronto, Hamilton and the Niagara peninsula. It has them all. Then it says:
Finance Minister Walter Gordon (Toronto Davenport) ; Executive Assistant is Alan Donnelly.
Trade and Commerce Minister Mitchell Sharp (Toronto Eglinton); Executive Assistant is Mike McCabe.
Defence Minister Paul T. Hellyer (Toronto Trinity); Special Assistant is Bill Lee.
It then refers to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Solicitor General, and so on. Then it says:
CKLW-TV (Windsor, Ontario) serves Hon. Paul Martin, Minister of External Affairs.
The former minister of trade and commerce came in for extra attention. He had CJAY-TV, Winnipeg, CKCK-TV, Regina and CJQC-TV, Saskatoon. It says:
For our purposes these three stations will be serving Trade and Commerce Minister Mitchell Sharp.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: What manner of stuff if this? They took the present minister-


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the right hon. gentleman whether somebody was mentioned for the Quebec City television station?


John George Diefenbaker: I do not think they got even an honourable mention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: It ends up by saying: "All news clips to be shipped to"

and so on-"Pallette Productions".
The name to be used was "Fedmin". When this information got out Mr. Soble said, "Well, if some Conservatives or members of

the N.D.P. would like to be included they can be". I do not know how they could come under this "Fedmin", but as far as I am concerned, I am fed up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Let us go on from there and see what happened thereafter. Mr. Snelgrove did his job. He saw this channel 3 and he made an application. It is the only one that has been made and I believe the date for the closing of applications was January 11. I asked the minister what he was going to do about this and the answer was, "Well, I cannot do anything about it".
I am becoming very concerned, sir, at the degree to which various groups are commencing to control television and radio across this nation. I shall give particulars of this after I receive some answers from the minister. I am going to go into some detail in this regard either today or later and I shall set out something of what is happening when men politically activated and active politically get control of the means of communication within this nation.
What is going to happen in this regard? Are they going to be considerate of those with whom they disagree? Sir, as far as this proposition is concerned I would have thought that the Prime Minister would have risen and said, "This thing cannot go on".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Winkler:: He doesn't know.


John George Diefenbaker: This is an amazing
proposition.


An hon. Member:: Nobody told him.


Gordon Minto Churchill: They told him in an aeroplane.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, surely the minister does not want this house to accept the explanation, "Well, I really do not know anything about this. The very suggestion that there might be anything wrong in it shocks me". I say to the minister, what are you going to do about it? If we cannot get some action from you, we shall have to ask the Prime Minister. This thing is wrong; this thing is improper; this thing cannot be justified. It has all the appearances of a pork-barrel. The minister smiles and sweeps that suggestion aside. It is wrong. We must have an explanation of it.
Imagine what happens, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Snelgrove has this station in the Barrie area; he uses that to get into Toronto and get this channel 3. I do not know the value of his
Supply-Transport
station but I have been told it would not be over $2-2 million as it is today. The minute that he gets this other channel it becomes worth $6 million or $7 million. There is something wrong with a proposition like that. We have the background in the election campaign. No one complains when a public man takes part in public life, but when he comes here, stays here and then the application is made-well, I am not going to say more, Mr. Chairman. We shall have more to say later. But I do say to the minister: Think this over; do not try to pretend that it can be brushed aside, because it cannot.
This thing has about it an atmosphere that is a denial of every principle for which democracy stands. This House of Commons may not have any authority in this connection but this house can speak, and I believe that on the minister's side of the house there are many members who have looked at this and said, "What is this?" For after all, Mr. Chairman, regard for the proprieties is not the monopoly of any party.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
This thing cannot be justified. All the minister does is to rise and, excellent parliamentarian that he is, brush the matter aside. He says he has no authority, that he really cannot do anything. He must know in his own heart that this is not the kind of thing that will strengthen democracy. I wish, as someone has said, that these proceedings could be broadcast. I wish the Canadian people could sit before their television screens in judgment on the attitude of the government on a matter such as this. I should like the people to have that opportunity. I still hope, Mr. Chairman, that the government will finally determine that this means of making a fortune by under the table arrangements-I am not going to call it by its proper name-cannot be accepted.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I, like
every other hon. member, I suppose, have been entertained by the parliamentary display we have just witnessed. I am quite sure the hon. member for Danforth might just as well go out in the lobby because he is out of the newspapers for the day.


Reid Scott: I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman, I feel it is quite clear that none of us on this side of the house is the least bit interested in headlines. We are here to protect the public.


John Whitney Pickersgill: The right hon. gentleman put himself on a pedestal, which he builds


Supply-Transport
with greater skill and greater ease than I would ever hope to be able to do. When he rises on a pedestal and says, I am surprised that the Prime Minister did not say this nefarious thing should not go on, I begin to wonder. After all, he was the minister primarily responsible for the present Broadcasting Act which laid down these procedures.
The right hon. gentleman expressed great concern about the concentration of these vast, influential means of communication in a few hands, and I must say that I agree with much of what he says about that. However, did he take that same view when the publisher of the Toronto Telegram was applying for a licence along with Mr. Joel Aldred-a couple of distinguished Liberals, of course-both of whom subsequently became Tory candidates? Did he at that time say this should not be allowed?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Others had channels.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nobody knows whether anything will happen in connection with this application until it gets before the board that was set up by this parliament at the instance of the right hon. gentleman. Does the right hon. gentleman say that I, as Minister of Transport, should have denied to Mr. Snel-grove the right which any other person would have had to make this application, a right that Mr. Cran of CFRB will have to make an application or any technical case that he wants to make, a right which even Joel Aldred, if we are to take him seriously, will have to make a second bid?
I have said before and I say again that this application which was made on January 9 could not have been very secret or we would not be having this debate now. Under the law which the right hon. gentleman himself has the primary responsibility for putting on the statute books, nothing can be done about moving this channel without a public hearing by the Board of Broadcast Governors. The right hon. gentleman must know this well, as one of the authors of the law. We can only draw one conclusion, therefore, about the performance he put on this afternoon, because this is the law.
I am informed that neither when the right hon. gentleman was prime minister nor since has it been the practice of the Department of Transport to do anything about these applications except to process them and send them, if they are technically feasible, to the Board of Broadcast Governors. The first time I was asked a question about whether or not there

was an application I made inquiries of my department. I found out it had been received and I said, has it been the custom to make these things public when they are received? They said no, it had not been the custom. I said, is there any reason why we should not and they said they did not see any reason.
I told the person who asked me, who happened to be a correspondent for the Toronto Telegram, that there was such an application and that it had been received for technical assessment. Was that secret? Was there anything unusual about that? The plain fact is that the right hon. gentleman is simply trying to suggest that because certain people happen to be supporters of this government, which many millions of people in this country are, they should be denied the right that other people would have to make an application for what is nothing but a hunting licence. The right hon. gentleman could find a secret in a Coca-Cola advertisement. I have never known anyone else with the capacity he has. No matter how open, how blatantly obvious a thing is, in his mind there is always something hidden. One really wonders, but considering the relationships he has had with his colleagues I can understand why he has these suspicions.
Unless the right hon. gentleman thinks that these would-be applicants, because that is all they are yet, have a very good case which is going to be very persuasive, he should not be worried about having the board hear the case in public. There will be bound to be representations from powerful interests like the owners of CFRB, who are not without influence although apparently they did not have as much as they had hoped to have when they were competing with Mr. Bassett. Of course, the right hon. gentleman cannot be unaware of the fact that the same kind of insinuation was made about Mr. Bassett when the Leader of the Opposition was prime minister as he is trying to make now. At least no attempt was made to pre-judge that case as the right hon. gentleman now seems to be trying to do in this instance.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I should like to ask the minister a question.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Greenwood.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I shall substantially reduce the entertainment level of this debate in comparison with what we have heard from the last two speakers. However, my constituents are very much


Supply-Transport
concerned about this matter and I want to say a word or two about it. I listened with great interest to the reply the Minister of Transport made to the questions asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth. I must say I thought the Shakespearean expression seemed to be apt, "Methinks he doth protest too much".
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The minister in his reply said, in tones almost too pious to be credible, that it would be wrong and improper for him to take over the jurisdiction of the B.B.G. or even to make representations to that body about the merits of the application that came before him. He may well be right about that. But does he not think it would be within the scope of his duty, as a member of the government and as minister in charge of this matter, to speak for the public when it is known to him that a single applicant is seeking a very valuable channel and property and that the hearing of the matter is coming up shortly? Would he not think it within the purview of his duty to tell the public of this so that any possible competitors would know about it, or even ask the B.B.G. to make sure that this matter is not passed over or dealt with on a single application?
The minister talks about the courts. A court is set up by parliament and even courts are entitled to have all interested parties come before them. How is the public to be represented if the minister sits mute and says nothing or says that he has only a technical interest in this matter?
If the minister is not interested in this matter, then who is? Are members of parliament to find out about this by chance, by reading some column in a newspaper which says that a matter of this importance is coming before the B.B.G.? Must we take the responsibility-we are ready and willing to do so but do not have the facilities, of course-of saying that we will go to the B.B.G. and represent the public who are concerned in this matter? I suggest the minister should concede that he has a much greater responsibility. His reply to the house has been an evasion of that responsibility.
The minister is very convincing when he says that he must not make representations. He is very convincing when he says that the B.B.G. and my right hon. friend's government brought in these regulations. But he is less convincing to me, and I think also to the public, when he says that he is not able to ask the B.B.G to make sure that this matter
is not dealt with in this way. It should not be dealt with in a hole in the corner manner as it may well be if this applicant is the only one when the case is heard in April. On the contrary, there should be an adequate airing of the matter.
The minister says that this matter has been made public. Who made it public? Not the minister or anyone associated with him. It was made public initially through the actions of private members of this house, members of the opposition.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I know the hon. gentleman is always very fair, but I do not think it was made public until I did so in response to a question, the very first question I was asked about the matter.


Francis Andrew Brewin: If I am unfair then I am sorry. I did not intend to be unfair to the minister and would be glad to withdraw that suggestion. But I still say that the minister did not make the matter public till he was asked to by a member of the press. Even today he says that he cannot even ask the B.B.G. to postpone the hearing.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member, whose knowledge of the law I respect. This channel is not now available in Toronto. It is licensed to one licensee in Barrie. If that licensee does not make an application to have it transferred, how can the matter come before the board at all?
Once it comes before the board it is open, is it not, to the board to say: "We will not allow you to transfer but if you want to give up the licence we will open it for competition"? But as I say I do not see how the matter could ever get before the board unless an initiative was taken in the first place by the present licensee. Unless he does something wrong which would justify his licence being taken away from him, under the practice as I understand it nothing whatever could happen about this matter, without an application for transfer.
It might be that circumstances would arise whereby this channel-and this is a serious matter-would be entirely lost to metropolitan Toronto. It also seems to me that we are showing rather little confidence in the fairness and capacity of the board to assess all these things when they hear the matter. I do not think there is any doubt, judging from the feeling which seems to have been expressed in this committee, that the board will not deny a hearing to anybody who wants to


Supply-Transport
make representations and who has any ground for doing so. They never have before. So it seems to me there is no problem at all of the kind the hon. gentleman seems to be fearing.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I should like to conclude my remarks by saying that the minister might be perfectly right-I do not know; I do not profess to be an expert in this field-when he says that until the application for transfer was made nothing could be done. What I am suggesting is that once the application for transfer on a subject of such vast interest to the public was made and despite what he may say about confidence in the B.B.G. at this stage, surely it would be open to the minister, representing the public who are interested in this matter, and indeed right for him to say that this application is a matter of public concern and should be made known so that others who want to make applications or to oppose this one can do so in plenty of time. I know enough about courts, and I do not think the B.B.G. is any exception, to know that if they have a nice, little, quiet, unopposed application before them they like to deal with it in a quiet, summary fashion. This is what we are seeking to prevent.
I suggest to the minister that instead of taking the position that he has no interest in this matter he should say that he will take responsibility now, even at this late stage, for communicating with the B.B.G. and saying to them: "I want you to postpone this matter if necessary so that a full and adequate hearing can be held of all those interested in the matter". Then there can be no smell or odour about this matter, as has been suggested in this committee.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I think I said in my opening statement that when the technical assessment of this application is completed it will be sent to the Board of Broadcast Governors. At that time it will be advertised by the board in the ordinary way. Today is February 10. The hearing is not until April. It does not require a great deal of technical capacity for people to go along to that hearing and object. Since there are many precedents for this kind of intervention it does not seem to me that there is any need for me to depart from what has been the invariable practice up till now of sending the application to the B.B.G. and letting them make it public, which they would have done.

It would have been a very unusual course for me to take if I had gratuitously made this matter public and then the technical assessment, which has not yet been completed, had shown, as it may yet show, that it was not technically feasible to accept the application. In that case there would have been no application to be heard and no occasion for all the discussion and debate which we have had. Notwithstanding the fact that it had not been the practice, the moment I was asked about it I did not attempt to hide anything but gave the information at once.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to the statements of the Minister of Transport but I am still astounded by the fact that this matter should even be before the public at the present time. For as long as two years we have heard in this house from whoever happens to be spokesman for the C.B.C., which is a shifting responsibility with this government, that there is absolutely no value in making applications to the Board of Broadcast Governors. A freeze has been on for two years. We were first told that the freeze would remain on until such time as the Fowler Committee reported. When the government received that report we were told that the freeze was to continue because the Prime Minister had decided to set up another committee to determine what the Fowler Committee report said and what the government should do about it.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
I, as a member from a constituency in Nova Scotia which is not receiving satisfactory television coverage from the CTV, have written letters and asked questions in the house about what is going to be done with respect to channel 8 which is at present providing a mediocre type of service to the people of Cumberland, Westmorland and Hillsborough counties. I have, for instance, a letter from the Secretary of State which is quite emphatic and straightforward. I would think that if Mr. Snelgrove were other than the gentleman he is, or if he had got in touch with the government as I did on behalf of my constituents, he would h ave received the same type of communication I have here. This is what the Secretary of State said, and I read from her letter dated January 25, 1966: As you are aware, the Board of Broadcast Governors has not proceeded with such applications at the request of the government while the question of providing alternative television service was under policy study.


Mr. Chairman, surely this situation must come four square within this statement.
While, as you have noted, the government now has received the recommendations ol the Fowler committee on this and other matters, it has not as yet had time to reach a decision.
Until such a policy statement has been worked out and announced, the B.B.G. presumably will continue to maintain its current attitude toward applications for the creation or extension of alternate television service. I am afraid that at this stage I am not in a position to give you any firm indication as to when the required policy statement might be made.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State owe to me, to my constituents and to the people in the coverage area of channel 8 in Nova Scotia a very explicit explanation as to what they are trying to pull off here, because there is certainly something that does not meet the meaning of the statement of the Secretary of State as to what is being done about applications. In effect every other television operator in this nation is now being told: Do not bother the B.B.G. until the Prime Minister has decided what he is going to do about the Fowler committee report. At the same time they are saying to Mr. Snelgrove: "Here is a chance for you to make a big bundle of dough so get your application in. If the people don't catch on," as they have, "you will have a lot of money and maybe the Liberal party will too."
In the last parliament the Canadian people got very sick and fed up with this kind of tactic of Liberal bagmen trying to fill the bags for the cause. You can hear them saying that this is a pretty good chance-


The Chairman:: Order, please.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I should clear up the misunderstanding which I think exists. It is quite true that the government has imposed a freeze on alternate service and it might be that the Board of Broadcast Governors would interpret a third application in metropolitan Toronto as coming within that freeze. The understanding I had, as one of the ministers responsible for advising the government at the time the freeze was put on, was that it was a freeze in respect of areas where there was only one emitting service and where there might conceivably be two in order to give the Fowler committee time to advise and then to give the government time to consider whether it would be willing to provide the extra capital for the C.B.C. to establish a second station or whether the area would be left open for a private station.
Supply-Transport
The B.B.G. has had many applications which it has considered and granted for extensions of services where alternate services already existed. I would expect that if this matter does get before the B.B.G. it certainly would be argued, because there is an arguable case, that this is in a sense an alternate service. I will not quibble about words, and I will not quibble whether alternate means one of two and not one of three, because normally it would mean an alternate service. In other words, there is already a private station in the CTV network, as well as a C.B.C. station in Toronto.
The situation which the hon. gentleman refers to, which has been before the B.B.G., and been there, I believe since the freeze order, is that there is some question about whether there might be an originating station either at Amherst or Moncton if the freeze were taken off. However, if a stronger satellite were established this would be likely to preclude that possibility. Whether or not that is a sound position to take I do not know but that, as I understand it, is the position which was taken. I am trying to deal only with the point itself and not with any of the other observations of the hon. gentleman. I think I have stated the situation.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a
question?

I have a question, Mr. Chairman. The minister spoke about the Board of Broadcast Governors. Could he tell us how many members there are on the board at present? What is the status of the president of the board?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I do not know whether I should answer that question when the hon. lady who reports for the B.B.G. is in the house. It is not my responsibility. However, I do not think she would mind my saying that the president was reappointed and that under the law he is reappointed for a fixed term. The other two permanent positions are vacant at the present time.


Clément Vincent: How long is the fixed term?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That is in the statute.


Clément Vincent: Is the president on an extension of his term now or was he appointed for four years or ten years?


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Chairman, the only reason I want to take part in this debate on


Supply-Transport
channel 3, the English station in Toronto, is to remind the minister that, at the present time, Toronto has two channels for English television and none for French television.
At this time, since this is the last vacant channel or the last that will be vacant in future, it might be a good idea for the minister to examine the possibility of reserving a station for French television in Toronto.
In Montreal, where 80 per cent of the population is French Canadian, there are two English and two French television stations. In Toronto, where there are nearly 600,000 French Canadians, there are two English stations and no French station.
I think the minister should consider the possibility of recommending to the B.B.G. the use of this last channel for French television.
To my mind, the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State should consider this request. In fact, it would only be fair for the
600,000	French Canadians living in the Toronto area and it would close the discussion arising from this application for a third English language television station when there is not a single French language station.
I think my hon. friend the member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) will approve the suggestion I am making. Looking at him brings to mind the remarks he made yesterday about Montreal, saying he was surprised that there was not a more up to date sewer system in a city anxious to show its high degree of civilization in connection with Expo '67.
Mr. Chairman, I must say that I never judged a nation's civilization by its sewer system. The degree of civilization cannot be judged by the perfection of sewer systems, because I would say then that the world's greatest civilizations, either that of the Greeks at the time of Pericles or that of the Romans at the time of-
I am told, Mr. Chairman, that the translation system is not working.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: We would not miss hearing you.


Gilles Grégoire: I am grateful to the hon.
member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) who does not want to miss a single word of what I am saying now and if the translation system is now working, I am very happy for him.
[Mr Gregoire.]
As I was saying, Mr. Chairman, a people's, civilization cannot be judged by its sewer system; it would be a very poor yard-stick. There was no sewer system in Greece at the time of Pericles. And yet that country produced Achilles, Sophocles, Euripides, Demosthenes-


An hon. Member:: No translation.


An hon. Member:: No Gregoire.


Gilles Grégoire: I think I am speaking too' fast, Mr. Chairman.
There were no sewers either, Mr. Chairman, in the age of Louis XIV.


David Lewis: We have more trouble with Greek names.


Gilles Grégoire: Yet, we had Racine, Corneille, Moliere, Lafontaine, Boileau, Bossuet-


David Lewis: And Gregoire.


Gilles Grégoire: There were no sewers-I am coming back to modern times-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gilles Grégoire: -in Shakespeare's days, yet England had a brilliant civilization in that era.
That is why I cannot understand how, when dealing with the water level in the harbour of Montreal and sewers, the discussion turned, with the help of the hon. member for York-Humber, to the civilization the people of Montreal want to show the world during Expo '67.
If the hon. member for York-Humber wants to learn something about civilization in Montreal, he should not look at the defects of the city's sewer system, but rather come to the Place des Arts to hear our symphony orchestra-


David Lewis: And St. Denis street.


Gilles Grégoire: Let him listen to the wonderful productions on the C.B.C. French network.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gilles Grégoire: We could give him that opportunity by setting up a French television station of the C.B.C. in Toronto.
He might also attend plays staged by the many theatrical companies in Montreal, such as the Rideau Vert, the Theatre du Nou-veau-Monde, the Egregore, and others I forget. The hon. member would then really come in contact with the civilization of Montreal and of all Quebec, the one we would like to show the citizens of Toronto who will be good enough to visit Expo '67.


Mr. Chairman, it is not only for its civilization that Montreal should be admired and I feel the need to raise those issues. Headed by such a dynamic mayor as the present incumbent, Montreal has for years been developing at a clip and if more progress would be desirable in certain areas, I am sure this will shortly be taken care of, to the satisfaction of the hon. member for York-Humber.
In any event, Mr. Chairman, my speech today concerns another field.


Mr. Guay:: You have not started yet?


Gilles Grégoire: I should like to address myself-and the hon. member for Levis may be glad I draw the minister's attention to this matter-to what I would call the unfair and even illegal competition carried on by the Canadian National Railways, with the encouragement of the Canadian government and the Department of Transport, against the private trucking industry in the province of Quebec and the whole of Canada.
The first objective of the C.N.R., when this company was established and work first undertaken, was to create an all-Canada coast-to-coast, railway system to unite the country, the various areas, the various provinces and municipalities and to set up passenger and freight service between all provinces, all areas and all municipalities in this country. This was the first objective of the creation of the C.N.R. to give the whole country services which other railway companies could not then provide.
Today, however, we see that the Department of Transport has given railway companies in Canada quite a different role. They are allowed, either the C.N.R. or the C.P.R. to give unfair competition to the trucking industry which is one of the major Canadian industries-I shall come back to this later.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


companies are prohibited from going into the trucking business. The minister indicates that he is. But why is this allowed in Canada when elsewhere it is deemed to interfere with all normal, basic and logical cartel or combine legislation?
This is tolerated here and the C.N.R. takes advantage of it. And to think that in spite of everything, the company is unable to show a surplus; on the contrary, it shows a deficit that again must be covered by the Canadian taxpayers.
And what about shipping on the St. Lawrence. Mind you, railway companies, the Canadian Pacific in particular, all have merchant vessels they would be interested in operating up to Montreal in the winter. And why can they not? Because the federal government grants special subsidies for freight transport from the Maritimes to the centre of Canada. The C.P.R. and the C.N.R. are much more interested in getting special subsidies. The Canadian people pay taxes again for this, while the port of Montreal remains closed to shipping. Yet, winter shipping on the St. Lawrence up to Montreal is something possible nowadays, and it has been proven.
That would be progress not only for Montreal or Quebec but for all of Canada because then, the whole Canadian industry would benefit.
Let me give the following example of certain companies which are forced to spend considerable amounts of money to store their material in winter because they cannot ship it except in summer. It is well known that Canada is faced with fierce competition concerning the exportation of its natural resources such as asbestos, newsprint, aluminum and other products.
In the past, Canada filled nearly 90 per cent of Europe's asbestos requirements. Today, Russia has entered the asbestos market and Canada sells only 64 per cent of that commodity. Why? Because winter transportation is virtually impossible, unless you pay higher rates for shipments to the Maritimes. Therefore, producing companies would rather wait till summer to ship their merchandise, because doing it in winter, through the Maritimes, increases the cost and our Canadian industries can no longer compete with Russian industries which do not have to pay such transportation costs in the country.
The Aluminum Company of Canada, in its brief to the Gordon commission, pointed out that the sale of aluminum products had decreased on the export market due to increas-
Supply-Transport
ingly tougher competition from abroad; the Aluminum Company of Canada said further that shipping on the St. Lawrence in winter meant economies which enable those industries to win back lost ground on the world market.
Mr. Speaker, because the railway companies receive subsidies from the government-$10 million, $20 million-to transport freight from the Maritimes, they prefer to run their trains from the Maritime toward the central section of the country rather than help our industry compete with other countries in the matter of exports.
Those are the reasons, Mr. Chairman, which lead us to say that the present policy of the federal government and the transport department concerning subsidies for the transportation of freight by rail in Canada is no longer adequate, that it is even illogical, and that it is no help at all to the economy of the country because it is forcing into stagnation one of the most important Canadian industries, the trucking industry.
The sum of $20 million had been voted for one year in order to meet salary increases. Did the railway companies try to find a way to finance these salary increases when the $20 million would be gone? No. The $20 million were used to lower the rates, and after a year the railway companies came back to parliament for a further $20 million. This was granted in 1961 and I think another $20 million was voted; in other words, $50 million were added in 1964 and so we have this sum in the supplementary estimates "D" for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1966. The amount of those subsidies, which stood at $20 million in 1958, has now reached $70 million. Where are we going at this rate? We might as well say that the federal government, the Department of Transport or the Canadian people are footing the bill for all [DOT] freight transportation in Canada, when private enterprise can do it at a reasonable price.
As I said, let us subsidize the C.N.R. where private enterprise cannot provide a service or so that it can lower its rates to the private enterprise level, but not to put them below that of private enterprise. It would certainly be illogical to have the federal government subsidize the railways to this end with the Canadian taxpayers' money.
You would think that the government was trying to ruin private enterprise which, through taxes, is filling the government's coffers.


Supply-Transport
Well, Mr. Chairman, in those circumstances, we want to protest against those many subsidies, against the government's way of doing those things, against the policy now followed by the Department of Transport.
It is time for a definite program to be submitted to the attention of all those who are looking after the transportation business in Canada, so that the Canadian trucking industry may know what to expect and what the future has in store for them.


Mr, Olson:: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the first opportunities members of the house have had for a long time to deal with the many problems that exist within the transportation industry in Canada today. There is so much involved in the administration of this department which requires the attention not only of the department but of the House of Commons and the entire transportation industry that one scarcely knows where to begin. A problem exists in respect of the railways with regard to both passenger and freight services. We have waited for several years for a specific statement on regional air policy. To date no such policy has been put forward. Another matter of importance is the MacPherson commission report and the changes to the Railway Act to be based on it. While many of these things are of paramount importance and have almost reached the position of being crises in this country, I should like to deal with railway transportation in respect of passenger service in part but in greater detail with regard to the lack of facilities for freight movement within Canada to-day.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
At the outset I say to the minister that I consider to be improper the supplementary judgment issued by the Board of Transport Commissioners within the last few days respecting the cancellation of the "Dominion". I say it is improper to hand down a supplementary judgment of this kind when the board knows very well that the original judgment is being appealed to the Governor in Council. Under section 53 of the Railway Act the Governor in Council is required to hear petitions of appeal and surely it is not going to be helpful to public relations with the people involved for a supplementary judgment to be issued by the Board of Transport Commissioners stating that they are not going to order the C.P.R. to reinstate this service even for the summer. What

makes it even more improper so far as I am concerned is that it is not a unanimous judgment. Commissioner Woodward has filed a minority report indicating that he does not agree there is justification for advising the C.P.R. at the present time that this passenger train service will not be required during the summer of 1966 or 1967.
Another problem that has arisen very recently is what is commonly referred to as the slow movement of grain from the western prairies to export position. I was amazed, indeed astounded, by the remark made in the house yesterday by the Minister of Finance who suggested he would not agree with the proposition that there has in fact been a slow movement of grain from the western prairies in this crop year. The minister suggested that recently the terminals in Vancouver have been unloading something like 600 cars per day. If that is true, and I accept it as being true, this has only happened very recently. It is unfortunate indeed in my opinion that the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board should in this house give aid and comfort to the railways when they have failed so miserably during this crop year to deliver grain into export position.
I have in my hand a statement from the Canadian Wheat Board respecting the quota distribution as at February 7, 1966, only three days ago. I am not going to go into all the details of this statement but it gives the figures for this crop year and the previous crop year for each of the provinces. In all the provinces as of this date there are still 108 shipping points on a two bushel per specified acre quota. On the same date last year there were none in that low category. On February 7 this year there were 303 shipping points on only three bushels per specified acre and a year ago there were only 31. On a four bushels per acre quota there were 498 shipping points as of February 7 this year and last year there were only 331.
When you look at the other end of the quotas, in other words, at the six bushels per acre shipping points, you find that as at February 7 last year there were 950 such points and this year there are 581 or about half as many. I think this gives an indication of the over-all situation in so far as moving grain out of western Canada is concerned. Quotas certainly have not risen as rapidly this year as they did last year. What is more, we were led to believe last fall that the sales of grain to China, Russia and many of our other customers were higher for this crop


year than last year, but the performance to date with regard to delivery is as I have stated.
However, Mr. Chairman, these figures do not tell the whole story. There are many points in southern Alberta that I know of-I could read these letters into the record if I had time-where, even though the very lowest quota has been set, namely, two bushels per acre, sufficient box cars have not been put into position to enable the farmers at these shipping points to deliver even that small amount. It goes further than that. I checked last night to make sure I was correct and was told that one of the flour mills in Medicine Hat now has placed over 200 orders for grain in the area. Yet we are told that mill orders are given priority. In one particular case an order was issued last October for a carload of grain and it came in last week. Therefore it is amazing and somewhat disappointing to hear the Minister of Finance say that as far as he knows there has been no slow movement of grain in western Canada.
Very recently I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the delay or slow movement of grain was interfering in any way with Canada's external aid program. The minister said, "I do not know that there is any problem at all". We received the same kind of answer again. I can tell the minister this. An order has now been issued by the Department of External Affairs, or whoever handles these matters, for some flour to be shipped to India and unless there is a remarkable change in the delivery of grain to the mills that will be gristing the flour the managers of the mills will simply throw up their hands and say they do not know where they are going to get the grain. Even today not sufficient grain is being hauled in to allow them to meet their commitments for domestic flour and the obligations they have with respect to the very large flour order received from Russia a few months ago.
I believe the time has long passed for some action in this regard. The Minister of Transport will have to take a far more active interest in what is happening to our railway transportation system. I say this, Mr. Chairman, because our railway transportation system is apparently gradually becoming more and more inadequate in keeping up with the present demands of our economy. We do not require any additional legislation to deal with this kind of problem. The Railway Act states very clearly that the minister and the Board of Transport Commissioners
Supply-Transport
have the authority, if they will use it, to require the railways to provide services and facilities for all the traffic that is offered to them. I am sure most hon. members are familiar with section 315 of the Railway Act. The obligation on the railways is set out very clearly in this section and I shall read part of it:
The company shall, according to its powers,
(a) furnish, at the place of starting, and at the junction of the railway with other railways, and at all stopping places established for such purpose, adequate and suitable accommodation for the receiving and loading of all traffic offered for carriage upon the railway;-
Section 315 (b) reads:
furnish adequate and suitable accommodation for the carrying, unloading and delivering of all such traffic;-
Then it says in paragraph (c):
without delay, and with due care and diligence, receive, carry and deliver all such traffic;-
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
That section of the Railway Act has not been repealed. It is still as valid as when it was written. I know of no attempt whatever by the Minister of Transport or by the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the the Canadian Wheat Board, or by the Board of Transport Commissioners to order the Canadian Pacific to provide the cars that are required to haul the grain that is offered to them. Yet this is part of the law. It is not good enough to say that they do not know about these problems. If the Minister of Transport and other responsible ministers of the Crown are paying any attention whatever to the freight situation in western Canada, surely they must know that there has been a very unsatisfactory performance in so far as the railways are concerned, particularly the Canadian Pacific.
I think it should be unnecessary, Mr. Chairman, to remind the Minister of Transport of what the MacPherson Royal Commission had to say. One of the opening paragraphs of the report of that commission reads:
An adequate system for transporting men and material is a necessary condition of a modem industrial society.
Yet we have the situation that has developed over these last two or three years in which the railways are not meeting the demands for railway freight service. Apparently nothing is being done about it. I note that even in the United States there is talk about the problem of finding enough freight cars. For example, I have a press release dated


Supply-Transport
February 5 which indicates that Senator Burdick from North Dakota has introduced a bill in the United States Senate designed to help the railways resolve the freight car shortage which they term a national emergency.
However, Mr. Emerson, President of the Canadian Pacific Railway, appeared before the Board of Transport Commissioners and said that there were 9,200 Canadian Pacific box cars in the United States. Our own grain is lying in elevators and not being moved into an export position. Many ships waiting in harbour have had to leave because they could not wait longer. But there has been no action whatever on the part of the Minister of Transport even to attempt to use his influence on the railways to remedy the situation.
As I said before, Mr. Chairman, I think the time is long past when the Minister of Transport, if he is going to discharge the responsibilities he has to this nation, should take a very keen personal interest in this matter to see that the situation is corrected. It is not good enough to say that there is far more grain being offered now than there has been for some years and that the problem may be only temporary. This situation has occurred year after year and it is getting worse. What is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that as the demands of other freight traffic increase the Canadian Pacific seems to leave all the grain until everything else is hauled.
I do not believe that sort of attitude toward the handling of grain was ever anticipated when the millions of dollars and millions of acres of land were granted to the Canadian Pacific to undertake this job. I do not know how I can adequately impress upon the minister how serious this matter is. I urge him to do something about it. We could go back over the history of the conditions under which the Canadian Pacific was given land grants, concessions and so on. However, I assume that is well known to the minister. At least, I hope so.
One of the most amazing statements I have heard was made during a Board of Transport Commissioners' hearing when Mr. Emerson and Mr. Fraine, Vice President in charge of railway operations, were asked if the C.P.R. could haul additional tonnage on the fast freights which move in both directions through western Canada. They admitted it was possible to handle a substantial number of additional cars on these fast freights in so far as weight was concerned but they

categorically refused to give any consideration to hauling any grain on these trains because it would slow down their speed.
If we have reached a situation in Canada where the grain traffic is going to be set aside not only day after day but week after week and often even for months because the railway is too busy hauling something else, then I believe we have to conclude that the parliament of this country has to take some very positive action to correct this situation. We hope that the grain exports, which have been amounting to anywhere from 500 million to 600 million bushels, are going to continue. If we have gone beyond the amount that any particular railway is able to transport, then this will of course put a very firm ceiling on the amount of grain business we can do.
I am a little concerned about the statements by senior officials of the Canadian Pacific that they are not going to put grain on these fast freights. It seems to me that under the Railway Act the Board of Transport Commissioners has the authority to tell the railway to haul some grain on these trains. Section 323 of the act indicates that they have the authority but they certainly have not used it up until now. They have the authority to make sure there is no undue preference for any single kind of traffic. We had hoped, for example, when navigation on the lakes closed about December 15 that this situation would be resolved.
We had hoped that following the close of navigation there would be additional equipment available to move grain to the west coast. Even this has not happened. At least, there has been no apparant increase on Canadian Pacific lines. I hope the Minister of Finance is correct and that the situation has changed in the last few days. Representations have been made time after time to the responsible ministers about this whole problem. However, none of them seems to take an active interest in the problem with the exception of the Minister of Agriculture. When he made his trip to western Canada recently he seemed to be aware of the fact there was a problem; at least, he made some statements about it. There have been some remarks passed back and forth in the house to the effect that he had his wings clipped when he got back to Ottawa.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I hope that has not happened, Mr. Chairman. As I see the situation in western Canada, what the Minister of Agriculture said appeared to be closer to the truth than


what the Minister of f inance and the Minister of Transport have said with regard to the performance of the railroads so far in this *crop year. Therefore, we sincerely plead with the minister to take a keen interest in grain movement and do whatever he can to impress on the C.P.R. that Canada granted that railway its franchise and all its other concessions with the expectation that it would perform the duties and functions for which the railroad was built.
I do not want to take a lot of time in this extremely important debate and perhaps I can come back later to the question of passenger service, but I should like the minister to consider one or two matters before we reach the remainder of his estimates. So far as I am concerned the so-called variable costs respecting the "Dominion" supplied by the C.P.R. to the Board of Transport Commissioners hearings were simply not the kind of figures we expect so far as the public interest is concerned. Under cross-examination the officials were unable to give any clearcut indication of how much of these so-called variable costs would be saved if the "Dominion" did not run. It is interesting to note that at this hearing it was suggested that somewhere between 55 to 60 per cent of the so-called costs attributed to the operation of the "Dominion" would not be saved at all but would be continuing costs to the company whether or not the train ran.
A book published in 1935 by the University of Toronto Press and written by Professor W. T. Jackman says at page 101:
1.	That about 55 per cent of the operating expenses and about 65 per cent of the total expenses are constant and go on despite the changes in the amount of traffic carried by the railways.
2. That only about 45 per cent of the operating expenses and about 35 per cent of the total expenses vary in accordance with changes in the volume of traffic carried.
If you subtract 55 to 60 per cent of the so-called costs which the C.P.R. claimed as attributable to the "Dominion", then there is no deficit at all in operating that train. If there is no deficit, Mr. Chairman, I should like the Minister of Transport to know that I think the people of Canada are entitled to that passenger service. On the other side of the ledger, one thing which is very certain is that when you withdraw a service all the revenue disappears. If 55 to 60 per cent or around $10 million to $11 million, of the so-called variable costs are going to be continuing costs, then there is no justification in my mind, purely on the basis of costs, for allowing the C.P.R. to withdraw this service.
Supp ly-Transport
The other matter which disturbs me greatly about reducing railway passenger service is this. Canada has some great plans, at least, I hope we have, to celebrate our centennial in 1967. Last summer thousands of people got in touch with their members of parliament and claimed they could not get reservations on either the "Dominion" or the "Canadian" even though they had applied months in advance.
The C.P.R. deny this. But, of course, though they deny it they cannot prove the statement wrong because they have not been keeping track of the number of requests made for space. I think it is commendable that they have been ordered to make some attempt to keep track of requests for space. There has been a reduction in the number of people carried by the Canadian Pacific Railway as a result of discontinuing the "Dominion". During the summer this train hauled anywhere from 16 to 24 cars. By their action they are reducing by 50 per cent the number of people who could use this service in 1966 and 1967.
In 1967 we will also have Expo. We hope people from all over Canada will take part in this great Canadian show. But if in 1965 there was insufficient space for people to travel across the country by rail and air and one service is reduced by 50 per cent, surely this will hurt the kind of performance we would like to see Canada put on at this exhibition in 1967.
I urge the minister that immediately or as soon as possible he take under consideration the orders that have been issued by the Board of Transport Commissioners. I also suggest that he at least go so far as to order this service to be restored at once until the end of 1967 so that we will not be frustrated or in any way inhibited in celebrating our 100th anniversary and taking part in our great world fair.
We would not be asking the C.P.R. to bear any great financial burden if the service was restored because according to studies which have been made going back to 1935 most of these costs are going to continue anyway. This also raises the other problem of who is going to pay the costs. The captive freight shippers? For matters such as maintenance of way and so on it is obvious there will be no diminishing of cost.
In closing I want to urge the minister to give these matters serious consideration. I think he already has legal authority under the Railway Act to tell the senior manage-


Supply-Transport
ment of the railways, particularly of the C.P.R., that the government intends to see to it that railway service, both passenger and freight, adequate to meet the rising demand in our expanding economy is continued.
I also suggest that one of the major items which is holding back the expansion of our economy today is the bottleneck in railway freight traffic. I hope the minister will use all his influence to make the senior management of the C.P.R. understand that the government of Canada intends to see that it lives up to the agreements the company entered into when it was formed, which include providing adequate facilities and accommodation for all traffic offered to them. That is not being done today, Mr. Chairman.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Sherman:: Mr. Chairman, I have chosen this occasion for my maiden speech because, with the house now considering the estimates of the Department of Transport, the current subject of examination and debate on this floor is the field of national activity about which my constituency is most exercised and unhappy at the present time. I speak, of course, of Winnipeg South and of transportation, two items which this winter, sir, if found together in the same sentence, are highly inflammable.
I rise on this occasion to make my maiden speech in this greatest of all Canadian institutions. May I at the outset extend to you my congratulations on your nomination to the position in this great chamber which you occupy. You have already demonstrated by the discharge of your role since this house went into committee a few days ago that we can look forward throughout this session when in committee to fair, judicious and efficient chairmanship. Your example of parliamentary conduct is of tremendous educative value to new members of the house like myself.
I do not intend to follow the familiar pattern of the maiden speechmakers and subject you and the members of the committee to a bland recitation of the tourists' guidebook to Winnipeg South. You have not the time for it, sir. The members of this committee do not have the time for it. I have not the time for it, and I can assure you that the citizens of Winnipeg South have not the time for it.
The citizens of Winnipeg South, through their elected representative in this chamber, are here on urgent business. They are here to complain that, possibly as a calculated aspect

of the transportation program being pursued by the present government of this country and certainly as a result of it, the city of Winnipeg is being phased right out of the Canadian transportation picture. Through the slow erosion of the once-powerful Air Canada complex in greater Winnipeg, through a breach of promise to Winnipeg with respect to the new Canadian-American bilateral air line agreement, and Anally with a decision to permit the Canadian Pacific Railway to discontinue its "Dominion" passenger service, the present federal government would appear to be doing its best to wipe Winnipeg right off the map in the air and on the ground.
That, at any rate, is the way it appears to the people of Manitoba in general and to the people of Winnipeg in particular at the present time. If anyone in this chamber thinks that I overstate the case, let him come to Winnipeg. Let him talk to our mayor and to our area mayors. Let him talk to the chairman of our metropolitan government, to our provincial government officials, to our Chamber of Commerce, to our representative businessmen and to our private citizens. Let him come out and attend with me public meetings such as the one I attended less than a month ago where reasonable, respected leaders of our community, who are normally quiet-spoken, joined together in one of the strongest and most vigorous protests in my experience in Winnipeg. The federal government's treatment of Winnipeg in so far as transportation development is concerned was castigated at that meeting in language as strong as language can possibly be and still remain within the realm of respectability.
It is not common to hear citizens and community leaders eschew restraint and complain as bitterly in my part of Canada as we are complaining today. Year in and year out, through the march of the decades in our nation's history, I submit that the Manitoban has been the quiet Canadian, loyal, productive, interested in the good of the whole nation. He has been the strong, silent type. It is precisely because we have always been quiet that some in this chamber may think we shall always remain so.
I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that if they think so they are living in a politician's paradise. I am here to state for the citizens of Winnipeg South, without equivocation, that where the broad national subject of transportation is concerned our sentiment is aroused and our patience is at the breaking point. Should we forgo our customary restraint,


should we regularly complain noisily and tediously about our lot in the national picture, and should we cry out in most un-Manitoban fashion, would it be so disloyal and destructive of us? Would it be necessarily wrong? The cry of outrage, of wounded pride, has worked for others in our Canadian confederation. Why should it not work for Manitoba too? Perhaps we only betray ourselves in Manitoba by being the quiet Canadians and by being reasonable.
We Manitobans want a place in what Premier Duff Roblin has called "the Canadian sun." Absolutely indispensable to the achievement of that goal is a place in the Canadian transportation picture befitting the size, the status, the economic requirements and the strategic, geographic location of the capital city of Winnipeg, which is a metropolitan community of half a million persons.
I find it incomprehensible, Mr. Chairman, that the present federal government should reason, as it quite obviously does, that it is perfectly sane Canadianism to build this country entirely on certain of its regions while ignoring other regions altogether. To me that is folly. What other country in the world of any status was built this way? However, worse than folly, sir, it is un-Canadian. The transportation program that this government is following is a deliberate policy of regional negligence of the most flagrant kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: When we say in Manitoba that we desire a place for our province in the "Canadian sun" we are preaching Canadianism of the purest kind. For we also desire a place in the Canadian sun for Nova Scotia, for Prince Edward Island, for Saskatchewan, for the Yukon, for Quebec, and for every part of this great land whose potential is limited only by the limitations of man.
This is what we want in Manitoba and for Canada in all her parts. The people of each part must be strong if the nation is to be strong. More than that, each one of the parts has the right to be strong. And where one part is comparatively weak the rest of us are weak. The federal government has a sacred Canadian responsibility to contribute to the strengthening of all our parts. If the Atlantic provinces are strong, then I as a Canadian am the stronger for it. If they are weak, then I am the weaker. If the prairies are rich, then I as a Canadian am richer. If they are poor, then I am the poorer. This is our philosophy in Winnipeg. It is absolutely inconceivable to
Private Bills
us that the present Canadian government should think and act otherwise. Mr. Chairman, I have considerably more to say but I am watching the clock. May I call it six o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, in conformity with standing order 3 9A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather), Broadcasting-request for identification of owners of private stations; the hon. member for Springfield (Mr. Schreyer), Agriculture-federal assistance to co-operative livestock organization; and the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), Capital punishment-request for report of penal reform committee prior to debate.
The house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, notices of motions for papers, and public bills.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, February 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Richard for the second reading of Bill No. C-lll, to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, when the hour for private members' business expired the last time this bill was being considered, I had had little more than an opportunity to indicate that I felt that the subject matter of Bill C-lll, which is designed to achieve the incorporation of the Bank of Western Canada, was a very important one. I indicated at that time that I might have something to say on the subject when it came before us again.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
I do not wish to delay the house unduly in its consideration of this matter but there are one or two comments I should like to make. I think there has been growing recognition in this parliament during the last couple of years of the important role which it might be possible for regional banks to play in developing the economy of our country. The arguments put forward in respect of this particular application include a claim that the bank

February 10, 19G6
Private Bills
in respect of which this application is made will serve as a new regional bank. Those who advocate it have seen fit to bestow upon this proposed new bank the title "Bank of Western Canada" and provision is made for the head office to be situated in Winnipeg. I realize it has become something of a habit among a number of members of this house to think of the city of Winnipeg as being in western Canada. Representing as I do Co-mox-Alberni in this house, let me say that Winnipeg seems to me a long way from western Canada.
I realize that this question has been a topic of discussion over the years. So far as I am concerned Winnipeg is in central Canada. I think one has only to look at a map of our country to realize that this is the situation. Geographically speaking, it is roughly in the centre of Canada. I suggest, therefore, that this proposed bank might much better be described as "the Bank of Central Canada" rather than "the Bank of Western Canada". If I were to look through my files I believe I could produce what amounts to official recognition on the part of the government of Canada of this proposition. Recently I was in conversation on this question with some of my hon. friends who represent the city of Winnipeg in this chamber and I was finally able to produce to them a government publication entitled "The Climate of Central Canada". We discovered on examining this publication that it was describing the climate in and around the city of Winnipeg.
The point I am making is strengthened by the fact that the bill as it now stands provides that the directors of the proposed bank shall be residents of Canada but no mention is made of the area in which they should reside. Those who are interested in this bill, the provisional directors, are in fact residents of the city of Toronto. I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that after perusing the bill carefully I am somewhat sceptical that this proposed bank is in fact designed to be a regional bank even for the region around the city of Winnipeg, quite apart from the question I raised earlier concerning the name of the bank, which might not be too important.
It might be of interest to point out in this connection that as we all know another proposal for a new regional bank has been introduced in the other place. I understand, in fact, that it has been given second reading there. I refer to the application by the proposed Bank of British Columbia. It is interesting to note that under the terms of

that bill, as contrasted with the one before us, it is provided that a majority of the directors must be resident in the province of British Columbia. I think this is an important distinction to be drawn if one is thinking in terms of the functioning of regional banks.
When this question was being considered earlier we heard a fairly lengthy speech from the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis). I listened to it attentively because I was interested in his argument. At that time I was disposed to pursue some of the remarks he made. However, on reflection I felt most of his observations were addressed to the application on behalf of the Bank of British Columbia which I have just mentioned. He dealt at some length with the question whether or not provincial governments should be allowed to hold shares in chartered banks. I consider this to be an important matter for debate although I am not so sure that this is an appropriate time for such a debate to take place.
The hon. member for Coast-Capilano went to such length in dealing with this particular question, however, that I feel I should say something about it. I have not altered the views I held when similar applications were before us. Indeed, I believe the proper functioning of regional banks in the interests of the development of the whole of Canada might be more effective if the interested government authorities in the provinces or regions concerned were entitled to have some say as to the way in which these banks were run. Contrary to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, such an interest in these banks would in no way weaken the jurisdiction of the federal government and parliament of Canada over monetary and fiscal matters. Indeed, it might serve to ease some of the existing strains which occur under our present constitution in relations between the federal and the provincial levels of government.
I know that in the other place an assurance has been given by the hon. Senator sponsoring the bill in question. He stated he had been authorized by the Premier of British Columbia to give an undertaking that the provincial government would not seek to hold any shares in that or any other chartered bank. I much regret that the Premier of British Columbia has backed off from the position he took earlier in this connection. I believe this will weaken the effectiveness of the development of regional banking in the area.


[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
I understand that the application of the other bank has been allowed to go to the banking and commerce committee of the other place. Bearing in mind the history of some of these banking applications introduced in the past, I am inclined to assume that Their Honours will allow this particular application to come to this house for our consideration. That being the case, the detailed consideration of all the aspects which are raised by these two applications could be undertaken by our Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when representations from all of the parties involved could be heard. For that reason I am quite agreeable to this bill receiving second reading today.


Mr. Henri Lalulippe (Compton-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I would not forgive myself if I did not take this opportunity to say a few words on the economic and banking situation in Canada. Yesterday I listened to the hon. members who criticized the banks and tried to prove to us that more banks were needed to increase competition between these institutions, which would be of great benefit to the people.
I do not quite share the views of hon. members who say that one or two more banks, even a few more, would create more competition in Canada and would serve Canadians better.
I say to these hon. members that all these institutions are governed by the same regulations and that they would charge the same interest rates. One bank more or less would not put more money in circulation. A few banks more or less will not make much difference in the country's economic situation, or consumption in Canada. Banks are good and solid institutions which must be preserved; we are not against banks but rather against the great powers which the nation's supreme authorities have entrusted to them.
Banks rule the roost in Canada. Individuals, governments, public bodies have to bow to them for such credit as they receive in dribs and drabs. Those great institutions are in need of reform, and if we create other banks or near-banks on the same system, with the same powers, we will be no further ahead.
Some financial reforms should be made. As I was saying a moment ago, banks are not concerned with consumption. If someone wants to borrow money from them, they will lend it to him according to the confidence 23033-65
Private Bills
they have in him. If they have confidence in an individual or if this individual owns property or has any collateral, his credit will be good at the bank. But they do not take consumption into account. If the only basis to obtain a loan in such institutions is the confidence they have in a few people, then I will say that these institutions can have confidence in only about 10 per cent of the Canadian people. This means that 90 per cent of the citizens cannot use the services of or obtain loans from these institutions.
Those institutions are unwilling to meet the needs of Canadians and take no account of consumption or overproduction in Canada. That is why we ask the government and members of the house to take their responsibilities. We know that everything is going well in Canada, we have nothing to complain about production, because it is abundant in every field, but distribution is not taking place. This is so because there is not enough purchasing power in the hands of the citizens, and it is up to the government to see that those institutions serve our people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, those institutions are powerful. They are so strong and powerful that the government itself and hence, the Minister of Finance, must beg them for the credit required to finance the country.
These institutions create credit at will. They manufacture the finances and the credit of the country, but this credit is manufactured only in the form of indebtedness. They create credit by incurring debts and when the supposedly sovereign nation needs credit, it is required to incur debts and bow to these great institutions and submit to them, in order to secure the credit required to finance and administer the country.
Major reforms are needed, Mr. Speaker, and if we are in debt as we are today, those are the institutions that put Canada into debt, the individuals into debt, the companies into debt because there is not one cent circulating that does not bear interest; in fact, there is not a cent in circulation, now in the hands of the taxpayers, that is not repayable. This money must be repaid, and the banks have the advantage of making this credit, of lending it to the nation, of lending to individuals in the form of interest. But as those institutions do not lend interest, they must be repaid a capital that they have not created or that they have not lent; that is the reason why we are always short of capital and we are not able to finance the nation-


Private Bills


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member who now has the floor. I have listened with a great deal of interest to his remarks up to this point, but I am a little concerned by the fact that his observations do not seem to have an immediate relation to the legislation now under consideration, that is a bill to incorporate the Bank of Western Canada. I presume that his remarks to this point are in the nature of an introduction to his speech and I suggest that he now come to the subject itself, that is, his observations should be directly related to the bill under study by the house.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I know that we are discussing Bill C-lll. We are not against this bill and we shall certainly vote for it, because we have been informed that a similar bill from British Columbia was passed in the other place. Last year we protested strongly against some bills and we prevented their passage because some refused to recognize that a provincial government had the right to create a bank which would follow the same regulations as other banks. That is why I think that this bill will be passed, but before concluding I should like to say once more that we should amend it. We could discuss at length the way in which these institutions are run and the fact that they do not serve the nation. Those institutions are exploiting the nation and it is up to the members and especially to the Minister of Finance to face up to their responsibilities in this matter. There are heavy responsibilities resting on the shoulders of the people's elected representatives and of the Minister of Finance, as regards the nation's credit facilities.
All that is physically possible ought to be financially possible. If not, then our economy is upside down and should be reformed. As I was saying a moment ago, there is not much that is wrong in Canada, except the credit system, which does not serve the country, does not finance institutions and industries, but only finance by creating debts, and that is why we ask the government to assume its responsibilities.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
New credit should be created by the Bank of Canada or by a control institution in Canada, independently of the chartered banks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member is wandering again and I once more suggest that he keep his remarks

to the principle of the bill under consideration, that is the setting up of the Bank of Western Canada.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, about that bill, it seems to me that I am within the limits of the debate, because these are financial institutions which exercise control over the nation. When there is talk of granting other bank charters or of setting up other institutions to fleece the nation in the same fashion, it seems to me something should be said or done so that at least some members of parliament might learn how those institutions function.
Mr. Speaker, a lot could be said about banks, but I shall limit myself to saying that we must, at all costs, assume some responsibilities and modernize our financial institutions; they are as old as the world and have never been reformed. We have accepted all kinds of mechanical and technical developments; we have accepted science and progress in all spheres, but we have never accepted any reforms in the financial field.
So, to be up to date, the need to reform these institutions must be recognized and they must be given adequate powers. Not a free hand though, because the government must keep the main powers, particularly the power to create credit. Thus the government could finance the nation, all the institutions in Canada, and use part of this credit to finance public assets bridge and road construction, in short, to finance various public projects, such as universities and schools, using free-interest money.
Mr. Speaker, those are the suggestions I wanted to put before the house. If they were accepted, millions of dollars would be saved for the taxpayers. Some purchasing power would be left to the taxpayers who could provide for their own needs, develop their industries, their natural resources, in a word, develop a great deal of things, if only they were left some purchasing power.
But since all this money is debt money that has to be repaid in excess of the amount received, it is impossible for our people to grow, to fulfil themselves and to develop their own natural resources. That is why 85 per cent of Canada's natural resources are being developed by foreigners.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Revel-stoke):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this bill


will be very brief. Indeed, we have no intention of holding up the passage of this bill in any way.
Certainly a bank centred in Winnipeg would be a move in the right direction but I should like to join in reminding the house that there is a similar bill in the other place. It is our hope that we will have the opportunity of dealing with both bills during this session. If we passed this bill and did not deal with the other we would regard that as an act of discrimination against British Columbia. Until we have spread the banking establishment of this country in some way all the way to the Pacific coast, I do not think we will have met the demands of the rapidly growing economy of the far western provinces, particularly the province of British Columbia.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


David Orlikow: That an order of the house do issue for copies of all the working papers prepared for the Norris commission by the chartered accountants hired by the commission and deposited by Mr. Justice Norris with the Department of Labour.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to debate this motion in the detail I would have if it had come up for discussion last session when I first proposed it. I say that because it should be obvious to everyone in the house and the people of Canada generally that the problems of the waterfront and the Seafarers' International Union are not of as urgent importance as they were, or at least the public does not consider them to be so. At the same time, I think it is important to establish certain facts.
In 1963 parliament passed, by an overwhelming majority of the members then in the house, legislation to establish a Board of Maritime Trustees with the authority and responsibility of supervising in great detail the operations of a number of unions which
23033-65J
Motion for Papers
had been established in the maritime industry. For many of us who have worked with and for labour for years this was a difficult vote. The labour movement on the North American continent has historically and traditionally been voluntary and operates without very much day to day supervision by outside forces, including government.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
I think this is a good way. On the whole it has worked very well. Many of us who voted for the legislation which established the Board of Trustees did so only because we had become convinced that it was necessary. Let us look at the facts which were brought out and which convinced us that this legislation was necessary. Over the years there had been a whole series of acts of violence, arson, beatings and possibly murder on the waterfront. When the labour movement found it impossible to deal with the S.I.U., headed in those days by Hal Banks, they appealed to the Conservative government of that time to take some action. The government was loath to do so or found it difficult to do so.
Finally the union workers who operated the Welland Canal closed that canal to shipping. Only then did the government act. A commission was appointed under Mr. Justice Norris to look into the whole question of the waterfront and the unions operating thereon. I do not have to tell members of this house what Mr. Justice Norris found. I do not have to tell members of this house that he found that the S.I.U., headed by Mr. Banks, had been guilty of acts of violence, beatings, arson and other illegal actions. It was then that the house was asked to vote on the legislation I have mentioned.
Mr. Banks is probably as bad as everything that has been said about him and possibly worse, but he could not have done those things unless he had received the co-operation of very influential and important organizations outside the labour movement. When we discussed the passage of the legislation establishing the Board of Maritime Trustees I pointed out that Mr. Banks had the most intimate connections with shipping companies, particularly with one very large shipping company, Canada Steamship Lines. I pointed out the connections which he had with other organizations and which he must have certainly had with political figures in the areas in which his union operated.
During the course of that debate and subsequently it became apparent that some very


Motion for Papers
interesting information was available in the working papers which had been prepared for the Norris Commission by its accountants amongst others. I laid a motion before the house last session asking that these papers be tabled. The position taken by the government was that they were private documents, that they were the property of the commission and the government ought not to table them.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the government's position that if civil servants and people who work for the government have to worry that every time they put something on paper it will be raised in the House of Commons, they may be very loath to write what they think and give opinions. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of sympathy for that position, but I find it difficult to understand why the government refuses to permit the tabling of these documents when the government or somebody very high up-I must assume it was the former Minister of Labour-permitted a reporter for the Toronto Daily Star to spend what obviously must have been some considerable time in the Department of Labour going through the very documents which the government refuses to table and using the information he obtained to write a very long article.
I shall put on record some of the things this reporter said in his article because it will indicate why I believe it is important, first of all, that the government agree to table these documents and, second, why I think the people of Canada have a right and in fact would be extremely interested to know what these documents contain. I quote from the Toronto Daily Star of November 6, 1964. There is a long article on page 1 written by Robert Reguly, Star staff writer. The headline is "Banks Files Show Funds To 6 Liberals". I shall read just a few paragraphs of this article:
Hal Banks' Seafarers International Union issued cheques to the political agents of five Montreal area Liberal candidates just before the 1962 federal election, The Star has learned.
The union also contributed to the 1957 campaign of a former Liberal M.P. for a New Brunswick riding.	.
Evidence of the contribution was unearthed in S.I.U. files by investigators for the Norris commission-the government inquiry that last year slammed the S.I.U. and Banks' despotic rule . . .
The evidence of S.I.U. political contributions was never made public. The Norris inquiry shied away from revealing the S.I.U.'s political entanglements . . .
tMr. Orlikow.l
But references to these political payments also crop up in the confidential working papers of the Norris commission's financial investigators.
These working papers are in the federal Labour Department files and this reporter has seen them and made transcripts of them.
The papers, largely handwritten, were culled by Norris investigators from the books of the S.I.U. and its auditors.
Then this purports to be a quotation from these papers:
"Plain white voucher dated May 31, 1957, cheque 0711, paid to (naming a former Liberal M.P.) contribution to campaign of above for Member of Parliament in election (naming a New Brunswick riding). Amount of $1,000".
Working paper numbered H12, listing "six political contributions June, 1962".
Five of the contributions referred to were in the form of S.I.U. cheques, of about $1,000 each, paid to the official agents of five Montreal-area Liberal candidates just before the election that brought the Liberals back into power.
Later in the same article Mr. Reguly says: Besides referring to specific payments to the agents of individual candidates for the Commons, Norris investigators noted "an astronomical rise" in union legal fee payments at federal election times.
I could go on and on in this vein, Mr. Speaker. I am not suggesting for one moment that it was wrong for the S.I.U. to make contributions to political parties. I would hope that more trade unions would adopt the policy of business organizations, become interested in politics and make contributions to party funds. I do not care to which party they make a contribution. They have a right to make a contribution to any political party they prefer, provided of course they make it in the way which is permitted under the union constitution, namely by making a recommendation to the local unions, having the recommendation passed in the normal way and so on. I have no objection to that being done because it is their business.
I may say, Mr. Speaker, that I think they waste their money when they make contributions to Liberal candidates but that is their business if they do it in the right way. But today I am concerned with the problem I raise, the tendency of this government to declare private practically every document. I shall not go into detail this evening, but I have another motion on the order paper asking for the tabling of the working papers presented to the conference on the war on poverty. That motion has been turned down because it is said that these documents are private. When that motion is being debated I will come into this house with ten sets of these documents because you can get them


any time you want by just calling the people who were at the conference. This illustrates how ridiculous this whole question of secrecy is. I will discuss that question on another occasion.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
I do not ask for any special rights for myself or any other member of parliament but surely members of parliament are entitled to the same rights and privileges as are given to anybody else. I do not know whether the Toronto Star reporter gained access to those documents because he is Liberal; I do not know whether he gained access to them because if he did not get access he would have raised other matters which might have been embarrassing to the Liberal party. But, Mr. Speaker, from the few quotations I have put on the record tonight from this article it is obvious that Mr. Reguly was given access to these documents. I suggest to members of this house that no newspaper reporter should have a right to peruse, study and quote from documents which the government claims are private and which are refused to members of parliament. It is for that reason I have moved this motion.


Mr. B. S. Mackasey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) I too was caught unawares since I did not believe I would be speaking on this particular motion tonight. The hon. member made several interesting points which I believe we will have an opportunity to refute in the two hours and forty minutes available to debate such a motion.
I was particularly interested in the hon. member's declared interest in the labour movement. I should like to go on the record also by pointing out to the hon. member that an interest in the labour movement is not necessarily confined to the New Democratic party. I can remember my first pay cheque when I was 17 years of age. It was exactly $18.10 and I spent $15 of that amount to join a labour union. I still remember it as a fine, venerable organization. I too share the hon. member's respect and admiration for the labour movement.
In his opening remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North cast reflections upon the particular union which Mr. Banks happened to head at the time in question. I do not want to get into the story of Hal Banks. This motion does not lend itself to that, although the hon. member used it quite skilfully as a pretext to discuss Hal Banks and the Liberal
Motion for Papers
party. When the hon. member has an opportunity tomorrow to look through Hansard and weigh his own words he will find he has contradicted himself. I am only speaking from memory, and I apologize if I am wrong, but I believe he suggested that a reporter from the Toronto Star, with the permission of the then minister of labour, was permitted to peruse the working papers of the Norris Commission.
If we presume this to be true, then we give the minister very little credit for intelligence. I think we would be inclined to treat the minister a little more liberally than that. If the Liberal party did anything to be ashamed of in the way of alleged contributions, it hardly seems likely that a man of the calibre of the minister of labour of that time would invite a newspaper reporter, regardless of whether he was pro or anti-Liberal, to peruse documents and allow him to print at will short extracts from those working papers which might be embarrassing to the Liberal party. This is one point the hon. member made that seemed to me to be a little bit paradoxical.
He ended up his speech on the rather sanctimonious note that a union should be entitled to support the party of its choice. I do not believe any of us disagree with that. As a matter of fact, I am one of those who believe that the unions of this country are entitled to no less privileges than are other segments of industry, particularly private industry. When the chips are down I must confess I have always been regarded as pro labour in my sentiments.
If the hon. member believes that labour unions are entitled to make contributions to political parties, then I do not quite understand what he is concerned about if the union in question at the time made political contributions to any particular party, ours or his own. I should like to bring to his attention that the Norris Commission was established in July, 1962, by the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) who was a very fine, decent minister of labour at whom nobody could throw stones, a man of integrity. If the S.I.U. in the early part of the campaign in 1962 saw fit to make election contributions to any member in the Montreal area, then I think it was the prerogative of the particular union in question. I resent the implication of the hon. member for Winnipeg North that the unions in those days had any less prerogatives than the C.B.R.T. which contributed very helpfully to the New Democratic Party. I for one as a


Motion for Papers
labour man am getting a little tired of the sanctimonious attitude of the people in that particular corner of the house when they indicate they have some particular prerogatives and privileges in connection with labour.
Since the hon. member is one of my favourites, Mr. Speaker, may I say there are some of the things he said with which I agree. I refer to the lack of clarity in the House of Commons in connection with the policy for the production of papers. I do not want to contradict myself but the other evening I had the opportunity of pointing out that the British system is that all documents are considered private unless they are by statute specifically declared to be public. Sweden, I said, had adopted the opposite principle, a more healthy approach, that all documents were public unless declared by decree to be private. I thought it was perhaps time that a committee of this house studied our whole attitude toward the question of the production of papers. I join with the hon. member in this regard, provided that was an aspect of the topic which he discussed. The reason he advanced the other afternoon when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) refused to table the documents was that he did not want to feel like a second class citizen inasmuch as the reporter from the Toronto Star had access to this file. I have some sympathy with this argument.
However, two wrongs do not make a right, Mr. Speaker. The investigations I have been able to make indicate that the reporter in question had access to the files but certainly not with the knowledge of the Minister of Labour. As I pointed out earlier, if there was anything in these documents that might have been embarrassing to the Liberal party it was hardly conceivable that the minister of labour of that day would want a reporter or reporters to have easy access to these working papers. If there was some doubt in my mind in connection with the notice of motion we discussed last week as to the advisability of producing papers, particularly because we did not have anything more than the jurisprudence or an affinity to the traditions of the British parliamentary system as a basis for automatically refusing production-I may differ from my party in this respect-of documents in response to reasonable requests, I think that in this particular case we do have definite guidelines set down whether or not the working papers of the Norris Commission should be made public.

As the hon. member pointed out, the Norris Commission was established in July, 1962, by the then minister of labour, the present member for Ontario. It was established by Order in Council based on a statute known as the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act, which was passed in 1948 and possibly has had some amendments since that time. The report of the industrial inquiry into the disruption of shipping states very clearly at the outset the authority of the government in establishing that particular commission.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
As I understand it, not only from reading the book but on advice from the department, the industrial inquiry commission, generally known as the Norris Commission, concerning matters relating to the disruption of shipping on the Great Lakes was established pursuant to section 56 of the Industrial Relations and Disputes Investigation Act. Subsection 5 of section 56 refers to the provisions of sections 33 and 34 as applying mutatis mutandis which means "with necessary changes", for the benefit of the legal minds here, to an industrial inquiry commission I might say that not being a lawyer I had to spend a few hours finding out what this was all about. I was too bashful to ask the Minister of Labour.
I discovered that section 33 authorizes an inquiry commission to summon witnesses and require them to give evidence on oath. The section further provides that the information obtained from documents required to be produced shall not, except as the commission deems expedient, be made public.
A lot of generalities are involved when we talk about papers. The hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) had my general sympathy with his arguments the other evening. I think we are too secretive and too general about the production of papers. It impedes the work not only of the Opposition but also of responsible members on this side who like to know what goes on from time to time behind closed doors. But until such time as this house sets out clearly and concisely what documents are public and what documents are private we will have to proceed on almost an ad hoc basis of deciding through this medium of notices of motion which documents are public and which are private.
However, in the particular instance at hand there is no difficulty in my humble opinion. We can refer with some authority to a particular act, the Industrial Relations and


Supply-Tansport
Disputes Investigation Act. I should like to refer to subsection 5 of section 56 and in doing so I compliment the then minister of labour for the very broad terms he set out for the benefit, among others, of Judge Norris.
Before I refer to the section I will say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North that his opening remarks, in which he was fair and kind enough to admit that the general public is no longer concerned about disruption on the water front, are a definite indication that the trustees appointed as a result of the Norris Commission are doing a job for the country and doing it well.


David Orlikow: I do not agree with that.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I do not care whether you agree or not; I am stating my opinion. It is also the opinion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North because in his opening remarks he stated that there is no longer any public concern over the S.I.U. or the maritime unions. I think any objective member would be very hard pressed to recall the last incident of labour strife which disrupted shipping since the Norris Commission was set up. Subsection 5 says-


Mr. Cowan:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: 
Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. The house will now resume the business interrupted at six o'clock.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.
1. Departmental Administration. $4,862,900.
Herman Maxwell Batten: Shall the item carry?
Supp ly-Transport


[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I was saying when we broke for private members' hour that our philosophy in my part of the country, Manitoba, with respect to Canada is that of a total concept of Canada that embraces the idea that what is good for one part of the country is good for all the country and that what is bad for one part of the country hurts all of the country. I was saying that if the Atlantic provinces, for example, are strong, then I as a Canadian am the stronger for it. If they are weak, then I am the weaker. If the prairie provinces are rich, then I as a Canadian, sir, am the richer for it. And I asked if they are poor, am I not the poorer?
This is our philosophy in Winnipeg South, Mr. Chairman, and it is absolutely inconceivable, as I said, that the present Canadian government should think and act otherwise.
In a country such as ours, a continent wide, disparately settled, swept by winter, the transportation network has from the beginning been, and through the foreseeable future will continue to be, the most vital artery of our national body. Transportation and the total national transportation facility is the single most germane ingredient to the concept of Canada. Yet here is a government in Ottawa today that is so preoccupied with richer, more vociferous sections of the country, so concerned with its own nest, that the fourth largest metropolitan community in the country, the whole central plexus of geographical Canada, is left to wither and rot on the transportation vine.
What kind of policy for Canada is this, Mr. Chairman? Surely everyone in Canada would be better off if Manitoba were permitted and encouraged to play its rightful role in our national transportation environment. We must insist that we are not being parochial when we make such a legitimate demand. On the contrary, it is demonstrably in the national interest to let us do so.
The factor that militates most severely against Winnipeg and against Manitoba from a transportation point of view is the lack of an air policy in this country at the present time. There is no regional air policy in Canada. In fact, there is no national air policy, and the formulation of such a policy is a first priority requirement in our view.
In the United States the decision was wisely taken long ago to promote the growth of strong, regional air carriers. Today, 11 of the 13 such carriers in the United States are
[The Chairman.]
operating in the black, and far from siphoning off the profits of the larger air lines they are actually helping to develop traffic for them. With the big, highly expensive aircraft in use today by the large air lines, and the "fly over" system that these big air lines must necessarily employ, the development of healthy regional carriers is the only solution for the transportation needs of smaller Canadian centres, and the most realistic method of serving the public on relatively short distance runs.
Regional carriers such as TransAir Limited of Winnipeg need the support of the federal government if they are going to make the contribution to Canada that they are capable of making. They need a regional air policy, spelled out by Ottawa, that will put an end to the present Air Canada monopoly, and define territories for them in which they will have an opportunity to make a reasonable profit.
The unfortunate truth of the matter is that in Canada today there is, as I said before, no national air policy. There is only an Air Canada policy. Air Canada is an excellent air line, sir, with an enviable record, and it is dear to the hearts of Winnipegers because, as the old Trans-Canada Air Lines it was born in our city. But I suggest that to repose the air policy of this country in a government owned aerial monolith is a practice that is becoming more and more harmful to our economic growth. There is room for both. There is room for Air Canada and for the regional air carrier.
Mr. Chairman, a single, simple glance at the map of North America will reveal to anyone the reason for Winnipeg's current dissatisfaction with national transportation planning in this country. We are so located, geographically, that we should be the hub of continental air traffic. However, because of the policies of the present government we have nothing to show for it. Again, we are so located geographically that we should also be the hub of Canadian rail traffic. But because of the announced policies of the present government, and I refer specifically to the decision to allow the Canadian Pacific Railway to cancel the "Dominion", we appear shortly doomed to find ourselves in a position where we have less of this type of economic enterprise than ever before in our recent history. Is it any wonder that public sentiment in our part of the country is aroused? Located where we are, and the home of a potentially formidable regional air carrier in


the corporate entity of TransAir Limited, we should be, in Winnipeg, the focus of a major air traffic enterprise fanning out in all directions to serve our developing northland, to serve Saskatchewan to the west, to serve northwestern Ontario to the east, and to serve the upper United States mid-west to the south.
We were assured by the Minister of Transport during the recent federal election campaign that no new bilateral air agreement would be signed with the United States until the Canadian negotiators secured what they wanted for Winnipeg.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, I know that the hon. gentleman does not mean to mislead with respect to what I said, but I never made any such statement, and any press report I have ever seen, although it had a statement like that in it, had a previous statement by me in quotation marks. That statement was a paraphrase of something I was supposed to have said but did not say.


An hon. Member:: That is a question of privilege.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Mr. Chairman, I might remark on that point that this was a specific quotation attributed to the minister, and perhaps attributed erroneously, but none the less attributed to the minister by a Winnipeg newspaper, the politics of which generally tend to favor the position of the party to which he belongs. It was a bylined signed article, and I have a clipping of that article in my file. However, I appreciate that one can be misquoted in the newspapers. Nevertheless the impression was created, and I subsequently wrote to the Minister of Transport with respect to this particular statement and received a gracious and lengthy reply from him.
The impression was created in Winnipeg that the minister had said that no new bilateral air agreement would be signed with the United States until the Canadian negotiators secured what they wanted for Winnipeg. If the minister says that he did not say that, then I suggest his position in Winnipeg has been compromised due to the tenor in which he was erroneously quoted in Winnipeg newspaper reports.
What was wanted for Winnipeg and by Winnipeg was a Winnipeg-Minneapolis-Chicago route for a Canadian carrier. Eight weeks after the election, an election which as we all know failed to go well for government
Supply-Transport
candidates in our region of the country, the terms of the new bilateral agreement were announced. Need anyone ask what they contained? They contained the customary plums for Montreal; the customary plums for Toronto; the customary gravy for the United States, and nothing at all for the west.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: I refrain, Mr. Chairman, from drawing the cynical inference from this chain of events that must appear obvious to everyone in this chamber. Suffice it to say that in Winnipeg we just do not believe, somehow, that the Canadian negotiators tried very hard. We say, further, that if they did not want the Winnipeg-Minneapolis-Chicago run for Air Canada, and there is good reason to believe that they did not want it, they should have gone after it for TransAir. If they could not get it for TransAir, they should have insisted that Northwest Air Lines, the American carrier now enjoying monopoly status, start servicing the route properly.
We have heard the argument that there is not enough traffic from Winnipeg to Chicago to justify direct air service. Mr. Chairman, that will not wash. That is like saying there was not sufficient western traffic 90 years ago to justify the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Louis Ralph (Bud) Sherman: Give us the route, Mr. Chairman, and let us tell businessmen in Winnipeg, Brandon, Regina, Saskatoon, Moose Jaw, Prince Albert, Edmonton, Calgary, Lethbridge and Medicine Hat that they need no longer go thousands of miles out of their way to reach the United States midwest, that all they need to do is fly direct to Winnipeg, and on to Chicago, and we will prove to you sir, that there is enough traffic to justify it.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
There is not enough traffic going from Winnipeg to Chicago via Minneapolis right now, to be sure, because up to the present time the service offered by Northwest Airlines has been of the milk-run type-far short of the standard the average business executive demands.
This is only one feature of the framework of frustration and discontent in which Winnipeg finds itself today where air transportation is concerned. We have-as I mentioned earlier-watched in bitterness and dismay


Supply-Transport
while the federal government has pursued a slow but inexorable transfer of our main Air Canada facilities to Montreal. Despite repeated assurances to the contrary, and throughout the long and acrimonious wrangle over the transfer of our Viscount overhaul base, Air Canada has continued to move skilled technical personnel out of Winnipeg at the rate of several families every month. This has been done while our local government, our citizens, Air Canada the federal government-all of us-have been waiting for the report of the Thompson Royal Commission on Winnipeg's air future.
Our provincial government was told early in January by the Minister of Transport that the Thompson report would be available no later than the end of January. Well, January has come and gone, and the report has not yet appeared. I can appreciate that it is often difficult to know the specific date by which such reports are likely to be issued. But my point is that the end of January has gone by, and the report is still awaited-which is understandable-but the transfers of personnel continue to take place.
I would ask the government in this same connection: Why is Winnipeg discriminated against when it comes to fixing the fares on international air routes? Why are we not permitted to take advantage of our geographical position when it comes to the rate structure? As a case in point, the one-way Air Canada fare from Montreal to Glasgow is $242. The one-way Air Canada fare from Winnipeg to Glasgow-a substantially shorter run-is $305. That is a surcharge of $63, yet the Winnipeg-Glasgow route goes over Hudson Bay and is therefore much shorter.
It costs more to fly to Europe from Winnipeg than to fly to Europe from Montreal, though it is a shorter route from our city. Why are we not permitted to take advantage of our geography-which works against us in so many other contexts-and to set up our city and our airport as the jump-off point to Europe for all the myriad tourists and business travellers in the central part of Canada and in the north central United States? If we could offer the lower fares that we are entitled to through our geography, we could capture that traffic and attract thousands of travellers annually to our city, to say nothing of offering our own citizens the lower fares to which they are legitimately entitled on their own overseas trips.

The federal government says we cannot do that because the fares on international air routes are fixed by IATA-the International Air Transport Association-and IATA bases its formula on rates to what it calls normal ports of entry, in this case Montreal. Why Montreal should be considered a more normal port of entry than Winnipeg in the mid-twentieth century, the air age, is a distinction the fine points of which escape us in western Canada completely. We are hardly back in the days of sail, although the Minister of Transport appears to be trying to put us there. The result of this archaic, anachronistic and discriminatory formula is that if you wish to fly from Winnipeg to Europe, you pay a fare which is the same as it would be if you flew from Winnipeg to Montreal and then flew from Montreal to Europe. That is the way the formula works, Mr. Chairman, and the government throws up its hands and says: We can't do anything about it; it's IATA.
Well, out west we do not take kindly to such transparent excuses. Why cannot the federal government do something about it? This is the Canadian government is it not? It helps shape IATA policy. What is the matter with us in Winnipeg? Are we not part of the Canadian government's responsibility? Are we not a part of Canada too? In the view of the federal government the answer to that question would appear to be no.
Figures reported in the Winnipeg newspapers just yesterday disclose the rate of growth currently to be lower in Winnipeg than in any other major city in the country. This is our condition at the moment and we place much of the blame for this squarely on the shoulders of the federal government and specifically the Department of Transport. The policies of the department are strangling us economically; strangling us and suffocating us.
The catalogue compiled by this federal government, where Winnipeg's transportation status is concerned, is a catalogue of dissembling and broken faith, a policy that flies in the face of all the lofty pronouncements about Canadian unity and co-operative federalism. Mr. Chairman, there are many suggestions I plan to make in this chamber in the weeks ahead with respect to development of major transportation facilities in Manitoba. But that is another story, and time does not permit my telling it today. What I have said today is for the record. It is my constituency's formal indictment of the transportation policy of regional partisanship that is being
February 10, 19GS

pursued by the present government in Ottawa to the detriment of western Canada and our city.
We want a place for Manitoba in the transportation sun. We do not intend to rest until we obtain it.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am not rising to speak, Mr. Chairman, but merely to exercise my right to make a factual correction. I shall have something to say later about some of the points raised in the hon. gentleman's speech. But as a Manitoban perhaps I might be allowed the indulgence of the committee to say I thought the form and the presentation of the hon. member's speech did great credit to my home town.
I am troubled about this one factual question which 1 raised when the hon. member was speaking and I should like to set the record straight. I do not claim to have examined everything which has appeared in the Winnipeg newspapers, but I did see in the Winnipeg Free Press a report which contained, in quotation marks, a statement of mine which went something like this: "I think it is well known that it is the problem of Winnipeg which is holding up the conclusion of the air bilateral." That was in quotation marks. The next sentence was not in quotation marks; it purported to be a paraphrase of what I said. Again, let me point out I am speaking from memory. My memory may not be verbally exact but I am sure of the sense of what I said. I was supposed to have said:	"There will be no bilateral concluded until Winnipeg's demands are satisfied," or something to that effect.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I recall very well the occasion when my statement was made. I said at that time that I did not believe a bilateral agreement would be reached until Winnipeg's claims were met. I said this in the knowledge that we had told the Americans that we were prepared to sign an agreement either if they would give us the right for a Canadian air line to fly from Winnipeg to Chicago, or withdraw their request that an American air line should be permitted to fly between Montreal and Chicago. I believed, as I think nearly every reasonable person would have believed, that they would have chosen to let us have the Winnipeg route, which was, from a monetary standpoint, less interesting, rather than withdraw their request for Montreal-Chicago. But they took the other alternative, something I did not expect them to do. When I expressed 23033-66J
Supply-Transport
myself in the way I did, I had good reason for that belief. But I never made the categorical statement, and it would have been wrong if I had. I just thought the committee would grant me the indulgence to correct this because I do not like to give wrong impressions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The minister's standing in the city of Winnipeg is not very high. The fact that he once lived there no longer stands to his credit. However, when other members from Winnipeg were asking questions in the house on January 19-the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and myself-we gained the impression from the minister's answer that nothing can be done until three years have elapsed. This puts the minister in a very peculiar position indeed. I think he will have to go out to Winnipeg to explain it all, and I ask him to do so.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think I should do that whether I am welcome there or not, but notwithstanding some of the things that have been said I have the impression that I still have a few friends left there.


Gordon Minto Churchill: There are not many Liberals out there.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I must say that I was deeply disappointed that we did not get the Winnipeg-Chicago route, and I want to make another correction. At no time was there any question of a Canadian air line flying the Winnipeg-Minneapolis-Chicago route-it was a direct Winnipeg-Chicago route. The route included in the new bilateral agreement is a direct flight by an American air line from Winnipeg to Minneapolis instead of the very unsatisfactory one that has existed up to now.
What we were trying to get was a direct flight from Winnipeg to Chicago and I think I ought to make that point clear. I am very disappointed we have not got it, but I do think it is very likely, now there is going to be a direct flight from Winnipeg to Minneapolis, that the traffic will grow so rapidly on that route-I share hon. members' hopes in that respect-that there will be no answer to our claim to have the route double-tracked when the question next arises.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the
minister a question. In view of the fact Canada already has a route between Chicago and Toronto would it not have been especially desirable to have a Winnipeg-Chicago-Toronto route, and for this reason does the minister not think that the government


Supply-Transport
should have held out for the Winnipeg-Chicago route?


John Whitney Pickersgill: That of course is a matter of judgment. I do not think it is fair to other hon. members who are waiting to speak for us to enter into a debate on this at the present time, but I will take note of what has been said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: To some of us in Winnipeg it is pretty important.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think we should have that flight, but the whole point is that we cannot have an agreement unless both parties say yes. In the end we had to make up our minds or we would go on indefinitely getting no agreement. We had to take what in the judgment of the negotiators was the best we could get at this time. These negotiations were held up for months, and months and months, precisely because of the insistence of the government, and mainly, if it is not immodest of me to say it, of the Minister of Transport, that this Winnipeg question should be settled.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You should have held out for another month.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Chairman, other than a brief sortie into the question period last Friday this also is the first time I have attempted to inflict any words of wisdom on the members of the House of Commons.
As is traditional, I am very tempted to take this opportunity to tell in detail of the many attractions of my riding of Port Arthur and of northwestern Ontario. I am also tempted to try to enlist support for the solution of all the problems of that area, and these are many.
However, I will resist that temptation to cover so much ground until some later date, and will attempt to concentrate on one major field related to the subject under discussion. It seems to me appropriate that, on debate of the Department of Transport estimates, the member for Port Arthur should air his views on a matter of importance, concern and quite extreme emergency to his constituents. I make no apology for the fact that much of what I have to say will be repetitious, some of it already having been mentioned during the course of this debate, but it is sufficiently serious and urgent that I think it bears repetition.
I am referring to the recent alarming developments in one of the most significant fields of transport, the serious dissipation of the

railway passenger services of this country. I feel sure I will be supported in my remarks, at least in principle, by members in all parts of the chamber, and especially by my colleagues from neighbouring constituencies, the hon. member for Fort William and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
All present here, and many throughout the country, are aware of the existence of a fairly comprehensive survey of the railway transportation system of Canada. Like others,
I have had the opportunity to study and review in fair detail the report of the Royal Commission on Transportation. This published survey, known also as the MacPherson report, in volume 1, beginning on page 43, makes very special mention of the problem of passenger services. Essentially the royal commission report appears to contain these observations, to reach these conclusions, and to make certain recommendations.
The key observations are:
"First passenger services are clearly one aspect of rail operation which is uneconomic, taken as a whole."
The second is that the railways have a-
-"continuing need of revenues to cover deficits incurred because of the apparent inability of railway management to slough off the historical, traditional and institutional obligation to provide passenger services."
The third key observation is that the revenue to cover such deficits is-
"a burden which at present must be borne by the users of rail freight services."
The key conclusions of the MacPherson report with regard to passenger services are, first:
Railways must eventually withdraw all uneconomic rail passenger services subject to similar time limitations imposed in connection with the abandonment of uneconomic plant.
And, second:
Immediate and abrupt withdrawal of rail passenger services where they are unprofitable would cause dislocations far outweighing the advantages to be gained.
The key recommendations are that elimination of uneconomic passenger services be proceeded with over a period of five years, and that since those five years could be long enough to have serious consequences for those freight shippers already burdened with high freight rates and the possibility of further increases in freight rates-
-the government of Canada should, in the interests of the nation as a whole, absorb in declining measures-for a period of five years-this most substantial of all obligations now incumbent upon railway management.


And furthermore:
To the extent that there remain after this five year period rail passenger services operating at a loss, but essential because of a lack of alternate surface transportation, it shall be the responsibility of the nation to bear the burden of that loss.
Mr. Chairman, this railway administration, railway efficiency problem, is one of the more complicated and difficult facing the nation internally today.
One cannot argue too much with the validity of the statement that passenger service is uneconomic as a direct return on direct railway investment.
One cannot argue at all about the disadvantages to the economy, and to shippers of freight, inherent in the railways' apparent practice of spreading the passenger service loss over freight rates. Most certainly this is iniquitous to the shippers, and to customers and end-consumers and users of shipped goods.
One cannot really argue with the desire of railway management to operate profitably and, in their eyes, efficiently.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Perhaps in the long term, at some distant future date, the recommended withdrawal from uneconomic passenger service may be the right answer; but even assuming the logic of the eventual withdrawal of such services, which is more than I would care to assume at this stage, there are many considerations of timing, degree and method that must first be resolved before irrevocable action can be taken. There are many interlocking and related problems of both a social and economic nature that must be carefully analysed before even the beginning of this drastic policy of mass abandonment should be condoned or permitted.
In terms of timing, there are areas and regions in this country, which are so sparsely settled with so many isolated communities, where adequate alternative passenger transportation is simply not available and does not yet exist. Let us make no mistake about this that the lack of transportation, including specifically the movement of people, is still a very major economic and social barrier to the development of Canada toward its potential. As is characteristic of so many other aspects, there are vast differences in the transportation needs of the many regions and sub regions of our nation.
A policy such as the elimination of the "Dominion" passenger train by the C.P.R.
Supp ly-Transport
might not be so drastic in the highly developed areas such as the "golden horseshoe" around Toronto or Montreal, but it could be and is most dangerous when applied to areas like northwestern Ontario and western Canada. In these underdeveloped and underpopulated sections our crying need is for more access transportation, not less, and the elimination of passenger train service is not progress to us, but regression. It could cause our regional economy to go backwards, not forward, and for us at the very best this action is very much premature. So timing and degree in a matter like this is vital.
As to method, surely the MacPherson report or the authors thereof did not anticipate or condone even the beginning of implementation of the withdrawal of passenger train services on a national scale before all the related problems could reasonably be analysed and answers worked out; but with the abandonment of the "Dominion", in particular, that withdrawal is being proceeded with at a rapid pace.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, at the pace of abandonment of railway passenger train service by the C.P.R., the discussion or study of railway policy at some future date by this house or by its transportation committee may be academic. The C.P.R. has already eliminated half of its transcontinental train operation, and certainly all the signs point to the dumping of the "Canadian" at the earliest opportunity. If the C.P.R. is permitted to proceed as it is now proceeding, this house and its transportation committee will soon be facing an already accomplished fact, particularly when it attempts to deal with the royal commission on transportation.
To make sure of all this the C.P.R. appears to be embarking on a deliberate policy of not replacing its passenger train capital equipment as it wears out, and in many ways is making its passenger service so expensive, so inconvenient and so unattractive that people will get the message which simply is: Stay away; don't ride with us we don't want you.
The stories of increased fares, of peculiar space reservation tactics, of deteriorating equipment, of frequent delays and so on are being heard on every side, and several of these have been related to some degree in this house by members of all parties. No, there cannot be much doubt that the C.P.R. is jumping the gun and is not waiting for the total study that is so necessary in regard to-this most serious and major matter.


Supply-Transport
By instinct, by training and by experience I lean toward the premise that the government should be very cautious about undue interference with business and private enterprise. By the same token, although the C.P.R. is ostensibly a private enterprise company, it is dealing in a national service and has had very considerable national assistance. Its actions gravely influence the national economy. It is by nature a utility, and this has already been recognized in principle by the Railway Act and by the creation and jurisdiction of the Board of Transport Commissioners. So, more than any other private corporation, it is answerable to the public and to this house.
I suggest that we are entitled to interfere when the national interest is threatened, and it is my opinion, as a result of recent action on the part of the C.P.R., that the national interest is being threatened. Most certainly there is sufficient evidence of public concern to justify our demanding a great deal more information and answers than we have had so far in respect of this railway problem. We have heard no real details from the C.P.R. about its program for the protection of C.P.R. employees who are being or are about to be transferred or displaced, ultimately and potentially by the hundreds. We have heard no suggestions from any source as to what happens to the smaller railway towns and communities such as Schreiber, White River, Kenora and others. What will happen to the small storekeepers, hotel owners and the dozens of other small businessmen who are locked into investments so dependent upon the trade of railway employees who may not be there much longer in many of these towns? Surely this is public business.
We have now experienced in my constituency of Port Arthur, and indeed throughout northwestern Ontario, the fear, the insecurity and the anxiety of so many people who do not know what lies ahead, but who, perhaps with real reason, anticipate the worst. This is not only public business, I consider it to be my very personal business. All these considerations and many more are pertinent to what appears to railway executives to be only a straightforward matter of railway corporate profits or losses.
The performance, profit-wise, of the C.P.R. and C.P.I. and its subsidiaries and associated companies in connection with its responsibility to its shareholders, has not been bad.
The continuation of passenger service will not in the immediate future threaten the C.P.R.'s corporate existence, particularly if a
[Mr. Andras.l
reasonable compromise solution is worked out in the near future in terms of the nation absorbing some of the passenger losses so that freight services do not subsidize passenger service. Surely the C.P.R. can be reasonably expected to be patient. This is not so simple a problem that it can be dealt with as just one of immediate corporate profits or losses. This requires study, and the time to study it thoroughly.
The appeal of the ruling of the Board of Transport Commissioners, allowing the C.P.R. abandonment of the "Dominion", will be heard by the cabinet soon. Incidentally it seems peculiar, to say the least that in spite of the knowledge of this pending appeal the transport board the day before yesterday proceeded to let the C.P.R. eliminate even the summer run of the "Dominion".
It has also been suggested that the transportation committee of this house should sit down with C.P.R. management to get a clear-cut picture of their forward plans regarding passenger train service.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
Surely until this has been done and until the MacPherson report has been fully aired and dealt with, together with all the related problems, and until a consensus of this nation has been formally reached and identified, it is reasonable to ask that the C.P.R. should itself delay any further dissipation of its passenger service and indeed even reverse its decision regarding the "Dominion".
In the absence of this voluntary action by the C.P.R., which I realize we might be extremely naive to expect, I can assure the government that a decision by it, if necessary through this house, to disallow the Board of Transport Commissioners ruling regarding the "Dominion" would be extremely well received in the Port Arthur riding and, I suggest, throughout all of western Canada.
With this type of moratorium it would then be possible to deal rationally and objectively with the whole railway program and its interlocking relationship with all segments of our nation and its people, through the house transportation committee and then the house itself, in full consultation with railway management and the railway unions. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I anticipate-if I judge the mood of the people correctly-that the C.P.R. will face the toughest and most militant union resistance in its long history during the next contract negotiations.

I further anticipate that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Transportation will, when they are dealt with, find many of the members of this house from all parties and the people of Canada in a pretty ugly mood, beamed particularly toward the Canadian Pacific Railway.
After all, the people of this country through huge grants of land and money gave this company its start and provided it with many assets that have always been highly profitable.
The C.P.R. has an obligation to this nation, and through the medium of this house and its attendant publicity I call upon this company to recognize and honour that debt by showing a great deal more patience and national responsibility, or alternatively perhaps this debt should be paid by returning to the people in full current measure those original grants.


Mr. Southam:: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to avail myself this evening of the opportunity to make a few remarks in the debate on the estimates of the Department of Transport. I only regret that I did not have this opportunity six months ago. Of course, we would have had that opportunity had not the Prime Minister of this country decided that an election was more important than carrying on the nation's business. As a result, in the intervening time many problems that existed six months ago have multiplied. I believe this is why we are having a rather exciting debate on the minister's estimates at the present time.
I have been concerned since coming back to this house in 1963 with the policy of the present government with respect to transport. It seems to me it is a rather will-o'-the-wisp, musical chairs, now you see it, now you don't, sort of policy. Those remarks are not made frivolously, Mr, Chairman. To back up what I have said may I refer specifically to what I believe to be one of the most serious problems facing Canada today. I refer to the railway line abandonment problem which has been hanging fire for four or five years, ever since the MacPherson report was brought in.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the former government under the right hon. Leader of the Opposition had a very comprehensive bill ready to present to the house when the present government took over. That bill was apparently scrapped and thrown into the wastepaper basket, and another policy was instituted. The interesting thing is that the
Supply-Transport
present Minister of Public Works was then the Minister of Transport. I do not know whether he found this problem too hot a potato but he immediately threw it into the lap of the Minister of Agriculture. I had the privilege of speaking in 1964 on the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture because at that time, as I say, it was his responsibility. Then apparently the Minister of Agriculture also decided that it was too hot a potato for him and he threw it back into the hands of the present Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport then turned it over to his efficient officials-I must say they are efficient in this department-and apparently left the matter entirely in their hands, because it seems they called in Mr. Donald Gordon and Mr. Crump, the top officials of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R., and as a result Bill No. C-120 was presented to the house. Everybody knows what happened to that bill. After 12 or 15 meetings of the Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines this bill, too, was scrapped and thrown into the wastepaper basket. Today we are back where we were, and this heavy cloud of uncertainty and doubt is still hanging over western Canada.
My remarks this evening are not directed to rail line abandonment, Mr. Chairman, because I know the government has another bill ready to present to the house and I shall have an opportunity to make some remarks on that bill at a later time. I just mention the problem of rail line abandonment to illustrate that we have cause for concern in western Canada as far as transport is concerned.
I want to be one of the first to congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South upon the very comprehensive and lucid contribution he made to the debate this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Richard Russell Southam: He also pointed out some of the will-o'-the-wisp problems that we have out in western Canada. We have a problem as far as air transport is concerned. This problem affects that great city of Winnipeg, the gateway to the west, Saskatoon, Regina, Moose Jaw and other points in western Canada. In addition to these problems we have those of run-throughs, master agencies, railway station abandonment and the depletion of railway passenger service, a recent example of which was the withdrawal of the "Dominion". I am sure we shall hear more about that.
Then last but not least, Mr. Chairman, is the problem of shortage of box cars. We


Supp ly-Transport
heard a very good, comprehensive contribution on this subject yesterday afternoon from the hon. member for Lethbridge who led off in this debate. I was very interested, also, in the contributions made by various members on the other side of the chamber with regard to the problem of box car shortage. Yesterday the Minister of Finance, under whose jurisdiction lies the Canadian Wheat Board, made the brave statement that now approximately 600 box cars a day are being utilized in the movement of grain. However, Mr. Chairman, the facts do not bear out the minister's statement, because as the hon. member for Lethbridge pointed out there are figures which indicate there is still a serious problem in this area. I wish to re-emphasize those figures.
I have here the latest report of the Canadian Wheat Board with regard to quota distribution as at February 7, 1966. This statement gives comparative figures for 1964-65 and 1965-66. In February, 1964, there were no points in Saskatchewan on a two-bushel quota; at the present time we have 48 points on a two-bushel quota. In 1964-65 there were 14 points on a three-bushel quota in Saskatchewan, and at the present time we have 157 such points. In 1964-65 we had 327 points on a five-bushel quota; this year we have 260. In 1964-65 we had 475 points on a six-bushel quota, and at the present time we have only 230; in other words, in 1964-65 about twice as many points were on higher quota. These are alarming facts as they affect the western farmer.
There is a contradiction in this situation. The Minister of Finance told us yesterday how wonderful the situation is and what an acceleration there has been in the removal of grain in box cars. Yet under the date of January 20 we see this headline in the Ottawa Citizen, "Box-car pile-up clash in making with C.P.R. head". The article reads in part:
Agriculture Minister Greene, whose colleagues now call him "Choo Choo" Greene after his slashing attacks on the C.P.R., has found that there are 21,000 Canadian box cars now tied up from Winnipeg to Chicago.
The article says later:
This, he argues, is 5,000 more box cars out of the country at this critical time than in any other January since 1962. In the years between 1962 and 1965, the average number of box cars at loose in the U.S. only totalled between 15,000 and 16,000.
And this at a time when the total number of box cars in Canada was 5,500 less than four years ago. Right now the C.P.R. and the C.N.R. each have a total of 10,000 each at work in this country.

[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
This, of course, illustrates the difference of opinion between the ministries with regard to the box car shortage. This evening, I want to deal with one particular facet of this box car shortage. The minister will recall that on January 21, after the house opened, I put a question to him relating to this problem. He admitted that there was a problem. I think the reason he did this was that last July I had the opportunity and good fortune of getting a little information about this subject. It so happened that a railwayman from the United States, the New York Central Railway, who asked me not to divulge his name, was spending a holiday in Canada following his retirement. We were discussing the relative problems of agriculture in the United States and Canada and our conversation moved around to the utilization of box cars in the United States. He said he was immeasurably surprised at the increase in the usage of Canadian box cars in the United States over the last three or four years.
I proceeded to ask him his opinion as to the reason for this increase. He made several observations and I think the house and the minister would be interested in them. He said that it seemed our Canadian railroads had a better maintenance scheme for box cars than they had in the United States. As a result when our cars were sent down to the United States with the large volume of Canadian products, such as paper, wood pulp and so on, under the reciprocal agreement the United States railroads loved to have the opportunity to utilize those box cars as long as they could.
Now, we have the deterrent of the per diem demurrage or the return charge for these cars. I am going to put some figures on the record in a few minutes which will emphasize the point I am trying to make. He went on to say, too, that he felt the recent devaluation of the dollar in Canada worked to the advantage of United States railroads because apparently there has been no increase in demurrage charges in the last few years to offset the economic advantage the United States railroads have of approximately 8 per cent in a decrease the demurrage charges.
We find this situation has developed and has amplified in the last few years. Another basic problem is the fact that the economies of both the United States and Canada have become increasingly more buoyant over the last few years and the gross national product


has been going up. There has been more interchange between the two countries, and we are glad of that fact. In looking over the statistics, I find that the railroads in Canada have not kept pace with this increased economic growth by adding new cars. Here again, I think the railroads are at fault. There are a number of factors that contribute to the shortage, but here is a basic one. Possibly our railroads have not been as optimistic as this government and former governments about the increase in our exports, particularly grain, with the result that possibly they are following the philosophy that automation will permit them to keep up to the demand that is made on transportation facilities with the same number of cars.
Apparently this judgment is in error because we find now that we have one of the greatest shortages of box cars in the history of western Canada or, in fact, in Canadian history. I should like to substantiate one of these remarks of mine by a letter I have received through the minister's department. After I had this conversation with this United States railroad official, I took the matter up with the Minister of Trade and Commerce at that time and the Minister of Transport. They were very courteous and made an investigation into it. Apparently they took up the question with the Canadian National, and I do not know if they got any reply from the Canadian Pacific. Mr. Arbique, the secretary to Mr. Vaughan of Canadian National, has written a letter and I should like to put a portion of it on the record. This letter is dated August 30, 1965 and reads in part as follows:
The return of Canadian box cars from the United States and the United States box cars from Canada is governed by rules of the Association of American Railroads which permits use of the cars to or in the direction of the car owners. The United States customs regulations do not permit the use of Canadian cars in U.S. domestic service except in accordance with the above rules.
Here is the salient point of the letter in the last line:
Regardless of this, some of the Canadian cars are no doubt used in contravention of the rules.
This, Mr. Chairman, is what is actually occurring. There is an excessive use of our cars in the United States in contravention of the rules. As I mentioned a while ago, possibly one of the reasons is that our demurrage charges have not been increased. To emphasize this point I cite a headline in the Western Producer, which reads:	"Boxcar
Supply-Transport
situation draws fire at annual meeting of C.F.A." I have already given the quotation on the box car ball-up, as it was referred to by the Minister of Agriculture, but in order to be a little more specific I should like to give some statistics with regard to the use of box cars and the number of box cars we have in use in Canada, as well as those in the United States.
These figures come from a report of the Railway Association of Canada to the Board of Transport Commissioners of Canada, and I am giving a three year summary. I took a three year summary in order to be fair. This is a three year summary of Canadian and United States railway box car locations. On December 18, 1963, Canadian box cars in the United States totalled 19,035. This was at that particular date, and approximately the same cut-off date is used for each year. United States box cars in Canada totalled 7,734. Now, compare those figures, 19,035 and 7,734. On December 22, 1964 Canadian box cars in the United States totalled 20,246, while United States box cars in Canada numbered 7,267. Even with the increasing buoyancy of our economy we see the figures developing in favour of the United States. On December 17, 1965, Canadian box cars in the United States totalled 21,031, while United States box cars in Canada numbered 7,591. So, between 1963 and 1965 we find an increase of over 2,000 more Canadian box cars down in the United States. This substantiates the attitude taken by the Minister of Agriculture toward the Canadian Pacific, although he quoted 5,000.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
These figures do not quite bear out the figures used by the minister. I should like to quote from a summary of the total cars owned by Canadian railways, which gives the complete total of all types of cars, that is box cars, refrigerator cars, gondola, open top and hopper type, covered hopper, stock, flat and others. This is the total for three years, and I find that on December 18, 1963, the total number of cars in Canada was 173,950. This is the total number of cars owned by all railroads in Canada. The total number of box cars was 104,091, and if you compare the figure 173,950 with the 104,091, you can see the percentage of box cars to the total. We are talking about box cars, which are by far the most important and basic part of the problem.
On December 22, 1964 the total number of box cars was 172,089 showing a decrease of


Supply-Transport
about 1,100 cars, which is quite a drop. The total number of cars as of December 22, 1964 was 102,571.
On December 17, 1965, the most recent figures available, the total number of cars in use in Canada was 173,883, and the total number of box cars was 102,077. Compared with the total number of box cars on December 17, 1965, of 102,077, you will see quite a depletion, over 2,000 cars, compared with the total on December 18, 1963 of 104,091. This bears out my statement a few minutes ago that both railroads have missed the boat when it comes to analysing the buoyancy of the economy and the necessity for box cars to supply our commercial needs. There should be an increase rather than a decrease.
I should like to refer to the official railway equipment register, which is rather interesting. This is a code of per diem rules for freight, commonly referred to as demurrage charges. This is an agreed settlement for the use of railroad-owned freight cars between common carrier railroads in Canada and the United States.
In other words these are penalty charges as they affect our cars going to the United States or United States cars coming into Canada. These per diem rates are arrived at on the original cost of railway box cars depreciated, and I should like to use one of the tables to illustrate my point.
These demurrage charges are, interestingly enough, based on the depreciated value of the box cars. This is what the present value is. A box car which has depreciated $1,000 or less carries a demurrage charge of $2.16 per day. From $1,000.01 to $5,000.01 the charge is $2.79 per day. From $5,000.01 to $10,000, which is group 3 the charge is $3.88 per day. From $10,000.01 to $15,000 the charge is $4.50 per day. From $15,000.01 to $20,000 the charge is $6.15. From $20,000.01 to $25,000 it is $7.11 per day. From $25,000.01 to $30,000 it is $9.00 per day. From $30,000.01 to $35,000 the charge is $10.18; and from $35,000.01 and over, which is a rare group because there are not many box cars in that class, the charge is $12.18 per day. The interesting fact here is that most of our cars used for handling grain fall between category 4 and category 7; so in other words, the charge is between $4.50 and $9.00 per day.
That may sound like quite a bit of money. But supposing we have several thousand box cars which have gone across the line and there is a particular need for a good car. We

have found that there has been a tendency on the part of our United States friends to utilize our best cars, and we need our best cars for moving grain. In view of the freight rates in the United States as compared with Canadian rates, it favours the United States to use our cars for 30 days or so on inter-state commerce, rather than direct them back to Canada. Why should they worry about paying a small demurrage charge of from $4.50 to $9.00 a day if they can make $400 or $500 on carrying freight with one car? You can see, Mr. Chairman, how these discrepancies creep in. This type of situation should be investigated in relation to extended use of our box cars.
The reciprocal agreement specifically states that as soon as a car carrying our produce, such as pulpwood or paper, which is one of our biggest exports, is sent to its destination, it should be loaded with United States exports and directed back to the point from whence it came.
If this agreement were lived up to we would not have so much of a problem as we do have. However, information which I got from the U.S.A. railroader who had been on the New York Central for 40 years was to the contrary. He told me they are not living up to the agreement down in the States and he did not blame us for being disturbed about it. I suggest this modest demurrage sum is not a big enough deterrent. This matter should be looked into in order to alleviate some of our problems.
I think this pretty well points up the problem of excessive use of box cars in the United States. I could go on at some length and put some additional facts on the record, but I think what I have said will suffice.
I should like to mention in passing another matter which has exercised us in western Canada recently. This is the suggestion that the St. Lawrence tolls be increased. I am not going to deal with this but I do want to say this for the record in passing.
The Canadian wheat producers see higher seaway tolls as a direct charge against the farmers' take home pay. Mr. Charles W. Gibbings, president of the Canadian Cooperative Wheat Producers and the Saskatchewan Wheat Pools made these views known as spokesman for 160,000 prairie farmers in a brief presented to the Seaway Authority recently.
As I say, this is a matter of deep concern to western Canadians and I hope that the minister, when he is formulating his policy on this


question, will take this into consideration as well as what I have said with reference to the shortage of box cars, with particular emphasis on this excessive use in the United States.


Maurice Rinfret: The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Chairman-


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of personal privilege. I was assured the other evening when I was speaking to the estimates of the Department of External Affairs that if I would yield the floor I would be given ample opportunity to speak on item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Transport. I was given this assurance by the combined promises of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I yielded the floor that evening so that the committee could adjourn on passing the final estimates of the Department of External Affairs. I rose when item 1 of the estimates of the Department of Transport was called and I spoke until the time limit expired, a member of the opposition party not allowing me to continue; and as the rest of the house agreed I sat down at the end of 30 minutes. I was told I could finish my remarks the next day. I should now like to finish the remarks I started, in view of the promises made by the Minister of Transport and the Secretary of State for External Affairs the other night.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. I have listened with great interest to the observations made by the hon. member for York-Humber. The hon. member has already made a contribution to this debate. I am aware that he was not able to conclude his remarks because the Chair could not obtain unanimous consent.
The hon. member for York-Humber will be able to pursue his remarks. The Chair has a list of speakers who wish to contribute to this debate. I assure my hon. friend for York-Humber that he will be able to make a contribution to the debate a little later on this evening or perhaps tomorrow.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, might I draw your attention to the remarks of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Transport. I would just draw your attention to them and you can give them what consideration you like.
Supply-Transport


Maurice Rinfret: I thank the hon. member for his enlightenment on this subject, but as I have already stated he has made a contribution to the debate. He can contribute further a little later on. I recognize the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a question of privilege. Since the name of the Minister of Transport has been brought in, I think the committee is entitled to an explanation of the promise he made.


Maurice Rinfret: Order, please. The Chair takes full responsibility for the decision which has just been made.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Grant Deachman: Mr. Chairman, I rise on item 1 of the minister's estimates to discuss some matters about Vancouver Quadra, and about the port of Vancouver. I am sorry if in the course of doing so anything that I say here this evening in any way shortens the very valuable remarks which I know my hon. and valued friend, the hon. member for York-Humber might make in the continuation of his romp through the sewers in Montreal which intrigued us the other evening. I am sorry that I am perhaps not able to bring any such lurid terms to the house.
I want to speak of the port of Vancouver. There are some points I wish to talk about which I believe are as important as those my hon. friend raised in respect of the water levels of the Great Lakes, and the St. Lawrence.
Mr. Chairman, one day in going through the maritime museum in Vancouver I came upon some descriptive panels describing the growth and development of the port of Vancouver, and they had this to say in introducing the subject:
A port controlled by the National Harbours Board but with 60 per cent of its facilities owned by other interests.
A shipbuilding port where few ships are built.
It is unfortunate that the Minister of Industry is not in the house this evening, as it is a subject which I am sure he would appreciate and understand.
A port with old docks for new liners.
I will talk about that a little later.
A port almost unknown to the city around it.
A port in a metro area with three separate port authorities.
A port with overlapping and often conflicting land tenures.
A port governed and administered by many
bodies.


Supply-Transport
The port, sir, is quite an important one.
I have here a paper brought out in 1964 on the port of Vancouver, by the National Harbours Board describing that port, in which it says that it has the largest dry cargo dock on the west coast of the Americas and, moreover, that it handles 26 per cent of Canada's export trade.
Yet, despite the contribution which the port of Vancouver makes to the economy of Canada, this port has consistently received less consideration on any basis of measurement than the other great eastern port, namely Montreal.
To make some basis of comparison I took the capital investment which has been placed into these two great ports by the National Harbours Board over the years since the end of the war. I set these two on an index figure based on 1949. In 1949 the fixed assets of the port of Montreal, as set out by the National Harbours Board, and these were National Harbours Board assets, were $67.7 million. That is exclusive of the assets of the bridges. In the same year, 1949, the fixed assets of Vancouver were $25.1 million. I took these two figures and set those in 1949, as an index number of 100.
By the time we come along to 1963, being the last year for which I took figures, the port of Montreal fixed assets had expanded to $145.6 million, and the fixed assets of Vancouver had expanded to $41.4 million. If you look at the index, the index of fixed assets for Montreal have increased from 100 in 1949 to 217 in 1963, which is a little more than double. The assets for Vancouver have increased from 100 in 1949 to 165 in 1963.
Let me put it another way. What it means is that over the years, year in and year out, from one government to another, the port of Montreal has received one third more than the port of Vancouver in investment in it, on any basis that you want to examine.
I want to discuss a little bit about the effect of the retardation of capital development by the National Harbours Board over these years since its formation in 1936, and what that has done to the port of Vancouver. Before I go into that for a moment let me preface my remarks by explaining to the house one of the slight differences between the port of Montreal and the port of Vancouver.
In 1936 when the National Harbours Board took over, it took over from the old Harbour Commission of Montreal virtually a whole harbour and with it the administration of the whole harbour.

In the case of the port of Vancouver, however, about one third of the port of Vancouver was at that time operated and owned by the National Harbours Board, the balance being operated by private enterprise, which at that time and even today is to a great extent in the hands of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Let us take a look at how this development has gone on, and what the effect has been upon the development of the city of Vancouver's great port. If we look at that portion of land stretching to the entrance of Stanley park, which many members of the house well know, and look eastward toward the heart of the city, toward Burrard street and the foot of Granville street, one will see the great area of the Canadian Pacific Railway holdings. This is the area which has been in dispute between the federal government and the Canadian Pacific Railway since the Canadian Pacific first went into that area. It is a dispute which has been negotiated, and has been under negotiation between the National Harbours Board and the Canadian Pacific since 1931.
While the moneys received from rent in that area have been placed into an escrow account, the result is that in that area you can go down and find that it is a jungle of crumbling boatworks, the reason being that no one wants to put any investment into an area which is entirely under dispute, in which no long term arrangements can be made, and in which no satisfactory explanation can be given as to who is the owner of property. As you move along this valuable harbour land it is simply little more than a harbour slum.
I want to quote to the house a line or two from the Vancouver Sun of February 13, 1964, when that newspaper wrote a feature story on the subject. The heading of it is: "Waterfront of Vancouver Stunted by Birth Defect". It tells about this long dispute between the Canadian Pacific and the National Harbours Board. A portion of it reads as follows:
Ownership of these water lots has never been agreed on by Canadian Pacific Railways and National Harbours Board. Rentals are thrown into a trust account, pending settlement.
A little later it says:
The Harbours Board has contested C.P.R. ownership of the water lots from Gore to Cardero.
For legal reasons, the principle is being fought on the Cardero-Burrard section. A decision, if ever reached, will be applied to the entire section.


A Harbours Board spokesman said Wednesday the dispute has been going on since the 1930's.
Rentals estimated in the millions are held in escrow.
The disputant parties have negotiated periodically, but the Harbours Board official said the dispute likely will have to go to the Exchequer Court.
[DOT] (8:20 p.m.)
I hope the minister when he visits Vancouver will be able to announce that he has reached some agreement with the C.P.R. with respect to this property so that we shall know who the owners are, either the C.P.R. or the National Harbours Board. Then those who want to do business upon this wharf can put some investment into it with some assurance as to who their landlord is and with some hope for future development in the area. I understand this question is again being taken up between the Harbours Board and the C.P.R. But this has been going on for more than 30 years and my plea to the minister is: For God's sake get on with it, get this settled and let Vancouver people have the use of this enormously valuable piece of waterfront.
Let me continue past this boatyard slum to what is referred to as pier A. Pier A belongs to the C.P.R. It was long ago condemned. It was built in about 1890. It has on it two rusty sheds. I went down there one day with a longshoreman friend to look at these sheds. Water comes in through the roof. Hon. members may know that the usual custom of longshoremen is to pile cargo in neat piles, beginning at the walls. But in this particular shed situated in the best wharf area in the busiest harbour on the Pacific coast the cargo is stacked in curves to avoid the water leaking through the roof. Not much cargo is brought in because the floor and other parts of the structure have been condemned. It would collapse if you put too much in there. The facilities are used largely for bringing vessels alongside while lumber is loaded over the side from the offside of the wharf.
Let me pass now to piers B and C which lie at the foot of Granville street. These are owned by the C.P.R. These tare the piers from which the ferry service departed for many years. In more recent times these ferries have been superseded by a far superior service operated by the provincial government. These piers are where the great P & O liners have been tying up over the past years. Unfortunately, we shall not see these liners much longer because apparently arrangements between the C.P.R. and the company for their docking are to be abandoned, as a result of
Supply-Transport
which Vancouver is shortly to lose this great liner service and these ships will go off to grace the city of Seattle.
I wish to read an extract from the Vancouver Sun of February 3, 1961. When one of the officers of the P & O Line, Sir Colin Anderson, landed in Vancouver from the Oriana, one of the finest ocean liners in the world, he said the facilities were the second worst of those provided at any of the Oriana's 18 ports of call.
He went on to explain in detail what he meant. The dock shed was designed for cargo, not for human beings. "All that can be said for it is that it keeps the passengers out of weather, rain and snow." Sir Colin went on to say:
Temperatures are those of the outside air. Had it been cold when Oriana arrived, passengers would have suffered even greater discomfort in their wait for customs clearance and baggage. There are no seats. Passengers must sit on luggage. There are no proper lavatory facilities for approximately 2,000 passengers.
If anyone had troubled to see what the toilet facilities were like, he would have found, in this day and age, coolie toilets. It is hard to imagine that even the C.P.R., the company which is most careless in its public relations, would instal such facilities as these for the use of human beings in Canada.
Sir Colin Anderson went on to say:
There is no proper waiting room where passengers can meet friends and relatives. There is a long steep staircase from the shed to a small existing lobby. This not only jams with the large exodus from the ship but becomes a hazard for elderly and ailing passengers.
Let me compare this situation with that we find reported in the Vancouver Province of October 9, 1965. I have here a report which gives us some indication how the National Harbours Board treats the port of Montreal in respect of passenger facilities. This item was written by the Ship and Shore correspondent of that paper. He says:
While the P & O Line is looking in vain for a passenger terminal in Vancouver for its 45,000 ton liners, the National Harbours Board has agreed to spend $1,750,000 to provide an ocean passenger terminal at Montreal.
The board has decided not to build an entirely new terminal but will rehabilitate existing facilities which are at present leased by the Cunard and Canadian Pacific Lines.
The entire cost will be borne by the board and the target date for completion is April 1, 1967, in time for the World Fair.
There you are. National Harbours Board money to the tune of almost $2 million is available to spruce up the harbour of Montreal to rehabilitate the facilities there


Supply-Transport
ior the World Fair. Yet in Vancouver, the greatest ocean liners in the world, the pride of the port as they sailed in and out of our harbour, are now moving off to Seattle to add to the lustre of that city.
I do not believe that if the National Harbours Board were to deal with us in the same fashion as they have been prepared in the past to deal with Montreal we should now be watching these great ocean liners leave our city. 1 hope that when the minister comes to Vancouver he will be able to take with him a message that he has been in touch with the National Harbours Board, that the board has dealt with this matter and that a solution has been reached which will guarantee to the people of Vancouver that they will not lose these stars of the ocean trade, and that these vessels will continue to use their port as they have in the past.
Now let us look past Granville street to that area which lies southeast along the dock. Here you will see something which is laughingly described as the lateral wharf. You are now looking at the finest waterlot property available for harbour use anywhere in Canada. There used to be a pier here at which the old Empress vessels docked. It burned down and the C.P.R. never bothered to rebuild. You will still see the broken and charred timbers sticking out of the water. They have rigged up a bell which buzzes during foggy weather as a warning to shipping in the area.
What do we find on this lateral wharf? An ancient, low tin shed full of columns around which forklift trucks wriggle and dodge in an effort to unload ships outside. And outside is an antique crane the like of which Cheops might have used to lift blocks of stone for the pyramids. This is what the C.P.R. provides by way of facilities in the harbour of Vancouver.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
I hope when the minister goes to Vancouver that he will walk down that waterfront and have a look at the harbour. I hope he will ask my friend, Bud Barker, president of the longshoremen's local, to go along with him and show him the working facilities which the C.P.R. offer for the people who work on that wharf. I want him to go into the locker room where the longshoremen are allowed to sit among the sweatshirts that hang in that room, and eat their lunches. I want him to see the coolie toilets I mentioned a little while ago. I want him to see if he can

find any heat, any comfort of any kind for anybody who works as a longshoreman along the C.P.R. wharf.
I want him to compare that with the good and modern, but very limited facilities which are made available to men who work in the National Harbour Board's area of the port of Vancouver.
Come with me, sir. I want to go further down the harbour and take you to the Canadian National wharf. This is a government enterprise. The Canadian National steamships do not do much business any more, and this wharf and shed have been used by the C.N.R. for dead storage of automobiles. Imagine, some of the finest waterfront property on the whole of the Pacific coast of the Americas is being used for the dead storage of automobiles.
During the last parliament I took up this matter with the president of the C.N.R. in our transport committee. I asked him if he would consider this was a good operation, and he said no, it was not. I asked him if he would be prepared to consider selling the property to the National Harbours Board so that the board could accumulate some valuable property on the waterfront. He said he would; but then they got a trickle of business which cut out that idea. So, there it is today, another millstone around the necks of the people of Vancouver who are struggling to do an effective job with primitive equipment, and yet are doing the largest harbour business on the whole of the Pacific coast.
In modern times the National Harbours Board has built one new facility in the port of Vancouver. There has not been anything else new since 1931. There have been improvements, expansions and extensions but only one new facility has been built there by the board since the early thirties. It is the Centennial Pier. That is the extent of National Harbour Board development.
We have had some good luck with private entrepreneurs developing the harbour. They have done very well in developing some bulk handling terminals. The C.P.R., though neglectful as it is of the waterfront properties facing the city of Vancouver, has excellent bulk loading facilities further up in Port Moody. Vancouver Wharves, a very forward looking company backed by British capital, is doing a very effective job in its operations on the North Shore. Recently Saskatchewan elevators have announced that they will build an elevator in the port, and a wharf, the first new storage capacity to be built in Vancouver

harbour since 1928. Some help is coming, but I want to say again that not much help seems to be in sight so far, from the government of Canada and the National Harbours Board.
I hope when the minister goes there he will look at this situation, sum it up, and say to the people of Vancouver that the day is over when they have to put up with such primitive facilities, and that the day of increased federal assistance for the port is here.
I mentioned at the outset that there are many jurisdictions in the Vancouver area. This is one of the problems that beset us in regard to grain handling, the many jurisdictions through which grain or any other commodity entering Vancouver from overseas, or being received at Vancouver dockside for export, must thread their way.
The time has come when we must examine what European ports have long been studying, namely estuary development, or area development under a single authority. I suggest the time has come when we should be examining the possibility of a Vancouver Harbour and Fraser River Authority which would combine operations under one jurisdiction, with federal and local representation covering the harbour of Vancouver, the harbour of New Westminster, the North Arm of the Fraser River, and that new area known as Sturgeon Banks where the province of B.C., quite secretly I am sure it hopes, is today exploring the possibility of building a harbour of its own, a deep water harbour for vessels of the order of 75,000, 100,000, 150,000 tons or more, enormous bulk loaders which can handle big bulk cargoes.
How tragic it would be if in the great port of Vancouver these new bulk loaders could not be accommodated and had to go to the port of Seattle, with bulk cargoes coming from the interior of B.C., proceeding over the Great Northern Railway down to the United States, and out through Seattle, or through some other port that may be developed between Seattle and the 49th parallel.
We today must look at Vancouver as one of the greatest bulk loading ports in the world. In an era when ships are exceeding 100,000 gross tons in capacity, in an era when 40 feet of water are not adequate to accommodate the new breed of ships which is already plying the oceans of the world, how tragic it would be if we failed to provide the necessary capacity now in advance, to cater to this new commerce which is bound to come our way if we look to the future, if we see what a
Supply-Transport
future lies before us in the harbour of Vancouver, what a future lies in the enormous business of bulk loading and bulk carrying which will be Canada's if only we prepare for it, and which we will certainly lose if we do not have the vision to see what the future is and prepare for it now.


Mr. Gilbert:: Mr. Chairman, now the minister has fully recovered from the incisive questioning by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition and the clear and convincing exposition by the hon. member for Danforth, I would direct his mind once again to the problem of the transfer of channel 3 from Barrie to Toronto. In the exchange this afternoon between the hon. member for Lapointe and the hon. member for York-Humber, when they discussed the problems of sewage and the Montreal symphony, there was a pleasant suggestion from the hon. member for Lapointe that if Toronto were considering another T.V. station possibly it should consider a French station.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
My only remark in respect of that delightful suggestion is that if the minister does seriously consider this, he should consult with the right hon. Prime Minister and add the name of the hon. member for York-Humber to the list of Senate appointments, because we should like to keep the peace in metropolitan Toronto.
I would be derelict in my duty both to the constituents of Broadview and the people of metropolitan Toronto if I did not indicate my full concern regarding this important problem in relation to the transfer of channel 3 to Toronto. I feel it is my duty to direct the attention of the minister to the special regulations applicable to private commercial broadcasting stations, as set forth in the Canada Gazette and elsewhere and in particular to subsection 4(d) of section 118 of the Radio Act which reads as follows:
Except with the permission of the minister given upon the recommendation of the Board of Broadcast Governors no person shall he licensed to operate more than one station and no licence shall be issued to or held by a company owned or controlled by a company holding a licence or to a company owning or controlling a company holding a licence.
The import of that particular section is quite clear. It simply means that one man or company shall hold no more than one licence for a station unless unusual circumstances prevail. The reason for that rule is that it would not be in the public interest to have more than one radio or television station


Supply-Transport
concentrated in the hands of a few individuals, and I am in complete agreement with that rule. However, when we apply this rule to the present circumstances we find that the applicants for the switch of channel 3 possess many qualifications. I am not going to take the minister's time or the time of this committee to set forth the qualifications of Ralph Snelgrove, Allan Waters and Geoffrey Stirling who hold a very substantial interest in both radio and television in practically all parts of the country.
I would like to direct the minister's attention to the rule as set forth in the regulations, that one man or one company should control no more than one radio or television station, and ask him to give full consideration to that rule when he is considering the technical feasibility of such a switch, after the Board of Broadcast Governors has made its recommendations and before he and the cabinet have made a decision. I hope he keeps that in mind when determining his decision in respect of these particular applicants.
I would next ask the minister what will happen, if anything, to the T.V. station at Barrie if and when channel 3 is transferred to Toronto. It is very important that Barrie be serviced and that it does not become a rebroadcast location for the channel which would be located in Toronto. At the moment channel 3 in Barrie is an originating station for towns like Parry Sound, Huntsville and Haliburton. It would be wrong indeed to have the channel at Barrie treated as a rebroadcast station rather than as an originating station.
At this time I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the need for and feasibility of another station in Toronto. As he well knows we have five stations serving Toronto at this time, two in Toronto, one in Hamilton and two in Buffalo. Quite frankly, what if anything could this new station add to Toronto? Let me remind the minister that prior to the installation of channel 3 at Barrie the good people of Barrie were able to bring in the stations at Buffalo by the use of high antennas. If channel 3 is moved to Toronto the people in Barrie will not receive the two Buffalo stations.
A great deal can be said about whether the new station will create a blackout in metropolitan Toronto as far as the two Buffalo stations are concerned. Like my other colleagues, I am not shedding any crocodile tears for the Buffalo stations, but I do ask the minister to take into account the viewing

habits of the million and a half metropolitan Toronto viewers. It is a known fact that if they cannot get the programs they want on the Toronto and Hamilton stations, they immediately turn to the two Buffalo stations. This possible blackout has caused a great deal of concern to these particular viewers.
It is not only the cabinet ministers who are concerned with this problem, but also private members. We have heard the remarks of my colleague from Danforth in this regard, but I should like to point out the remarks of two Liberal members from Toronto as recorded in the Telegram of Monday, February 7 under the by-line of Ron Collister.
The hon. member for St. Paul's was asked about the transfer, and the newspaper article states:
In Ottawa, Liberal MP Ian Wahn (St. Paul's) said he had received letters from constituents asking that no change be made if it affected reception of the two Buffalo stations.
'I believe,' he said, 'that there should be no change unless the people of this area could be assured that there would be no substantial interference. Without that assurance, I would oppose it.'
Mr. Wahn said that the Barrie group should not have automatic right to the Metro channel.
Those are the remarks of the hon. member for St. Paul's. He also said:
*It should be opened up,' he said. 'Just because the Barrie owners have an existing television station, that does not give them first call on a free channel in another locality.'
He indicated that the Board of Broadcast Governors might take the same view.
'I presume the BBG will be sensible and apply sound principles,' he said.
I should also like to refer to the remarks of the Minister of National Defence, Hon. Paul Hellyer, member for Trinity in Toronto. He said, as stated in that same article from the Toronto Telegram of February 7, 1966 that-
-he didn't want to see Toronto lose Channels 2 and 4.
I should like again to quote from this article what the Secretary of State, Hon. Judy LaMarsh, who is responsible for broadcasting in Canada, said when she was asked her view of the situation. The article states:
If the Barrie move blacks out the Buffalo channels should it go ahead?
'I don't know: I haven't come to a view yet.'
If the move did not affect the two channels, should it go ahead?
*Toronto is the biggest market in the country and it probably could stand another station.'
Should the Barrie station be allowed to move into Toronto, or should the vacant channel be thrown open to applicants?
'I am still formulating a view.'


Miss LaMarsh said that the people who watch the two U.S. channels have done so for a long time.
She herself was in that category. She lives in the Niagara area.
We have here the views of some of the members from Toronto, and I would respectfully suggest to the minister that if he ascertains the views of the other Toronto members he will find them to be the same.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, that brings me directly to the recommendations set forth in the Fowler report. The recommendations to which I would direct the minister's attention are those with regard to the timing of applications for new licences for private stations and the issuance of those licences. The Fowler report at page 83 summarizes the recommendations and says this:
Our views on the extension of existing C.B.C. facilities are conditioned by the consideration that a mature physical plant exists, and that it is time for both private and public broadcasters to concentrate their attention and resources on improving the quality, variety, and Canadian content of programs. Therefore, during the next five years, a firm degree of restraint should be applied to the licensing of new stations, public or private, taking the real need for broadcasting service, radio or television, into account.
The urgent need, which should be given the highest priority in planning the future coverage of the Canadian broadcasting system as a whole, is the extension of service to those parts of Canada that now have none, and to all English-speaking and French speaking Canadians who have no service in their own first language. This is the criterion that should be applied to licence applications for new private stations, and no new C.B.C. stations should be established during the next five years unless a need exists as defined by the formula presently in use. The reservations now held by the C.B.C. for certain television channels in centres that already have adequate service from affiliated and other private stations should therefore be given up.
They finally recommend, on page 84:
That, during the next five years, no new C.B.C. stations should be opened in centres that now have service as determined by the formula presently used for eligibility.
That consideration be given to the feasibility of accelerating the rate of progress now planned by the C.B.C. for extending coverage, both radio and television in English and French, to centres eligible for public service under the formula.
That a firm degree of restraint should be applied to the licensing of new private stations.
That is with regard to the timing, Mr. Minister. I would next direct your attention to the recommendations with regard to the issuing of licences. These are to be found on page 119:
The authority should regulate, supervise, and control the activities of private broadcasters, ' and
Supply-Transport
encourage and stimulate their co-operation in improving their broadcasting performance.
Here is the important recommendation, Mr. Chairman:
Broadcasting licences should be in two parts- the first, covering all technical and engineering aspects, from the Department of Transport-the second, confirming the suitability and acceptability of the applicant and prescribing the broadcasting conditions with which he must comply, from the broadcasting authority; licences to broadcast should be issued by the authority, not granted by the governor in council.
I repeat that recommendation, Mr. Minister, that "licences to broadcast should be issued by the authority, not granted by the governor in council." Then there is this recommendation:
Licensing functions of the authority should be handled by a licensing committee or panel; there should be statutory power to establish a flexible licensing procedure, including power to delegate routine licensing decisions to members (of) the staff.
On the next page they deal with the composition of the authority and this recommendation reads as follows:
The authority should consist of 15 members-a full time chairman and 14 part-time appointees, all of whom should be suitably paid for their services; the choice of the chairman and members of the authority is crucial to its success, and we propose that they should be appointed by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
I would respectfully ask that the minister give full consideration to these two important recommendations which are set forth in the Fowler report, namely regarding the timing of the issuance of licences and the composition of the governing body to issue those licenses. I believe that if these recommendations were followed public confidence would be established in this medium and the rules of fair play would apply. We would not and could not then have the nasty and disgusting term "patronage" applied to applicants for television station licences.
Having watched the minister become so sensitive and excited yesterday and today about this particular problem, I would ask that he give full consideration to these recommendations for the good of the Canadian public and for his general wellbeing.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Mr. Chairman, since this is the first occasion this session upon which I have risen to address the chamber I should like to take the opportunity of congratulating, you, sir, the chairman of committees, and through you the Speaker upon your election


S upp ly-Transport
to these important offices. I am sure, sir, that both of you will discharge these duties in a most capable and efficient manner; in fact, we know from working with you both in the last session that you will indeed do so. May I offer you and the Speaker every good wish in your duties.
The estimates of the Department of Transport which we are discussing have not, as many other speakers have mentioned, been before us for two years. Hence this evening I should like to make some general comments on them under the first item. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I do not want to embark on any long discussion of the transport bill which X expect the minister will be bringing forward later this session. But 1 should like to make some comments on the old bill in the hope that the minister will take them into consideration when he introduces the new bill.
I have three things in mind. First of all, of course, I hope-and I think everybody in the house hopes-that the bill will be referred to committee and that the minister will adopt a flexible attitude to the suggestions which that committee puts forward so the bill can be modified, and properly modified, for the benefit of the whole country.
I am quite certain that the central recommendation of the old bill, No. C-120, which of course was that railway rates should be freed to take a competitive level, is a very vicious one. In spite of the fact that this is the central recommendation of the MacPherson commission, I cannot agree with it. While most of us are free enterprisers, and my party certainly is for free enterprise, we are not so free enterprise that we would have sections of the country hurt by the introduction of unrestricted competition.
To take this step as suggested in the old Bill C-120 would be to forget that there is no competition in transportation in two areas of this country, the maritimes and western Canada. Thus the maritimes and western Canada would be exposed to excessive and burdensome transportation costs if this provision is left in the bill. I am convinced that measures must be taken to protect these areas. I do not think this protection need be extended for an indefinite period of time because I am quite convinced that in the future, and the not too far distant future, the west will be so industrialized and will have so increased its population that there will be competition in transportation in that area. Then we might expect that this provision

might be applied. But at the present stage of our development, to apply this provision to both the west and the maritimes would do these parts of the country a great deal of harm.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
I say, then, it is the responsibility, even the duty of this parliament and succeeding parliaments, in particular the duty of the Minister of Transport, to see that the outlying areas are protected when he brings in this new bill. Of course, the Crowsnest pass rates and the maritime rates must be retained for their special purposes. General freight rates, too, must be controlled so that the rule the railways would like to apply of charging all the traffic will bear is not allowed to operate in these areas.
There is ample justification for severe control. It is in the national interest. The railways, whatever may be said to the contrary, and we have heard a lot of statements to the contrary, were created, were aided, were regulated, were subsidized and are still subsidized, so that they may do their part in building this country and holding it together. This was the view of Sir John A. Macdonald and was the view of parliament in his day. It is the view of many of us today. These concessions were given to the railways merely because without them the railways could not be built and the west held for Canada.
In his usual forthright and colourful way, the Minister of Agriculture pointed this out in his recent barnstorming tour through the west. The Star-Phoenix of January 28 reports as follows:
J. J. Greene, the Minister of Agriculture, made mention during his western trip of these rights and concessions 'which are almost invaluable today.' The benefits were given because the government of Sir John A. Macdonald felt that the C.P.R.'s profit position would be limited, due to the necessity of performing certain public services. These obligations still exist.
Again, I quote what the minister said:
That public duty didn't stop in 1867 and it hasn't stopped now. The C.P.R. should give up certain of its amenities, such as oil, before calling 'profits first and rights later.' The conditions of the subsidies and exemptions were that the C.P.R. would in perpetuity 'efficiently maintain, work and run the Canadian Pacific Railway.'
The Canadian Pacific, then, was built for national purposes and we are not disposed to let it slough off those purposes today. Everyone suspects that the west would not be a part of Canada today if the Canadian Pacific had not been built. Everyone knows that


without the west, central Canada would not be so prosperous or so heavily industrialized as it is today. We still need the railways to bind us together. We ought to be willing, all of us, to carry the costs. We should be willing, all of us, to have freight rates controlled to permit the free movement of goods from east to west. We ought to see that the railways discharge this function in the national interest.
What is the attitude of the Canadian Pacific? The Canadian Pacific talks only of efficiency and profits. They would have us believe that to perform in the national interest was not part of their contract. In fact, the president of the company insists, if I interpret him correctly, that it never was. He says, as reported in the Star-Phoenix of January 14, 1966:
The agreement in 1881 between C.P.R. and the federal government, said Mr. Emerson, emphasized that the railway would construct and operate the railway efficiently.
'Efficiently', he said was the key word and the agreement stipulated that only the main C.P.R. line was involved 'and not the many side railway lines Mr. Greene is referring to.'
As I mentioned a moment ago, this was not the view of Sir John A. Macdonald; it was not the view of the parliament of his day. In spite of the MacPherson royal commission, which report Mr. Emerson quotes as holding a view similar to his own, it is not the opinion of western Canada. In this respect, I should like to quote the view of the Saskatchewan Farmers' Union head, Mr. Atkinson, who said a year and a half ago in a letter to the Minister of Transport:
In view of the dependency of the national economy on transcontinental transportation, we submit that the fixing of freight rates is too important a matter to be left to the pleasure and discretion of the railway companies.
So much for the freight rate proposals of Bill No. C-120. We are especially concerned about the intransigent attitude of the Canadian Pacific with regard to the box car situation in western Canada. We have heard a great deal about this. I intended to give some figures on this problem, but I am not going to bore you with them now because they have been given twice today. I think the point has been made by the hon. member for Moose Mountain and one of the N.D.P. members.
We were very pleased indeed that the energetic and dynamic Minister of Agriculture appeared to recognize that the box car situation in the west was not what it should
Supp ly-T ransport
be. He took the west by storm as is witnessed by the headlines in many newspapers. I give a few examples, such as the following: "Grain handling called pitiable", Citizen, January 12; "C.P.R. should give up rights -Greene", Leader-Post, January 13; "C.P.R. Shirking its Public Duty, Greene charges", Journal, January 13; "Greene blasts C.P.R. grain handling", Citizen, January 13 and "Greene raps C.P.R. on grain, urges new railways board", Star-Phoenix, January 15. Well, he could not have found a better way of endearing himself to the hearts of western farmers. The handling of grain by the Canadian Pacific was, as he said, pitiable, and so it is now. I am afraid this situation is liable to continue in spite of what we have been told by the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Agriculture, as reported in in the Star-Phoenix for January 13, 1966, said:
Some very drastic action should be taken to ensure that the grain can be moved as quickly as possible.
What drastic action was taken, we shall see. There was a meeting a week later which apparently satisfied the Minister of Agriculture because he said, "I'll wait and see". I should like to quote from an article in the Western Producer for January 27 by Mr. Mason:
Mr. Greene says now he realizes that all the blame can't be placed on the C.P.R., that there are other factors involved.
For example, he referred to inadequate unloading facilities at Vancouver, and suggested there might be a joint government-railway-wheat board effort to improve them.
As for the C.P.R., Mr. Greene said there's no time for recriminations, and he's confident the railway will now pull its weight.
I do not believe anybody ever said all the blame should be placed on the Canadian Pacific. Everyone in western Canada knows that shipping facilities on the west coast are not ideal. The point is that they have not been this fall, are not now, at least up to a few days ago, being used to full capacity. Much of the blame for this is traceable to the Canadian Pacific and the way in which it has moved grain during this crop year.
As the result of a meeting which the ministers of transport, finance and agriculture had with the heads of the Canadian Pacific, we are led to believe that the Canadian Pacific has changed its ways. Well, I wonder. We have wondered in the past and usually we have not been satisfied after our wondering was answered. I suspect that some of this is due to the fact the Canadian Pacific got its


Supply-Transport
own way in the removal of the transcontinental train, the "Dominion". It threatened, I am sure we all remember this, that it could not fulfil its commitments without the use of the locomotives which were pulling the "Dominion". So, when Canadian Pacific got its own way, it had to step up deliveries. We suspect also that the shortage of deliveries to the Pacific coast transferred some business to the United States which we should have had.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
The Minister of Agriculture seemed to feel the same way, although the situation that he quoted was somewhat different. To quote again from the Star-Phoenix of January 13:
"The first thing that had made me see red," he said, "was a situation that arose when Canada sought to send grain to help relieve famine in India. Even though the country had the commodities and shipping available," he said, "it was not able to move the grain because of railway limitations."
This is a situation which I am sure we all regret because we would all like to discharge our social obligations to the other people of this world.
It is too bad that after the meeting of January 20 with the C.P.R. officials and the other two ministers the Minister of Agriculture so quickly accepted the explanations of the C.P.R. I am very much afraid that the farmer in western Canada will not be so easily satisfied. He knows from past experience just how the railway has moved cars. He knows that this year there was a blockage. He does not think that the circumstances were any different from any other year so far as the C.P.R. was concerned, though it was different when he came to get cars. He knows that elevators have been plugged and cars have not been available. This hits him in the pocketbook, but I can assure you that the western farmer is a pragmatist and a realist.
When he is hit in the pocketbook he does not forget it, which is one reason there are 17 Conservative members in this house today from Saskatchewan. He thinks when the railway constantly quotes the lack of terminal facilities on the Pacific coast as the main factor that this is an excuse. To quote the Star-Phoenix of January 29:
This was taken as a personal insult by Mr. R. A. Emerson, company president, and he called a press conference in Winnipeg to refute the charges and put the blame on the port facilities.
Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp, who is answerable to parliament for the Canadian Wheat Board, backed up these charges and this brought a quick reaction from the Vancouver Merchants Exchange.

The facts are that there are nine terminals at the Pacific coast, including six at Vancouver, with a capacity of almost 25 million bushels, and as of last Monday-
This was January 29.
-there were only about 12 million bushels of grain and oil seeds in storage-far below working capacity.
To meet the heavy sales commitments out of Pacific ports this winter, a daily unload of about 550 cars is required, and the average daily unloads for the month of January were 395 cars.
This has put exporters in an untenable position. Although there were 21 vessels in port to load grain and oil seeds, only eight were on berth and the other 13 were anchored in the harbour piling up demurrage charges.
One of these vessels is expected to load 45,000 tons and another 35,000 tons, almost 3 million bushels of wheat, and two other vessels of over 25,000 tons each are expected in port shortly to lift grain.
Thus the facts do not bear out Mr. Emerson's laments.
Perhaps this is a good time to mention that the transportation slowdown has affected other grains as well as wheat. Rape seed in particular is in short supply at the Pacific coast and exporters are having difficulty in filling their orders. It is, of course, true that the facilities at the port of Vancouver have not been developed sufficiently to handle all the business that could be directed their way. Unfortunately they have not been getting the grain they could handle which is the fact that the Board of Trade in Vancouver and the port authorities have been trying to emphasize. And this is the central concern of all the farmers.
I would like to make a few comments too on the provisions of the suggested bill in relation to rail line abandonments. I hope that the minister will see that the rationalization authority is given more power than it had in Bill C-120. It must not be left with the sole duty of setting a day for the abandonment. It should be given power to stop an abandonment completely where the social factors to the people concerned warrant it. I think it most unwise, too, that the Board of Transport Commissioners should have no recourse but to accept the figures presented by the railway. Surely independent investigations by competent accountants should be made. I hope that the minister will accept these suggestions in the spirit in which they are made, for we would like to see a railway bill which is fair to all of Canada.
The western Canadian sees the Great Lakes waterway as his doorway to the sea. For decades almost all the grain went through


that doorway. He views with suspicion any attempts to restrict the traffic which flows through it. It is easy to understand then why he dislikes the tolls which are charged. Recently the president of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association, as reported in the Manitoba Co-Operator of January 27, scored the seaway tolls as harming our economy. I should like to quote from that article:
The president and general manager of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association has suggested that the Canadian government has adopted a double standard for the nation's exports.
Stuart Armour of Toronto, addressing the Winnipeg Lions Club last week, said the federal government on one hand is constantly urging Canadians to increase their volume of exports. Yet on the other hand, the federal government had established an "inconsistent and discriminatory" policy of St. Lawrence Seaway tolls which worsened the competitive position of Canadian produce in overseas markets.
I emphasize the last part of that sentence. We would like to see seaway tolls removed completely. We know that by imposing the tolls it was intended to recover the $313 million that Canada put into building her part of the seaway from Montreal to lake Ontario. But we believe that it would be better for Canada to go back to her traditional waterways policy of no tolls. If the waterway is used to the full the increase in productivity in the nation and the savings to the nation would enable us to carry these costs. Now Ottawa is setting about improving the Welland canal and expects to spend something like $374 million when we consider the complete expense involved. It is true that the tolls on the Welland canal were suspended in 1962 and re-suspended again in 1964. If this could be done in these years it can be done permanently. There is some question as to whether the improving and twinning of the Welland canal is the right solution at this point in the river.
The canal then would only be able to take a ship carrying 26,000 tons. Perhaps it would be better to consider the Welland canal as obsolete in this present day to large ships and build a new one which could accommodate
50,000	tonners.
Of course, we all know that the level of the tolls on the international sections of the waterways are a matter of agreement between the United States and Canada, so that we can do little about that. But I do think that we should constantly strive to keep these tolls at as low a level as possible, as well as eliminat-
Supply-Transport
ing them completely if at all possible. Certainly we can do this in our own section of the waterway.
I believe I cannot do better than end this section with a quote from the same article in the Manitoba Co-Operator which gives the words of Mr. Armour:
"Let me assure you that your dependence, as well as that of all other Canadians, on the St. Lawrence waterway and the Canadian railways which serve it, for the level of your business activity and the degree of prosperity you enjoy, is greater today than it ever was", the speaker concluded.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I close by saying a few words about the television problem in my constituency.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Channel 13?


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: There is no channel 13 in my constituency. There is only one channel. The other day the hon. member for Saskatoon asked the minister what is being done about a C.B.C. outlet for Saskatoon. This has been in the works now for something like three years and we are still waiting to see what is going to happen.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Of course we are much interested in this proposition, and hope that the minister will use his good offices to see that the C.B.C. starts a station in that particular area. We understand that if this is done the present station in Saskatoon, CFQC-TV will join the C.T.V. network. This would take the satellite at Stranraer off the C.B.C. network and put it in the C.T.V. network. We know that Swift Current television would like to put a satellite in the Kindersley constituency. Since this station is a C.B.C. station this would give a large part of the constituency two channels where now there is one.
Toronto may have 13 but we are limited to one. We would like to get another. Much of my constituency, in fact most of it, is in what is known as a remote area. I am sure that the minister understands what their attitude is to large sums being spent on colour television when they have imperfect reception for only one channel. The addition of another channel might prepare them to accept with better grace the huge sums which the C.B.C. intends to spend on colour television. I would ask the minister if he would then urge the C.B.C. to open a station at Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Supply-Transport


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I should like this evening to complete the remarks I started yesterday afternoon. Before returning directly to the St. Lawrence channel at the Cornwall dam, which is the point I had reached yesterday when we were cut over to channel 3 of the Department of Transport, I should like to make a correction in the Hansard report of my remarks of yesterday afternoon. On page 975, I am reported to have said:
To allow the level of Lake Ontario to go below
244.78	feet while relying on the prayers of cabinet ministers and the laws of heaven to refill the basin is a shocking basis on which to operate.
What I said was: "to rely on the prayers of a cabinet minister and the rains of heaven to refill the basin is a shocking basis on which to operate."
In my remarks as of yesterday afternoon I pointed out that the sewage situation in Montreal was the main cause of the low water levels of Lake Ontario, because of the demands of the people in that area that a 35 foot water depth be maintained in Montreal harbour. I recited the priority table in the international agreement between the United States and Canada pointing out that the first use of water, as agreed upon between the United States and Canada, was for health and sanitation purposes, second, for navigation and third, power. I pointed out that the navigation interests of Montreal were being given priority over the first item on the table, and second, that the power interests in the third position were being given privileges that were not theirs under the treaty.
Since I spoke yesterday and before I reach my conclusion, I have been called by some radio stations in Montreal wanting to know what my objection was to the Montreal sewage system. I said I have not the slightest objection to their doing what they want with the sewage of Montreal but please leave the level of Lake Ontario at the minimum of
244.78	feet.
I had a member of the house refer to my comments, and I can only say in that regard that the cricket sings a very nice song, and I guess that it is considered very aesthetic because of its singing, but the advice given to the cricket has been: Go to the ant thou cricket, consider her ways and be wise. We may not have the great civilization as shown in the great art galleries and musical centres of Montreal, but we have taken the ant as our example in Ontario and we have placed

the basic tenets of civilization first. We cannot imagine a person enjoying singing while standing in sewage. We prefer to clear up the sewage situation and then set to singing. But we could be wrong.
In complimenting the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the action he has taken quietly and efficiently during the past year, during which time numerous speakers have referred to the low level of Lake Ontario, I should say that we were very happy to find the water level in Toronto harbour at 244.02 feet, on February 3, which is an improvement of 2.7 feet in one year. I must emphasize that this improvement of 2.7 feet in one year still leaves the water level in Toronto harbour 9.1 inches below the 94 year average.
What is the use of the dams at Cornwall and Iroquois to control the water level of Lake Ontario if, with the two dams in position, right now in the first week of 1966, the water level of Lake Ontario is 9.1 inches below the 94 year average. We had better treatment under the laws of nature for 94 years than we get from our manually controlled dams at Cornwall and Iroquois.
I would emphasize to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that while we appreciate all that he has done during the past year, the people residing in the basin of Lake Ontario-and I emphasize the basin of Lake Ontario, because the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself lives in the basin of Lake St. Clair-are as separated from the other five great lakes as though there were no connection between them whatsoever.
Lake Superior has been controlled for 40 years. That is not so when it comes to controlling the water level of Lake Ontario. The water level of Lake Superior has been controlled within a variation of 18 inches for 40 years, because of the dam work at Sault Ste. Marie, under the authority of the International Joint Commission established in the 1920's.
The level of the water in Lake Ontario could be controlled within such a narrow margin also, if there is no interference with the operation of the control dams.
The power authorities, by which I mean Ontario Hydro and the New York State Power Authority, are only too pleased to let the water go through the dams at Cornwall in order to maintain the 35 foot depth at Montreal. What better argument could they use than: "We are maintaining the water level in Montreal harbour. The people downstream are screaming." They do not say that


they are developing power left, right and centre.
That power blackout we had in the month of November, the day after the election-how many of you realize that Canada suffered a great blackout on the day after the November 8 election-was written up. I would draw to your attention a report-


An hon. Member:: A blackout on this side?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am speaking of your side too, my friend. On page 26 of Newsweek magazine for 29 November, 1965, they have a heading: "What Went Wrong?" referring to the blackout in the northeastern United States and eastern Canada. They have a very interesting statement. Newsweek denies that it has any editorial policies, so I have called it a statement, since it appears in a news story.
-the basic trouble is the power generating shortage of the Toronto area.
This, of course, shows that the demand for power at the moment is greater than our generating capacity. Then Newsweek says:
The Federal Power Commission is expected to accent two lessons of the blackout in its report this week: 1. There is no substitute for adequate power generation. 2. More imagination must be used to protect entire systems from local faults.
I should like to point out to the house that Newsweek is putting the cart before the horse in these two statements. The basic trouble is not a power generating shortage in the Toronto area. The basic trouble is overloading transmission lines built for a certain amount of power, and when an extra surge of power is put on, it blows out the control panels.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
Then it continues:
The Federal Power Commission is expected to accent two lessons of the blackout in its report this week: (1) There is no substitute for adequate power generation. (2) More imagination must be used to protect entire systems from local faults.
Why not cut down the use to which the power can be put and thus cut our coats according to our cloth? There is no reason why electric power should be generated in Cornwall to be used in illuminating the window fronts of stores and used car lots, to operate electric razors, hair dryers and all kinds of things we did not have 20 years ago. In generating enough power to meet the demand we are affecting the level of lake Ontario despite the fact that electric power is in third position when it comes to priorities, and public health is in first position.
Supply-Transport
I say to the minister that he should establish a basic level for Lake Ontario.-set the average level of 244.78 feet as the base level and let the power development people on the St. Lawrence start from that point up to the high level point of the last few years, something up to 247 feet. There should be ancillary power sources at Cornwall provided by steam or atomic power generation. When the water level had fallen to 244.78 feet, let the power needs of the area be met by power ancillary to hydro. But do not drain Lake Ontario dry so as to flush the sewage of Montreal to the sea. If Montreal does not wish to spend its money on an effective sewer system, as is the practice in all other parts of the civilized world, I would ask them to open the dams that Quebec hydro owns on the Ottawa river and take their flushing water from there. But they are not anxious to take their flushing water from the Ottawa river. They know that Quebec has too many hydro installations there. Do they want to flush their sewage to the open sea? Well, for the benefit of the people who will be attending the great expose of 1967 let them take water from the Ottawa river and let us enjoy the waters of Ontario at a minimum level of 244.78.
I have in my hand a copy of the Family Herald dated April 15, 1965. In this article Mr. J. S. Cram writes:
Here Montreal interests come into sharp conflict with those of cities higher up the waterway. If Montreal got more water out of the amount in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system, the others would be left with less... These sharers of the common waterway are not small fry, and their interests are not confined to Ontario and Quebec. Besides our own cities such as Windsor, Hamilton and Toronto there are several important U.S. lake ports such as Milwaukee, Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago. Among them these cities alone have 71 million people who have just as much need for water as have Montrealers.
I would draw the attention of the Minister of Transport and of the Secretary of State for External Affairs particularly to the next sentence in this article written by Mr. Cram:
Not susceptible to the sort of political treatment that works in Canada, the U.S. centres will make sure that their interests are protected in any agreement that is drawn up.
"Not susceptible to the sort of political treatment that works in Canada-" I do not understand what that means. The minister might explain, perhaps, what Mr. Cram meant when he wrote that phrase.
I wish, now, to refer to a subject I have been trying to cover in the last few months


Supply-Transport
by means of questions or by raising the subject on what we call "the late show".
As I stated the other day it is ridiculous to try to cover the situation in such a manner. It has to do with another item concerning navigation-one which comes under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and of the Secretary of State for External Aflairs. I am referring to the so-called patented waterlots in lake Ontario and in particular to those on the lake Ontario shore of York-Humber and York West between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek.
Now just about 11 months ago, as hon. members wih find in their Hansards at page 12689, I directed a question on the subject to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Under the heading of "Public Works, Long Branch, Ontario; dumping of fill into Lake Ontario" I asked the following question on the orders of the day:
I have a question I should like to direct to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Has the International Joint Commission given authority to anyone to dump fill into Lake Ontario between the mouth of the Humber Hiver and the mouth of Etobicoke Creek, thus affecting the water levels of this international body of water?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I will see that this important matter is looked into.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Do the owners of so-called water lots lying south of Mimico and Long Branch, on Lake Ontario, enjoy an immunity from the regulations of the International Joint Commission?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that because of the technical aspects involved in the question I would not be expected to give an immediate response, but I will look into it.
That is the end of the chapter. That is the end of the lesson. That is the end of the inquiry. Nothing has ever been said about the subject by the Secretary of State for External Affairs from that day to this. Now when I stand up and ask whether this illegal fill at Long Branch has been approved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs or by the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice tells me this fill does not interfere with navigation and that his department has, therefore, taken no interest in the matter, despite the fact that this constitutes a violation of the International Boundary Waters Treaty.
I would draw attention to the fact that I have in my hand a political pamphlet put out by the New Democratic candidate in York West, a fine girl, Martha Brewin, who ran against the successful candidate, Hon. Robert Winters. It is a nice little pamphlet. She does
(Mr. Cowan.]
not live in the riding so in an effort to curry favour with the voters a publicity agent took her around and had photographs of her taken at various places in the riding.
One of the most interesting pictures, to my mind, showed her standing on this fill jutting out into lake Ontario for 470 feet with a width of 330 feet-this development which, the Minister of Justice says, is no problem to navigation. What does the caption under the picture say?
Martha Brewin, N.D.P. candidate in West York, is familiarizing herself with all the local problems of the riding. Here she is standing on the illegal fill at Long Branch.
I presume from this pamphlet that had she been successful in gaining a majority she would be helping me in bringing the cabinet to the point at which it would enforce the act which prohibits the dumping of fill in international boundary waters without prior consent.


David Lewis: Did you try to help her win?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Winters promised to help, too.
They tell me this is not an obstruction to navigation. I have in my hands some clippings from the New Toronto Advertiser, a weekly paper printed in the riding of West York and circulating in Mimico which is in the riding of York-Humber. It is pointed out that on this piece of land, which is no obstacle to navigation, they want to erect two 18 storey towers containing 500 suites. This is the new proposal. Anyone can understand how ephemeral a piece of land is when a proposal is made to place two huge buildings on it. The Minister of Justice says it is no obstacle to navigation. Yet the Minister of Public Works writes saying:
Our engineers recommend that lights be installed at the outer ends of the filled areas .... throughout the navigation season.
Why would he write that way when the Minister of Justice says this constitutes no obstruction to navigation? I do not know.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
However, in this newspaper story we read:
James McCallum, lawyer appearing for the developers, said that the original plan which called for a hotel had been changed because it was not economically possible to run a hotel in this location.
One questions how they could build hotels easily in Lake Ontario without interfering with navigation, but Mr. McCallum went on to say:
All hotels and motor hotels now-a-days have to be in the hands of a management organization. No


mortgages are granted unless you are under some big chain.
McCallum, speaking of the density factor with regard to the number of suites in the hotel, said this met the local requirements of the village of Long Branch and also of the township of Etobicoke. Now, I have another quotation from Mr. McCallum addressing the Long Branch council-


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Would the hon. member mind a question because I am following this with great interest? Who is this bird, Mr. McCallum?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Well, sir, I don't know. Lawyers are a dime a dozen in Toronto. I have never met this gentleman. His name is here-James McCallum. It does not say anything about his firm. I guess he is on his own. It says he is spokesman for Millgate Park Investments Ltd. Now, here is an interesting quotation. Mr. McCallum said:
The question of whether the fill is there or not is not of the greatest concern.
Well, the Minister of Justice backs him up in that.
Now, I wish to point this out in connection with the illegal fill, and I use this word because I borrow it from Martha Brewin of the N.D.P. This is quoting Reeve Tom Berry who wants assessment increases, and he says:
The fill is in the lake now, and won't be taken out. Don't underestimate the power of the developers.
What I have to say to you, Mr. Chairman, and to Mr. Berry is this-I have unfortunately overestimated the power of the cabinet, the power of the Minister of Transport and the power of the Minister of Public Works. I suppose Mr. Berry was watching the provinces pushing the federal government around and he felt the municipalities should get into the act too.
I have already mentioned that Mr. Berry has been quoted as saying that legality is of secondary importance to Long Branch, that they want increased assessment. There are many of us here who have sat under lawyers, men versed in the law, who have stood up and told us we are living in the age of law and if we all observed the law everything would be perfect. Judges and lawyers state that law is the basis of our civilization. -next to sewers. But here we have Reeve Berry pointing out that legality is of secondary importance and assessment comes first, and he is ably aided and abetted by Crawford Bell, Chairman of the Long Branch
Supply-Transport
Planning Board who, at the meeting Mr. McCallum was at, said:
Legality is of interest, but has no direct connection with us.
I come to the conclusion that the cabinet must be coming to the same opinion as the Chairman of the Long Branch Planning Board. Long Branch, after all, must have a population of about 1,200 souls and, when they want to increase assessment, who is to stop them heaving fill into the lake and trying to have it zoned by the proper people as fit to hold two 18 storey towers housing over 200 suites each?
I have here a letter dated January 21, 1965, which tells Millgate Park Investments that they have to stop the filling. This is written by the engineer in Toronto, and I refer to it again because of the paragraph which states:
I was further informed that as at December 1st, 1964, the fill extended 470 feet into Lake Ontario with an average width of 330 feet.
If you multiply that out you will find it comes to 3J acres in land surface. This land is right inside the boundaries of metropolitan Toronto and is valued at anywhere from $100,000 to $200,000 an acre. You could imagine what kind of money would be advanced under the National Housing Act to the owner of 3i acres of land in Lake Ontario unless some objection is taken to his title, and am objecting on behalf of some thousands of people who live along that lake shore.
There is an application before the Department of Public Works which will definitely interfere with navigation, a matter which comes under the Department of Transport. This application is for a permit to erect a cribwork around this 400 foot peninsula, but the cribwork application states it is to extend for 660 feet, 220 feet further out into the lake. The cribwork will require piles 16 feet in length. Water that requires 16 foot piles won't take the Queen Mary, the Queen Elizabeth or some of the new Japanese oil tankers, but around Lake Ontario many boats come closer to the shore than 440 feet. Their draught is not as great as 16 foot piles would require, and these will interfere seriously with navigation.
In this letter from the engineer, dated January 21, 1965, he writes:
It has been brought to my attention recently that not only has this fill been placed without prior approval of the Department of Public Works, pursuant to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, but that in addition thereto the fill was left unprotected and consequently caused erosion under the wave action of the lake. I further understand


Supply-Transport
that the eroded material has been deposited along the shore to such an extent that a storm sewer outfall adjacent to the fill is now 150 feet from the shoreline, a true indication that the material is being deposited in navigable waters with a possible detrimental effect on navigation.
Then he goes on to say:
On the assumption that you should immediately comply with the above instruction and requirements-
Note, it is only an assumption on the government's part. It does not expect this person to follow the law.
On the assumption that you should immediately comply with the above instructions and requirements, you are requested pursuant to section 5(2) (b) of the said act for the purpose of rendering the total existing fill lawful, to apply for approval of the said existing fill five years after its completion.
This means they should stop the filling, but will have more and more erosion for five years, and then five years afterwards they may apply for permission to erect cribwork. But the letter added:
This would mean that you should not place any additional fill at this location.
Should you fail to adhere to my instructions, consideration will be given for the complete removal of the fill, at your expense, pursuant to section 5 of the Navigable Waters Protection Act.
This is the letter that the same Mr. McCallum told the Long Branch Council that they had lost and that it did not turn up until March 4. He told them that they found the letter on March 4, six weeks later.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Is this Mr. McCallum the counsel for this firm?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am not a lawyer. I presume if he is the legal adviser, as these newspapers say, then presumably he is the counsel for them too. However, this is the letter which they said they lost, but of course between January 21 and March 4 they put in a lot more fill. Then they stopped it, and there has not been any more fill put in for the past
year__a year come March. However, erosion
has continued and the property owners right and left of this project are complaining bitterly about the treatment they are getting from the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Public Works and the Department of Justice when they ask that the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act be
enforced.	.
I prefer to take the opinion expressed m the department of works letter of January that this is an obstacle to navigation, rather than the statement of the Minister of Justice that it is not.

I have a picture here of some of the fill. It projects 30 feet into the air out from the shore. I had men stand beside it so that one can get a comparison of its height. This fill would stop the Royal Navy's biggest battleship if it ever got into Lake Ontario, yet we are told it is not an obstacle.
My hon. friend, the member for Russell, said to me when he saw this, "I don't know why you complain about these things. I really don't. They are building a sand beach. Those thousands of cinderblocks sticking out in the lake are where little children are going to warm their tootsies."	_
These were being dumped in the fill until we got it stopped by protesting, but now they want to build a crib around it.


David Lewis: Table the photograph.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I would be very happy to do so.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
I would ask the government to enforce the Navigable Waters Protection Act and to observe the terms of the International Boundary Waters Treaty Act, first and foremost for the health of the people; second, to look after the navigable needs of the people living on the shores of lake Ontario and, third, to look after the interest of the power companies. I would ask the minister to tell the power interests that the lake Ontario water level must always be maintained at a minimum of 244.78 feet, which has been the average for the past 94 years.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman a question? In British Columbia the law does not permit this sort of thing without the consent of the riparian owners. Were the individuals who are the property owners along the lakeshore consulted and did they give their consent to this construction?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Chairman, I asked the question a year ago, when pointing out this situation, whether consent had been given by the International Joint Commission or the Department of Public Works in respect of any fill between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek. In fact, I asked my original question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on March 25 last, and I have not yet received a reply. However, the hon. member for Northumberland, who was then a parliamentary secretary, said that no permits had been issued for fill at any time between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek, a


distance of four miles in which there are 20 or 30 pieces of property that have been filled.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: The private owners of property along the lakeshore were not consulted, is that right?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: These people who own the waterlots-the private owners-have filled in their own waterlots in many areas between the Humber River and Etobicoke Creek and have apparently set a precedent for the rest of the owners and for the rest of time.
Mr. Chairman, I have asked the government continually to get a ruling from the Supreme Court of Canada as to what are the legal rights of the owners of waterlots. The Minister of Public Works stood up recently and said that he was not clear himself in this regard, and expressed the wish that somebody would clear this up for him. I have asked the government to refer this matter to the Supreme Court of Canada, but no action has been taken. The Minister of Justice suggested that my request was vague. Let me spell it out for him. I should like to have the cabinet make a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada, asking for a decision as to what are the legal rights of the owners of patented waterlots on the shores of Lake Ontario. If that is vague I shall have to learn French, because that is as plain as I can put it in English.


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Chairman, the evening is growing late and the minister has had a long day so I will just make a few brief remarks in the time that remains. I shall journey on this travelogue of the Department of Transport from the sewers in Montreal to clear waters on the east coast.
I was particularly interested in the speech made by the hon. member for Kindersley. It was an excellent speech in which he put forward the suggestions and submissions of importance to his province and to the western part of Canada. I was particularly interested in the matter of railway abandonments. That hon. member of course also mentioned the matter of box cars. Let me state that these box cars are constructed in a plant in the area of my constituency. I can assure the minister that we are ready for more orders at any time and he can advise the Canadian National Railways to that effect. Very often, when he originally took that portfolio, I bothered him about this subject. This plant has been changed and diversified and it can now handle a great many more orders.
Supply-Transport
The hon. member for Kindersley mentioned the proposed bill which will come before the house, and perhaps before the Committee on Transportation. My name is listed among the members of that committee and I look forward to a great deal of interesting work in that regard during this session.
The hon. member for Kindersley also mentioned that he believed, in respect of the matter of abandonments-there are perhaps two in my constituency-that the figures presented by the Canadian National Railways should not be accepted alone and by themselves. If there is to be a rationalization agency, or some type of agency set up under the proposed legislation by the Minister of Transport, I hope there will be some means and some mechanics of making other figures available, as well as the figures presented by the C.N.R.
There are two proposed abandonments in my area, one which runs from Vernal to Sunnybrae, to the end of the steel, which is the old line built by the old Nova Scotia Railway Company and taken over by the Colonial. I think the hon. member for Antig-onish-Guysborough will back me up when I state that this was the start of the Guys-borough Railway Company.


Mr. Stewart:: When is that to be reactivated?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I will have to ask the
Minister of Transport, but if you will back me up in that regard, perhaps we will ask for that as well.
The other proposed abandonment is in respect of a piece of junk, I call it-to be blunt, the guts of the short line which is a piece of line from Tatamagouche to Scotsburn, a distance of 24 miles. The proposal of the Canadian National Railways is to take the junk out of the middle and let us run cars at both ends. We know what will happen then. Of course, that will sound the death knell to this short piece of line.
I think, sir, I should call it ten o'clock at this time.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Chairman, before we call it ten o'clock perhaps I could ask the hon. gentleman one question. He referred to the speech of the hon. member for Kindersley. Does he agree with the hon. member in respect of seaway tolls?


Howard Russell MacEwan: I am not in a position to answer at this time. I will have to consider that overnight and advise the minister tomorrow.
Progress reported.
1060	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: The hon. member for Springfield.



AGRICULTURE-FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO COOPERATIVE LIVESTOCK ORGANIZATION

Mr. E. R. Schreyer (Springfield):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday last I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) whether he had in recent days, or within the last few weeks, received a delegation of livestock producers associated with an organization known as F.A.M.E. I was advised to either put my question on the order paper or to take it up at ten o'clock. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I do so now.
I submit that the question is important and that there is a great degree of urgency involved, and I would appreciate if the minister could make some response. It is important because this organization, F.A.M.E., is seeking to enable farmers to enter into the business of actually processing some of their products. The success or failure of this organization will advance or set back the processing by farm people of their products, not only in Ontario but throughout this country. These people seek to obtain greater bargaining power and counter bargaining power in the market places. I know the Minister of Agriculture is interested in this question by reason of the fact that he holds the agricultural portfolio. Only a few days ago he distinctly said that it is his sincere hope that the farmers of this country will be able to take their proper place on the economic scene, and that they will be able to obtain a more fair share of the national economy.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)
It is submitted that one of the ways this *could happen would be if farm people were successful in grouping together through cooperatives or perhaps marketing boards, thereby obtaining greater bargaining power. I am sure the minister is completely familiar with the events and history of this organization. In the past few months some unfortunate circumstances have arisen in regard to the organization and as I understand it it is today in rather precarious straits. There is a rather substantial equity in the organization on the part of farm shareholders, and unless they are able to obtain more funds they stand

DEBATES	February 10, 1966
to lose over $1 million in equity that has been paid in to the present time. Therefore I wonder whether the minister has really been looking into this question and whether he has been able to give this organization any kind of undertaking, federal-provincial jurisdictional problems notwithstanding.


Mr. Bruce S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker,
I wish to thank the hon. member on behalf of the minister for his interest in this very important question. I know that I speak for the minister when I say he is conscious of the purposes for which F.A.M.E. was setablished, the noble purposes for which farm groups joined together and raised substantial amounts of money and the noble desires that were theirs in so doing. I know also that the minister feels very keenly the regrets of all farm people in the unfortunate circumstances which have prevailed.
In answer to the hon. member's question I should say that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Greene) did receive groups interested in F.A.M.E. but that no undertaking was entered into with them except to express a real interest in and concern for the unfortunate circumstances in which they find themselves.
[Translation1



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-REQUEST FOR REPORT OF PENAL REFORM COMMITTEE PRIOR TO DEBATE

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, I should like, first of all, to thank the Solicitor General (Mr. Pennell) for having so obligingly accepted to prolong his stay in the house in order to answer the question I wish to put to him.
The competence of the minister impresses us all to such an extent that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) himself wished to proclaim it.
Mr. Speaker, I think the minister could, this evening, throw some light on a topic I consider of prime importance. Last year the government published a white paper on capital punishment.
The session was cut short and the election followed. The Speech from the Throne read last January 18 states:
Arrangements will be made for you to decide the issue of capital punishment at an early date.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully submit that the the prospective debate on capital punishment should be delayed as much as possible because I think the time is not ripe for such a debate, for the following reasons:
February 10. 1966	COMMONS
In the first place, criminality is rising frightfully and there is a terrific number of murders being committed. I will have the opportunity of giving to the house a few statistics concerning the province of Quebec.
I shall take a given period, that is from 1955 to 1960. During that period, an average of 41 murders were committed each year in the province of Quebec only, which is 12 per cent more than in the previous five-year period, or from 1951 to 1955 inclusive.
From 1961 to 1965, there was, in the province of Quebec, an average of 57 murders per year, that is 28 per cent more during the period when the new government mitigated the penalty by commuting the death sentence.
Therefore, I suggest, first, that it is not the appropriate time to hold such a debate, because of a frightening outbreak of crime and, second, because public feeling in favour of a solution, either for its complete abolition, its maintenance, or its modified abolition, is still not clear.
I hardly think this is an opportune time to discuss the death penalty since the government has created a commission of inquiry. I must congratulate the minister for tabling the report of the committee on juvenile deliquen-cy, a most impressive report, exceptionally informative.
Last year the government set up a committee called the Canadian Committee on Penal and Correctional Reform. The terms of reference of this committee are to study the extent of crime in this country. The committee is to report on the causes of crime. I would not say the committee intends to be restricted to these matters only, but it is surely one of its basic responsibilities to report.
I am surprised at that eagerness for the abolition of capital punishment, when that committee has not yet filed its report. I am not blaming the committee, because it has just been established.
I would ask the minister whether he would not deem it expedient to suggest that the said committee table its report. If that report cannot be tabled in the near future, may I
DEBATES	1061
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ask the minister whether it would not be possible to reconsider postponing this debate for as long as possible, so that we may not only be enlightened by the report of the committee, but also have an opportunity to reach a decision in this connection?


Lawrence T. Pennell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), who addressed the house with his usual ease and in a masterly fashion, for his personal and very generous remarks toward the Solicitor General. I wish also to make it meticulously plain that on the issue of capital punishment I speak only for myself and not in the character as Solicitor General. I believe that capital punishment is not a matter for party formula. I believe every member in the house will approach it as a matter of conscience and intellectual conviction.
May I say to the hon. member, without offence, that I do not think his speech sufficiently reflected the work that I am sure he knows has gone into the White Paper on capital punishment. It is an admirable approach, a dispassionate and objective approach to a very difficult problem. So far as the matter of an interim report from the Committee on Corrections is concerned, I wish to point out that this committee has barely begun to enter upon its deliberations. This is a committee chaired by Mr. Justice Ouimet and has an outstanding committee membership. It would, in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, be manifestly unfair and unrealistic to expect this committee to bring forth an interim report on such a formidable subject when, and I hope I am not going too far, the house expects an early debate on this subject.
In conclusion may I express the personal desire that penal reform in this country in the next few years will indicate that the mind and spirit of man has kept pace with our material and scientific advances.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.13 p.m.



APPENDIX

[Stage Direction]
CORRESPONDENCE WITH PROVINCES RESPECTING UNIVERSITY GRANTS Copy of letter sent to all provincial premiers except Quebec.
Ottawa, January 17, 1966.
The Honourable W. Ross Thatcher, M.L.A.,
Premier of Saskatchewan,
Regina, Saskatchewan.
My dear Premier:
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces received last October proposals submitted jointly to them by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The Association strongly endorsed the general recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission on the Financing of Higher Education in Canada and urged earnest consideration of them by the federal and provincial governments.
In my statement to the press on October 14, 1965, on the subject of the financing of higher education, I welcomed the submission by the Association and accepted on behalf of the federal government a responsibility to consider these recommendations which had been directed to the federal government as well as to the provincial governments. I emphasized, however, that the response to these important recommendations on the financing of higher education in Canada should be a joint response of the provincial and federal governments, and undertook to propose to the provinces a special federal-provincial conference to consider the universities' proposals.
Circumstances have not permitted an early federal-provincial conference for this purpose and at the meeting in December of the Tax Structure Committee, it was suggested that the federal government should make a decision concerning interim arrangements for the academic year 1966-67 without waiting for a general conference, bearing in mind that it is normal for the provincial governments to review university budgets in the month of January. Having this in mind and also that the provincial governments will wish to incorporate in their own budgets a level of support appropriate to the needs of the universities in 1966-67, the federal government has decided to adopt this suggested interim procedure. I am writing now to outline the proposals which the federal government plans to submit to Parliament in respect of the academic year 1966-67. In order to
consider the longer term responses of the federal and provincial governments and the relationship between them, it will be necessary to discuss them at a federal-provincial conference, perhaps the one we have planned for Victoria, and I will be writing to you about this at a later date.
The arrangement outlined below will be applicable to the academic year 1966-67 only and is made without prejudice to that which may obtain thereafter. This interim arrangement deals only with an increase in grants which should help materially to meet the operating costs of the universities. The federal government does not feel that it can respond to the recommendations of the universities concerning grants for capital expenditures before they have been discussed carefully with the provincial governments.
The federal government is prepared for the academic year 1966-67 to increase its per capita operating grants to $5.00 per capita of the population of Canada. In those provinces other than Quebec, the grants would be paid as now to the universities that are recognized as being eligible for such grants by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. For Quebec, the arrangement at present existing will be continued and, to give effect to the increase in the per capita grants, a cash payment would be made to bring total federal assistance to that province to a level which is in proportion by population to what all other provinces are receiving. The fact that the organization and institutions of education in Quebec are considerably different from those in other provinces warrants, in our view, the continuation of special arrangements with Quebec in respect of these grants.
In considering the form of payments through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the federal government feels that something additional should be included in the grants to universities in those provinces that take a higher proportion of out-of-province students. To give effect to this principle the grants will be paid in the form of a basic grant of approximately $4.30 per capita of the population of each of the provinces concerned, supplemented by an
[Stage Direction]

amount per out-of-province student in each province equal to the average of the basic grant per student in all these provinces. These basic grants together with the supplementary grants will provide an average of $5.00 per capita, but the distribution to universities will be higher in those provinces with a higher ratio of out-of-province students. In the final application of this formula, provincial populations on June 1, 1966 and the total students and out-of-province students enrolled in eligible universities in each province in the academic year 1966-67 will be based on up to date estimates by the Dominion Statistician. In the meantime, tentative estimates have been made and it is suggested that you use for planning purposes the following amounts as indicating the probable orders of magnitude of total grants:
Newfoundland, $2,250,000; Prince Edward Island $615,000; Nova Scotia, $5,055,000; New Brunswick, $5,040,000; Ontario, $33,370,000; Manitoba, $5,090,000; Saskatchewan, $4,485,000; Alberta, $7,050,000; British Columbia, $8,890,000.
An interim payment will be made in September, based on the then available estimates of provincial populations. A second instalment will be paid in January, after the enrollment of total students and out-of-province students is known. The final instalment would be paid early in May. The distribution of the grants to eligible institutions within each province will be in accordance with the formula proposed in the submission by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada.
It is my earnest hope that the above interim arrangement for federal operating grants to universities, together with the action which your government and other provincial governments will take in respect of the needs of universities in the academic year 1966-67, will constitute a constructive step forward in making a joint response to the need for adequate financing of higher education in Canada. It would, of course, leave to the provinces full responsibility for legislation in respect of university affairs.
I shall be sending a letter tomorrow to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada informing them of this plan. They should be of assistance to provincial authorities in working out how it may be expected to apply to individual institutions on the new weighting formula which they have proposed and we have accepted.
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson.
Copy of letter sent to Prime Minister of Quebec only.
Ottawa, January 17,1966
The Honourable Jean Lesage,
Prime Minister of Quebec,
Parliament Building,
Quebec, Que.
My dear Prime Minister:
The Government of Canada and the Governments of the Provinces received last October proposals submitted jointly to them by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. The Association strongly endorsed the general recommendations contained in the Report of the Commission on the Financing of Higher Education in Canada and urged earnest consideration of them by the federal and provincial governments.
In my statement to the press on October 14, 1965, on the subject of the financing of higher education, I welcomed the submission by the Association and accepted on behalf of the federal government a responsibility to consider these recommendations which had been directed to the federal government as well as to the provincial governments. I emphasized, however, that the response to these important recommendations on the financing of higher education in Canada should be a joint response of the provincial and federal governments, and undertook to propose to the provinces a special federal-provincial conference to consider the universities' proposals.
Circumstances have not permitted an early federal-provincial conference for this purpose and at the meeting in December of the Tax Structure Committee, it was suggested that the federal government should make a decision concerning interim arrangements for the academic year 1966-67 without waiting for a general conference, bearing in mind that it is normal for the provincial governments to review university budgets in the month of January. Having this in mind and also that provincial governments will wish to incorporate in their own budgets a level of support appropriate to the needs of the universities in 1966-67, the federal government has decided to adopt this suggested interim procedure. I am writing now to outline the proposals which the federal government plans to submit to Parliament in respect of the academic year 1966-67. In order to consider the longer term responses of the federal and provincial governments and the relationship between them it will be necessary to discuss them at a
[Stage Direction]

federal-provincial conference, perhaps the one we have planned for Victoria, and I will be writing to you about this at a later date.
The arrangement outlined below will be applicable to the academic year 1966-67 only and is made without prejudice to that which may obtain thereafter. This interim arrangement deals only with an increase in grants which should help materially to meet the operating costs of the universities. The federal government does not feel that it can respond to the recommendations of the universities concerning grants for capital expenditures before they have been discussed carefully with the provincial governments.
The federal government is prepared for the academic year 1966-67 to increase its per capita operating grants to $5.00 per capita of the population of Canada. In those provinces other than Quebec, the grants will be paid as now to the universities that are recognized as being eligible for such grants by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. For Quebec, the existing special arrangement in respect of the annual $2.00 per capita grant will be continued and, to give effect to the increase in the per capita grants, a cash payment will be made to bring total federal assistance to your province to a level which is in proportion by population to what all other provinces are receiving. The fact that the organization and institutions of education in your province are considerably different from those in other provinces warrants, in our view, the continuation of special arrangements in respect of these grants.
The total amount resulting from those arrangements with your province will be the same proportion to the total federal grants in all other provinces which the population of Quebec bears to the population of all other provinces on June 1, 1966 as estimated by the Dominion statistician. In respect of the portion representing an amount in excess of $2.00 per capita, an interim payment would be made in September and the balance paid in instalments in January and early May. On the basis of tentative estimates of provincial populations it is suggested that you assume for planning purposes that this amount in total will be of the order of $17,350,000.
In considering the form of payments in provinces in which grants are paid to the universities through the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the federal government feels that something additional
should be included in the grants to universities in those provinces that take a higher proportion of out-of-province students. To give effect to this principle the grants will be paid in the form of a basic grant of approximately $4.30 per capita of the population of each of the provinces concerned, supplemented by an amount per out-of-province student in each province equal to the average of the basic grant per student in all these provinces. These basic grants together with the supplementary grants will provide an average of $5.00 per capita, but the distribution to universities will be higher in those provinces with a higher ratio of out-of-province students. In the final application of this formula, provincial populations on June 1, 1966 and the total students and out-of-province students enrolled in eligible universities in each province in the academic year 1966-67 will be based on up to date estimates by the Dominion Statistician.
It is my earnest hope that the above interim arrangement, together with the action which your government and other provincial governments will take in respect of the needs of universities in the academic year 1966-67, will constitute a constructive step forward in our mutual effort to provide adequate financing of higher education in Canada. It would, of course, leave to the provinces full responsibility for legislation in respect of university affairs.
I shall be sending a letter tomorrow to the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada informing them of this plan.
Yours sincerely,
L. B. Pearson.
OFFICE OF THE PRIME MINISTER Province of Quebec
January 26th, 1966.
The Honourable Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Government of Canada,
Ottawa.
My dear Prime Minister:
Together with my colleagues, I have studied the proposal contained in your letter dated the 17th instant relating to the increase in federal per capita grants to universities.
Quebec is prepared to accept, as unconditional payments, the temporary arrangement
[Stage Direction]

which you suggest for the 1966-67 university year. As you point out in your own letter, it is agreed that this temporary arrangement is made without prejudice to decisions which may be arrived at later. Such decisions will be made after a comprehensive study of the whole problem at a future federal-provincial conference.
Yours very truly,
Jean Lesage.

[Stage Direction]
Toronto 5, Ontario, January 28, 1966.
The Right Honourable L. B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Mr. Pearson:
I have your letter of 17th January, 1966, in which you indicate the intention of the Federal Government to increase the amount of financial assistance to be provided to universities for operating purposes for the fiscal year 1966-67 and in which you outline the procedures by which this assistance will be made available.
While I regret that you found it impossible to hold a federal-provincial conference to discuss the matter of increased support before action was taken in this matter, I welcome your decision to provide additional funds to assist our universities on an interim basis for the year 1966-67.
We are prepared to meet with you and your officials at the earliest opportunity to go into this whole area of support for higher education and the methods and procedures by which this support is to be made available.
Yours sincerely,
John P. Robarts.
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick
THE PREMIER Fredericton
January 24, 1966.
The Right Honourable Lester B.
Pearson
Prime Minister of Canada Ottawa
My dear Prime Minister:
The Government of the Province of New Brunswick wishes to express its warm appreciation of the proposed expansion of 23033-68
federal financial assistance to institutions of higher education, as outlined in your letter of January 17th.
We are particularly pleased that special consideration will be given those provinces with a high ratio of out-of-province students.
It was our hope that these interim measures would be taken for the academic year 1965-66, but we are cognizant of the problems this presented.
It is noted that these interim measures are designed only to relieve the pressing problems of financing higher education until a federal-provincial conference may be convened to determine longer term procedures and policies. We stand ready to participate fully in such a conference when it may be called.
We do appreciate these constructive steps toward solution of this most serious problem.
Yours sincerely,
Louis J. Robichaud.
Manitoba
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Winnipeg 1
January 21, 1966.
The Right Honourable Lester B.
Pearson, P.C., M.P.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
East Block,
Ottawa 4, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
May I express our sincere appreciation for your prompt action with respect to federal assistance to universities. It has been most helpful to have this information at a time when we are completing the estimates of expenditure for the coming fiscal year and we express our thanks for your advice.
It would be helpful if you could give us the formula and calculations by which the grant to the province of Manitoba has been arrived at. This will assist us in breaking down the allocation between the various institutions within the province. We would also hope that the meeting to discuss the question of capital grants as well as other problems related to this question could be held soon. We would hope that capital assistance would be available for the coming fiscal year.
[Stage Direction]

In this connection the province would wish to reserve its position as to the ways and means by which federal payments are transferred to the institutions within Manitoba. We are examining alternative methods to the one in use at the present and may wish to offer some proposals to you in that respect at an appropriate time.
Yours sincerely,
Duff Roblin.


[Stage Direction]
Edmonton, January 24th, 1966.
Right Honorable Lester B. Pearson,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario.
My dear Prime Minister:
We are pleased to learn from your letter of January 17th that it has been decided to increase the contribution of the Federal Government toward the support of universities and that, specifically, the sum of $5.00 per capita will be distributed in this Province. We are acquainting the university authorities in this regard.
We note also that it is probable that a new formula will be developed prior to 1967-68 and that we shall have opportunity to participate in discussions relative thereto. We shall be pleased to join in such discussions.
It is of interest to note that the decisions you have arrived at are in harmony with a resolution passed by the Ministers of Education of all the Provinces at their meeting in Ottawa on January 14th last.
Yours very truly,
E. C. Manning Premier.
OFFICE OF THE PREMIER Province of BRITISH COLUMBIA
Victoria, January 27th, 1966.
The Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, P.C., O.B.E.,
Prime Minister of Canada,
Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I was very pleased to receive your letter of January 17, regarding larger federal grants for higher education.
It is not the wish of the Government of British Columbia to control the federal university grants in any way, yet I am concerned as to the division among the different universities. We have in our Province three public universities and one private university, and our Government is in favour of the policy that now exists that all four universities receive benefits from the federal grants for higher education.
In regard to the three public universities, I believe it would be good policy if the federal grants and the provincial grants are dovetailed in a way so that our three public universities would feel that they would receive equal treatment.
In the Province of British Columbia, as Minister of Finance, I do not set the individual operating grants for each public university, but set the money up in a total amount in a block vote, and then a permanent finance committee, which is set up by the three universities themselves, arrange for the division of these monies after a full study of their respective budgets, and I would hope that you would agree, Mr. Prime Minister, that the share of federal grants that will be going to our public universities would be divided by the same university committee.
With kindest personal regards, I remain,
Yours very truly,
W. A. C. Bennett Premier

[Stage Direction]
Rt. Hon. Lester B. Pearson
Prime Minister of Canada Parliament Buildings Ottawa, Canada
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
I wish to thank you for your letter of January 17th regarding assistance to universities.
The proposals you have made for the year ending March 31, 1967 will be very helpful to the universities and colleges of Nova Scotia.
The provisions that you have made for out-of-province students are particularly welcome because these students do constitute a
February 10, 1966	COMMONS DEBATES	1067
severe financial problem for our universities and for this government. Your proposal should be very helpful.
I note that the arrangements you are proposing are for one year only and that you have in mind a federal-provincial conference on more lasting arrangements. This Province
will of course be happy to attend such a conference.
Again I wish to express our appreciation for the step that you have taken.
Yours sincerely,
R. L. Stanfield.
1069
[Stage Direction]
Friday, February 11, 1966