1966-06-01

VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerald Laniel (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
presented the third report of the standing committee on veterans affairs in both French and English.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]

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

Mr. Bell (Carleton): 1.	Has the Minister of Justice, since April 23, 1963, received representations requesting amendments to the Criminal Code to prohibit a person convicted of an offence related to cruelty to animals from owning or otherwise possessing animals for a stated period?
2.	If so, when and from what organizations were such representations received?
3.	What action has been taken or is proposed to be taken in respect of such representations?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: 1.	Yes.
2.	April 29, 1963, from the Ontario Humane Society.
3.	The representations are under study in connection with the next Criminal Code amendment bill.


CONTRACTS WITH EASTERN PROVINCIAL AIRWAYS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does Eastern Provincial Airways at present hold any contracts for service to the government of Canada, other than with the Post Office Department?
2.	If so. what services do these contracts cover?
3.	What is the duration of each such contract?
4.	What equipment, by designated type, is being used in any such contracts and at what tariff schedules?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Secretary of State):: I am informed by all departments as follows:
1.	No.
2,	3 and 4. Not applicable.


PROTECTION OF LABORATORY ANIMALS
Mr. Chatterton: 1.	Did the Minister of Justice in 1963 receive a brief from the council for the protection of laboratory animals and, if so, to whom was the brief, or the subject matter of the brief, referred?
2.	What detailed action has been taken by the government with regard to this brief?
3.	Were representatives of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies appointed to any governmental committee dealing with this brief and, if not, for what reason?
4.	Were representatives of the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies permitted to attend, as observers, any governmental committee dealing with this brief and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Is the government giving consideration to the introduction of legislation dealing with the subject matter of this brief?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: So far as the Department of Justice is concerned:
1.	The Minister of Justice received a submission from the council for laboratory animals under date of July 22, 1963.
2.	The Minister of Justice referred the submission to the Minister of National Health and Welfare under date of July 25, 1963.
3 and 4. No such committee was set up in the Department of Justice.
5. The Department of Justice is not considering such legislation.


U.K. LEGISLATION APPLICABLE TO CANADA
Mr. Allard: Are there any enactments of the parliament of the United Kingdom which by their express terms still apply to Canada and, if so, what are they?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: This question seeks a legal opinion, which it is not the practice to give to the house.
Questions


TARIFF CHANGES RESPECTING SHIPPING CONTAINERS
Mr. Orlikow: Was a recommendation made in the report of the restrictive trade practices commission on the acquisition by Bathurst Power and Paper Company Limited of Wilson Boxes, Limited, in 1962, that "appropriate tariff changes be made to restore competitive conditions in the supply of container-board and in the supply of shipping containers" and, if so, is the government considering implementation of that recommendation?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Finance):: Yes, the restrictive trade practices commission did make a recommendation along these lines. This recommendation, together with other recommendations which have been made by the commission on tariff matters, is being studied in connection with international trade negotiations.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN CANADA
Mr. Allard: 1.	Must foreigners wishing to make investments in Canada, apply to any federal agency and agree to certain conditions and, if so, what are these conditions?
2.	Must foreigners wishing to recover investments and profits they have made in Canada submit to certain conditions and, if so, what are these withdrawal conditions?
3.	Does the federal government or any of its agencies have advertising or recruitment offices for the promotion of foreign investment in Canada and, if so, in what countries?
4.	Is there a liaison or information service between the federal and provincial governments concerning foreign investments in Canada?
5.	Does the federal government or its agencies direct foreign investments to the various regions of Canada and if so, what standards does it apply in such direction?
6.	What conditions, if any, should be met by the city of Sherbrooke, Quebec, in order to favour foreign investment within its limits?
7.	From what countries were investments made in Canada in 1964 and 1965 and how were they distributed between the provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1.	No.
2.	No, provided they have complied with the Canadian tax laws prior to withdrawal.
3.	No. However, the area development agency of the Department of Industry does advertise from time to time to inform foreign investors of its program. The trade commissioners of the Department of Trade and Commerce posted abroad forward inquiries respecting foreign investment in Canada to the federal Department of Industry.
[Mr. CardinJ
June 1. 1966
4.	Any general inquiries from foreign investors are referred to the various provincial industry departments. If an inquiry relates to a particular province, or to particular provinces, then such provinces only are advised of the inquiry.
5.	No. The federal Department of Industry will provide interested parties with the loca-cations of the designated areas under the area development program and with the names and addresses of provincial, municipal or regional officials to be contacted.
6.	The area development agency of the Department of Industry, which is actively engaged in assisting communities to launch programs of industrial development and promotion, does not differentiate between domestic and foreign investment. Decisions by domestic as well as foreign investors whether or not to locate at a specific site do appear to be influenced very substantially by the quality and the relative cost of municipal services and utilities available.
7.	Gross foreign direct investment in Canada in 1964 and 1965 was as follows:
1964	1965
(millions of dollars) United States	195
United Kingdom	31
Other sterling area countries -2	not
Other OECD countries	yet
in Europe	37	available
All other countries	-6
Totals	255	390
Net investment flows to Canada for portfolio investment in Canadian securities during these
years were as follows: United States	776	630United Kingdom	-46	-55Other sterling area countries	- '	Other OECD countries in Europe	10	2All other countries	5	Totals	745	577
Other types of foreign investment flows are covered in the DBS publications 67-0011, Quarterly Estimate of the Canadian Balance of Payments and, 67-002 Sales and Purchases of Securities Between Canada and Other Countries.
Provincial distribution of the ultimate disposition of these inflows is not available for either year.

June 1, 19G6


CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Since April 8, 1963, has any brief or submission been presented by the Ontario Humane Society to the federal justice department or any other department requesting amendments to the criminal [DOT]code which would give magistrates the power to prohibit, for specific periods of time, the keeping or harbouring of animals by any person or persons who have been found guilty of cruelty to animals?
2.	If so (a) on what date was the first such brief or representation made (b) have any subsequent briefs or representations been made on this subject (c) what action is contemplated by the department regarding these briefs or representations?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1.	Yes.
2.	(a) April 29, 1963, (b) subsequent representations on this subject have been received from various societies and individuals endorsing the views of the Ontario Humane Society, (c) the representations are under study in connection with the next Criminal Code amendment bill.


A. G. HEAKES-COMPLAINTS RESPECTING MAIL DELIVERY
Mr. Langlois (Meganlic): 1.	Has Mr. A. G. Heakes been unable to obtain an accurate reply to his inquiries into his mail to his mother, Mrs. W. A. Heakes, on or about December 1, 1965 and filed under the file numbers 8A-64, 278, 79-80 and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Was Mr. Heakes unable to obtain any answer to the said inquiries until after he had complained to the Postmaster General on February 17, 1966 and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Was it found necessary to reopen the investigation into this matter after Mr. Heakes had complained to the Postmaster General that the reply to the said inquiries from Mr. Durocher, district director of postal services, dated February 21, 1966, was false and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Was the same investigation made in connection with (a) Peter T. Marsh, at the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon (b) Henry H. Marsh, Whitehorse, Yukon (c) Mrs. P. J. Rowsell, 1204 Clyde. Ottawa?
5.	What is now happening and what has happened to the mail addressed by Mr. Heakes to his mother at her last known address, 17 Glebe Road, Toronto?


Hon. Jean-Paul Cote (Postmaster General):: 1.	No. The reply was as accurate as possible in the light of the information provided by Mr. Heakes, who had requested an inquiry respecting letters sent to his mother between December 1964 and November 1965 to three different addresses in the Toronto area. Mrs. Heakes was not residing at any of the given
Questions
addresses and, since the letters in question had not been sent by registered mail., there was no record of their handling.
2.	No. The District Director of Postal Service, Montreal, replied to Mr. Heakes on 21st February which was before it was possible to take action on his letter of 17th February. Initial inquiry had been instituted by Mr. Heakes at Postal Station "B" Montreal, where inquiry forms were completed and forwarded to the office of the District Director for attention. Thus, there was no correspondence exchanged at the time.
3.	Investigation was re-opened by request of Mr. Heakes, who alleged that he had been given false information. This charge appears to have been based upon the fact that he was not informed that changes of address had been filed with the Post Office in Toronto, calling for redirection of mail for Mrs. Heakes to an address in Saskatoon. Withholding of this information was in accordance with regulations whereby, for obvious reasons, the addresses of postal patrons cannot be divulged. It was not known at the time that Mrs. Heakes had not actually left the Toronto area.
4.	(a) Yes. Investigation has revealed that changes of address had been filed by Dr. Peter T. Marsh, of the University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, on the basis of a General Power of Attorney, respecting Mrs. Heakes' affairs, which was executed in Toronto in December 1964. (b) and (c) No. These names did not come up in the course of inquiry.
5.	Any mail addressed to Mrs. Heakes at 17 Glebe Road, Toronto, would now be delivered there. Effective 29th November 1965, mail was forwarded to Saskatoon on the basis of a change of address filed by Dr. Marsh who began to return it to Toronto during the month of February 1966 leading to the conclusion that redirection was no longer desired. Verbal confirmation of this was subsequently obtained from Dr. Marsh.


ARDA PROJECTS, CARLETON CONSTITUENCY, ONT.
Mr. Bell (Carleion): 1.	Have any projects been approved under ARDA affecting the electoral district of Carleton since April 22, 1963?
2.	If so (a) what are they (b) what was the objective of each (e) what was the cost of each?
3.	Are there any projects affecting this electoral district now under consideration?

June 1, 1966
Questions
4.	If so (a) what are they (b) what is the objective of each (c) what is the estimated cost of each?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1. Yes.
2. (1) Eastern Ontario Rural Development Study; This project covers the 11 eastern counties of Ontario and is primarily an economic evaluation of farm size, land capability, and mode of farming with the objective of establishing the requirements for the formation of viable farm units. The total cost of this project is estimated at $36,100, shared equally between federal ARDA and the province. (2) Drainage Assistance in eastern Ontario; There are 966,000 acres of land in the 11 counties of eastern Ontario which are poorly drained but which have a high capability for agriculture. A portion of this land is within Carleton county. During the next five years federal ARDA will provide one third of the funds for a $1,500,000 program to provide outlet drainage ditches. The balance of cost will be paid equally by the province and the municipalities involved. (3) Farm Pond Assistance Program; This provincial wide program is designed to increase farm productivity by supplementing farm water supply for livestock, spraying, and irrigation. During the next two years federal ARDA will contribute one quarter of the $700,000 to be expended; the provincial contribution will also be one quarter while the local contribution will be one half. The total federal provincial contribution may not exceed $500 for any one pond per 100 acres of land or fraction thereof. (4) The Canada Land Inventory; This $18,000,000 nation-wide survey will assess land capabilities for agriculture, forestry, recreation and wildlife. In addition, certain socio-economic factors will be evaluated. The work is probably more advanced in eastern Ontario than any other region of Canada. At the present time, the capabilities for agriculture and forestry and the present land use have been mapped in the eleven eastern counties. Work on the wildlife and recreation sectors of the inventory is presently underway in the same area. Federal ARDA will assume the entire cost of the inventory.
3.	Yes.
4.	The details of projects are not yet resolved and are under discussion with the province of Ontario.


DRAINAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON INDIAN RESERVES
Mr. Thomas (Middlesex: West):
Does the government intend to extend its cooperation with the province of Ontario, through ARDA, to a program of drainage of agricultural land on Indian reserves in the province?


Maurice Sauvé: The Agricultural and Rural Development Act and the rural development agreement entered into by the province of Ontario and the federal government pursuant to that Act, provides that ARDA may be applied to Indian lands and Indian people. The government may then extend its co-operation to a program of drainage of agricultural land on Indian reserves if it is requested by the province.


REPORT ON BAY OF FUNDY TIDES
Mr. Coates: When is a report expected on the study at present being carried out by the Atlantic Development Board into the feasibility of harnessing the Bay of Fundy tides from a power point of view?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I am informed by the Atlantic Development Board as follows:
The report on subsurface investigations in the Minas basin area for a possible tidal power site has been received. Previous to this study, preliminary investigations had been carried out of foundation conditions in the Shepody Bay-Cumberland Basin area.


REQUEST FROM B.C. FOR ADDITIONAL VOCATIONAL FUNDS
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver- Kingsway): 1.	Has the federal government been asked by the government of British Columbia to make additional funds available under the 75-25 formula so that additional vocational facilities can be provided?
2.	If so, what was the government's response?
3.	Has the Vancouver school board offered assistance to those in charge of the manpower development program and the war on poverty program?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I am informed by the Prime Minister's office and the Department of Citizenship and Immigration as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	No.
June 1, 1966


TOWN OF OROMOCTO
Mr. MacRae: In connection with the development of the town of Oromocto (a) how much did the government pay per acre for land in the townsite area (b) how many lots have been laid out per acre (c) what is the average cost of servicing an acre of land or each lot (d) is it a basic principle of the development corporation to make a profit from the sale of the lots?


Hon. Leo Cadieux (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. (a) $270 per acre (b) Approximately 2.5 lots per acre including roads, rights of way and park areas; (c) Approximately $2,659 per lot. (d) No.
Questions


CONSTRUCTION OF TECHNOLOGY INSTITUTE, SEPT-JLES, QUE.
Mr. Blouin: In the context of the federal-provincial program to help technical and vocational training institutes, did the federal government pay part of the cost of construction of the institute of technology at Sept-Iles, Quebec, during the year 1964 or 1965, in accordance with an agreement with the government of Quebec?


Mr. J. C. Munro (Parliameniary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Yes.


COST OF CANADIAN NATO BASES
Mr. Mather: 


POST OFFICE BUILDING, INWOOD, MAN.
[Stage Direction]
What, in dollars, was the cost of Canadian military bases and personnel in France since their establishment under NATO?
Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: The capital costs, paid by the Canadian government, of fixed facilities at Canadian bases in France were as follows:
Marville
Grostenquin
Metz
Total

These figures do not include the costs of facilities provided by the commonly financed NATO common infrastructure program. The Canadian base at Grostenquin was closed and turned over to the French authorities at the end of 1964.


Mr. Stefanson: Has the government any plans to build a post office at In wood, Manitoba and, if so (a) has land been purchased (b) when will this project be proceeded with?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: No. The post office at Inwood, Manitoba is in the category of offices where the postmaster is normally responsible for the provision of suitable accommodation as a condition of employment, (a) and (b) Not applicable.


C.M.H.C. LOANS, TROIS-RIVlERES, QUE.
Mr. Mongrain: The personnel, operation and maintenance costs of the Canadian bases in France since they were first established are estimated at $482,000,000. These costs include military and civilian personnel costs, equipment operation costs, station support costs and other operating and maintenance costs of the headquarters, 1 air division (Metz), No. 1 wing (Marville), and No. 2 wing (Grostenquin).
1.	What was the number and the total amount of loans made by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation directly from its office at Trois-Riviferes in each of the years 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964 and 1965?
2.	How many loans by other financial institutions has C.M.H.C. approved in each of these years?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Labour):: 1 and 2.
Questions

June 1, 1966


GROSS NHA LOANS APPROVED FOR NEW HOUSING IN TROIS-RIVIERES FIELD OFFICE AREA 1960-1965
[Stage Direction]
Period	Approved Lenders	CMHC	Total NHA	Number of Loans	Number of Units	sooo	Number of Loans	Number of Units	$000	Number of Loans	Number of Units	$000I960	.... 24	25	279	286	334	3,076	310	359	3,3551961	... . 86	88	994	576	625	6,243	662	713	7,2371962	.... 98	100	1,185	432	451	4,784	530	551	5,9691963	.... 83	92	1,082	483	500	5,571	566	592	6,6531964	.... 5	6	70	378	390	4,509	383	396	4,5791965	.... 13	13	175	487	494	6.057	500	507	6,2321960-1965	.... 309	324	3,785	2,642	2,794	30,240	2,951	3,118	34,025
NHA Loans Approved for University Housing Projects!1) Trois-Rivieres Field Office Area, 1961-1965
Period	Number of Loans	Number of Students to be Accommodated	Amount of Loan $ 0001961	1	125	5291962	1	50	195Total	2	175	724
(!) Approved by Order-in-Council.
Net NHA Loans Approved for Municipal Sewage Treatment Projects in Trois-Rivieres Field Office Area 1961-1965
Period	Number of Loans	Amount of Loan $ 0001961	-	-1962	1	1391963	-	-1964	2	6131965	1	29Total	4	781

Mr. Forreslall: What is the total number of hourly paid employees of the Department of National Defence, Halifax area?


Léo Alphonse Joseph Cadieux: 1,680.


&quot;THIS HOUR HAS SEVEN DAYS&quot;
Mr. Prittie: 1.	Have any letters and telegrams been received since April 15 by the office of the Prime Minister on the subject of the television program "This Hour Has Seven Days" and, if so (a) how many
(b)	how many of these have criticized the position taken by the management of the C.B.C. in this matter (c) how many have expressed support for the management of the C.B.C. in this matter?
2.	Have any petitions been received since April 15 by the office of the Prime Minister criticizing the management of the C.B.C. and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the total number of signatures on these petitions?
3.	Have any petitions been received since April 15 by the office of the Prime Minister supporting the position of the C.B.C. management and, if so (a) how many (b) how many signatures were there on such petitions?


Mr. John R. Matheson (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: 1. Yes, 569 letters and 225 telegrams; (a) 794; (b) 780;
(c)	14.
2.	Yes, (a) 4; (b) 9,563.
3.	No. (a) Not applicable; (b) Not applicable.



Mr. Prittie: 1. Have any letters and telegrams been received since April 15 by the office of the Secretary of State on the subject of the television program "This Hour Has Seven Days" and, if so (a) how many (b) how many of these have criticized the position taken by the management of the CB.C. in this matter (c) how many have expressed support for the management of the C.B.C.?
June 1, 1966

2.	Have any petitions been received since April 15 by the office of the Secretary of State criticizing the management of the C.B.C. and, if so (a) how many (b) what is the total number of signatures on these petitions?
3.	Have any petitions been received since April 15 by the office of the Secretary of State supporting the position of the C.B.C. management and, if so (a) how many (b) how many signatures were there on such petitions?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: (1)	Yes; (a) 950; (b) 875; (c) 42 (33 were unclear as to what position was being taken).
(2)	Yes. (a) 23; (b) 2,972.
(3)	None.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	In the past ten years, have any federal government departments increased their office space and, if so (a) which departments (b) by how much in square feet (i) in Ottawa (ii) outside Ottawa (c) of this space, how much is in buildings owned by the government of Canada and how much is in privately owned buildings?
2.	Of the space occupied by the government in government owned buildings, what was the cost of building construction per square foot and what is the actual cost of maintenance per building per square foot (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Ottawa?
3.	Of the space occupied by the government in rented buildings, what is the actual rental per square foot and what is the cost to the government of maintenance per square foot (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Ottawa?
4.	For what period is the government committed to remain and to pay rent in the buildings in which it has rented quarters (a) in Ottawa (b) outside Ottawa?
5.	Does the government assume financial responsibility for structural and decorating cost of rented space?
6.	What plans for new space for government departments, commissions, crown corporations, etc. does the government have for the next five years and, of this, how much will be in government owned buildings and how much in rented quarters?
7.	In the space required in the next five years, what is the estimated cost per square foot for buildings to be built by the government and what is the estimated cost of maintenance per square foot per year in the buildings to be built by the government?
8.	Of the space proposed to be rented for government use in the next five years, what is the estimated rental cost per year per square foot, and what is the estimated cost of maintenance?
Return tabled.
Labour Relations
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for York South, to move the adjournment of the house under standing order 26 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely the labour dispute at Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec between the Shipping Federation of Canada and the international longshoremen's association, and its serious effects upon the economy of the country.
I would like an opportunity to make some remarks regarding the urgency of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to submit remarks not about the urgency of the matter but about urgency of debate of the matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I shall confine my remarks to the urgency of debate at this time. It is not necessary to point out to the house the widespread and harmful effects which a continuation of this labour dispute can have on the economy, the serious effect which it will have on the export of our goods and particularly grain shipments, which to a very large extent determines the deliveries which prairie farmers can make of their wheat.
The fact that there has been violence on the waterfront during the last 24 hours is something which I think causes great concern. We in this party do not for one moment condone that violence, but we suggest that the quickest way to bring an end to such violence is to find a speedy solution to the dispute.
We feel that a discussion in the house today will provide an opportunity for full discussion of the facts upon which the dispute is based. The house has not had an opportunity, other than by some fragmentary answers given by the Minister of Labour, to learn what is the real cause of the labour dispute and what are the points at issue. It seems only fair to both sides and to the public that these facts should be known and should be fully discussed in the hope that a solution can be reached.
I should like to point out that no other opportunity presents itself at this time to discuss this very important matter. We had hoped that the estimates of the Department

June 1, 1966
Motions for Papers
of Labour would have been before the house today; had that taken place it would not be necessary to raise this matter now. If the government decides to bring down the labour estimates this would obviate the necessity to proceed with this motion, but if there is no other opportunity it seems to us this matter ought to be discussed now.
As hon. members know, the labour estimates have been put at the end of the long list of departmental estimates announced by the Minister of Public Works last evening. It is unlikely that those estimates will be discussed before another ten days or two weeks. That is too long to wait before discussing a matter which is of such pressing importance and which could have such devastating consequences for the Canadian economy. For that reason we feel debate is urgent at this time in order that a full statement can be made by the Minister of Labour and hon. members may have an opportunity to debate this very important question.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the fact that the mediator has been sitting since nine o'clock this morning and presently is actively engaged in this matter, this is not the time for me to make a statement. 1 am quite prepared, however-and I have spoken to the house leader about this-to have the estimates of the Department of Labour brought on immediately this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: In view of the assurance given by the hon. minister, I am sure the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam will agree that there is no necessity to adjourn the ordinary business of the house.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I quite readily concur in your suggestion. If the labour estimates are to be brought down this afternoon I ask the permission of the house to withdraw my motion.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Notice of motion for papers No. 133 is acceptable to the government, subject, however, to the reservations concerning official documents and the authorization of the municipal authorities concerned.
Would Your Honour call notice of motion No. 132; I ask that the others be allowed to stand.


TUNNEL UNDER RAILWAY TRACKS, ST. HYACINTHE, QUE.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 133-Mr. Ricard:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the authorities of the city of St. Hyacinthe on the one hand, and any department of the government of Canada on the other hand, in relation to a project for the construction of a tunnel under the railway tracks of the C.N.R. opposite Choquette boulevard in the city of St. Hyacinthe.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 132-Mr. Orlikow:
That an order of the house do issue for copies of any reports received by the government relating to the physical conditions, safety and structure of the national museum.
Hon. G. J. Mcllraifh (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, all the reports referred to in this notice of motion are reports made by the departmental engineers and therefore are privileged since they are made to their own superior officers. I have discussed the matter with the hon. member and I would ask him to withdraw the motion. I have no objection whatsoever to giving him all the information we have available, but I would not wish the motion to pass.


Mr. Orlikow:: That will be satisfactory.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


NATIONAL SECURITY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to the state of affairs in which Mr. Vachon finds himself, is the Prime Minister now in a position to let the house know the circumstances under which R.C.M.P. reports came into the possession of the Quebec government; and will he indicate what justification there can be for such an occurrence?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, having regard to this matter of security information, there has been no change in the policy which has prevailed now for a good many years. R.C.M.P. files are never made available to any person other than properly authorized officials of the government of Canada. I should add this general
June 1, 1966	COMMONS
statement, however, without reference to any particular case, and I know the house will appreciate why I do so.
It is essential for the enforcement of law and the maintenance of order and national security that there be an exchange of information when deemed necessary between law enforcement agencies in Canada. Such exchanges have been going on for many years, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the Prime Minister say when this information was made available to the province of Quebec? The house has a right to that information, because otherwise these secret flies could be used for purposes of personal assassination, which is something that cannot be justified.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. Leader of the Opposition is repeating the question he originally posed, to which the right hon. Prime Minister has replied.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask this question. When was this information made available, or was this also kept under cover for 14 months?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the cabinet has given consideration to the use of the armed forces in connection with the threatened Quebec provincial police strike, referred to today in a Toronto newspaper.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member is aware, the only occasion on which the armed forces of the federal government are used for the purpose of maintaining law and order is consequent upon a request made by a provincial government in accordance with the law. If and when such a request is made the federal government then discharges its obligations under the law. There has been no such request in respect of the situation referred to by the hon. member.


Mr. Fairwealher:: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the provincial election to be held on June 5 in Quebec, will the Prime Minister assure us that no such extraordinary remedy will be used even if the Quebec government asks for it?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
DEBATES	5821
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question asked by the hon. member is hypothetical.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter of the exchange of information I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government examines each case to see whether the information given has been misused. If so, should there not be a reconsideration in respect of the exchange of such information?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in following a practice which has been in effect for many years it is not possible for me to give details of security matters of this kind to the house. I can assure my hon. friend that all the matters he has mentioned are taken into consideration.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Was there any such request during the troubles which occurred in respect of the S.I.U., when the then minister of labour contemplated the use of troops?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not in order.


Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Will the Prime Minister advise the house when the information regarding Mr. Vachon was made available by the R.C.M.P. to the Quebec government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is not acceptable.


Mr. Terence Nugent (Edmonton-Strathcona):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When security information is made available is there any understanding as to the purpose for which it may be used, or is it made generally available for political purposes, as in the case of files given to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Surely the rights of the individual and the protection of fundamental freedoms should not be denied in this way. This is a serious matter, namely the use of information gathered by the mounted police in a provincial election by a provincial government to destroy the effectiveness of someone to whom it is opposed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

June 1. 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege here at all. The right hon. gentleman may have a grievance, but certainly this is not the time to redress grievances.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: On a point of order in connection with the ruling on my question, Mr. Speaker, 1 think my question is perfectly appropriate. I would ask Your Honour the reason for the ruling whereby we are not allowed to know the basis upon which security information is given out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is argumentative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order-


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: The question is argumentative, hut it is a fundamental question of right.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


George Harris Hees: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, might I, with respect, request Your Honour to explain why my question to the Prime Minister, asking when this information was given to the Quebec government, is out of order?


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether I clearly understood the statement made by the Minister of Labour, namely that the labour estimates would be before us first thing today, as the very first item.


George James McIlraith: That is correct, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Justice whether he authorized the R.C.M. Police to release the Vachon file for use by people in the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre will recognize that this is the same question that was asked a moment ago. The hon. member is requesting information, and in view of the way the question was put I cannot see that it should be asked at this time. If the hon. member feels that there is a matter of extreme urgency, or of urgency here, the matter can be

dealt with on the adjournment debate tomorrow.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No.


John George Diefenbaker: That being so, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the ruling I give notice now, sir, that I am going to move the adjournment of the house tomorrow to discuss this matter which affects the liberties of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. J. R. Keays (Gaspe):: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Since the Quebec provincial police association has been properly warned that Mr. Vachon is a security risk, what action is being taken by the government to protect national security in this case?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that this question is of a general nature and cannot be asked at this time.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. I would ask the hon. lady, in view of the critical situation created by the threat of a strike of C.B.C. producers, if she can inform the house whether publicly owned facilities were used by the C.B.C. public affairs staff in Toronto to create an unofficial, nation-wide campaign to protest the firing of the co-hosts of "Seven Days".


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, because I do not know the answer; but I shall find out.


BANKRUPTCY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Justice.
Has he been asked recently by the Quebec minister of justice to set up a royal commission on fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada?
June 1, 1966


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: No, Mr. Speaker.


Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice.
Has he received from the Quebec Federation of Businessmen Associations and from the Canadian Lumber Dealers Association, a request for a royal commission on fraudulent bankruptcies in Canada?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know I did not receive the submission referred to by the hon. member.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: I am rising on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I asked a question in almost identical words and you ruled it out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member just used a very important word, "almost". If the hon. member was entitled to ask the question and I should have recognized it, I apologize to him.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: claim your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, because there is something more fundamental in this question than meets the eye.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: In view of the fact that the parliamentary band and chorus are going to perform at the gala evening being undertaken by the O.A.C.-O.V.C. Mac-Alumni on Wednesday, June 8, in the West Block- without charge-would the Minister of Labour mind getting in touch with the president of the musicians' union in Washington, U.S.A. in an effort to obtain his permission for this performance and its recording?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Minister of Labour has noted the suggestion made by the hon. member.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct this question to the Prime Minister. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman is in a position
Inquiries of the Ministry today to advise us when he expects to receive the Spence report. I presume this question is in order because of the Prime Minister's great knowledge of flies.
Sone hon. Members: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I refuse to sit down as the result of comments from across the way. Would you kindly point out to me, sir, why my question is out of order? I am asking the Prime Minister when the Spence report may be expected.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will resume his seat and point out to me when the question was ruled out of order. I did not rule it out of order.


Robert Muir: Then may I again pose my question to the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. gentleman does not have to ask his question again. The question was asked, and if the Prime Minister wants to reply to it he may do so now.


Lester Bowles Pearson: In spite of the insulting way in which the hon. member put the question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -I will say that although I
have not formally dissociated myself from this commission, I do not know when the commissioner intends to make his report.


Robert Muir: I have a supplementary question. May I thank the right hon. gentleman for his insulting reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Can't you take it?


George James McIlraith: There is some decency in some members.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order. I ask for the assistance and co-operation of hon. members to please try to put questions in a more orderly way.



SHIPMENTS OF POWDERED MILK TO AFRICAN CHILDREN IN RHODESIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and

June 1, 196$
Inquiries of the Ministry Commerce which he may take as notice. Are shipments of powdered milk destined for schools and missions for African children in Rhodesia being presently prohibited under the terms of the Export and Import Permits Act?


Hon. Robert H. Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I do not believe so, but I will take the question as notice and if my answer is not correct I will so inform the house.



BROADCASTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Since the committee on broadcasting is scheduled to meet again tomorrow afternoon and the Keate report suggests that the government publish the white paper as soon as possible, can we expect the government to speed up its publication so that it might be made available to the committee within the next ten days?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: We are now in the month of June, Mr. Speaker, when I promised it to the house.



PILOTAGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. When is it expected that the royal commission on pilotage will make its report?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wish I knew.


Frank Howard: May I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice and ask him if he asked the R.C.M.P. to look into this.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. M. Brand (Saskatoon):: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs
(Mr. Nesbitt.]
and National Resources but in his absence I will put it to his parliamentary secretary. Since the Historic Sites and Monuments Doard has met and presented its recommendations to the minister regarding the Cree Indian shrine Mistaseni, would the minister now be in a position to inform the house what decision he has made regarding the removal of this valuable shrine to safe ground?


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this question as notice.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Solicitor General. In view of the outbreak of violence on the Montreal waterfront has the R.C.M.P. been instructed to protect government property and installations in that port?


Hon. L. T. Pennell (Solicitor General):: The
R.C.M.P. is giving assistance to the harbour police in protecting federal property in the port of Montreal.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I have a supplementary question. Has the number of R.C.M. Police been augmented so they can properly carry out this function?


Lawrence T. Pennell: The number of R.C.M.P. supplied has met the request of the Montreal harbour commission police.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. What steps have been taken to isolate and gain free passage for goods and materiel designed for Expo '67 in view of the secretary general's grave concern about the progress of the construction?


Robert Henry Winters: Some of it is being held up right now. It is impeding the work of Expo.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: What is being done about
getting it released?


Robert Henry Winters: We are exerting our best endeavours to move all the goods and equipment we can, but the strike is a matter of grave consequence to Canada, and Expo is suffering with the rest of our economy.
June 1, 1966



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. F. Kennedy (Colchesler-Hanls):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Forestry. In view of the urgent necessity for planning supply and storage of livestock feeds for the coming winter, can the minister indicate when resolution No. 48 on the order paper will be dealt with?


Maurice Sauvé: This will be decided by the house leader.


Cyril Frost Kennedy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I then direct this question to the government house leader?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It will be done as soon as the government gets a chance to have its legislation dealt with by the house.



CHAROLAIS CATTLE-SALES TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence E. Kindt (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, may I change the tone of this assembly. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture concerning Charolais cattle. One hundred and fifteen head of cattle were imported from France last October and kept in quarantine at Grosse He, Quebec. They were recently distributed to farms and ranches throughout Canada for a further 90 day quarantine. This matter is urgent because U.S. buyers in Canada are as thick as flies. They wish to buy these cattle because the U. S. government prohibits imports from France owing to the foot-and-mouth disease, so Canada is being used as the back door.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: My question is as follows. What action does the government intend to take to prohibit sales of these Charolais cattle to the U.S.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I doubt whether the question is very urgent, but I am inclined-


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: But Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might wait until I finish. As I said, although I do not think the question is urgent I am inclined to allow the minister to answer it.


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, it is heartwarming that whenever this assembly gets too rowdy, a question is
Inquiries of the Ministry directed to the Minister of Agriculture in order to temper the feelings and elevate the debate.
In answer to the thesis propounded by the hon. member, I would say that at present there is no restriction with regard to the export of these cattle. My understanding is that the buyers and sellers of cattle are very happy that there is a free market across the border in respect of the sale of cattle, and I think we want to continue it that way.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: Supplementary Mr. Speaker, how much of the taxpayers' money was spent to bring in these cattle? Were they not brought in for the sake of crossbreeding for Canadian producers?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps that part of the question might be placed on the order paper.


Lawrence Elliott Kindt: I shall discuss it at ten o'clock tonight.


John James Greene: The hon. member will be flying solo.



QUEBEC-SHORTAGE OF FEED GRAIN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: Since we have temporarily embarked on the subject of agriculture, Mr. Speaker, which seems a more specific subject than most that have been dealt with today, may I ask the Minister of Agriculture or the Solicitor General whether any special provisions have been adopted to ensure that farmers will be able to load grain in spite of the strike, in view of the fact that some farmers' grain trucks were dumped in Montreal when they were attempting to take feed to their animals?


John James Greene: We have the situation under careful scrutiny, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe any special measures have been taken in respect to farmers any more than other people who are suffering the ill effects of this strike. I can assure the hon. member we will keep the matter under continuous surveillance, and if there is a critical situation with respect to feed we will take such action as we deem necessary at that time.


Douglas Scott Harkness: May I ask a supplementary question. In view of the fact that yesterday or the day before the minister said farmers could get their grain directly in this way, has he taken any measures at all to ensure that

June 1, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry convoy protection or something of that nature will be provided so they can get the grain back to their farms? Is he prepared to do that?


John James Greene: At the time I answered the question the port of Montreal was open and things were peaceful. Since that time there has been a deterioration in the labour situation, and the only action that is being taken at the present time, as was indicated earlier, is that federal property is being protected by federal officers. To date no action has been taken to forcibly open the facilities for farmers to procure grain. Actually I believe it is the wholesalers who obtain the grain directly from these sources.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: May I ask a
question of the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the minister is now in a position to provide the house with information regarding the grain situation at the port of Montreal, about which I asked yesterday.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Lisgar asked me yesterday how many grain boats were awaiting loading and unloading at the port of Montreal. I inquired from the wheat board and they informed me that in the port of Montreal there are 41 ocean vessels waiting to load and 18 lakers waiting to unload, for a total of 59. At the three ports there are 57 ocean vessels waiting to load and 27 lakers waiting to unload, for a total of 84 vessels.


George Robson Muir: May I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the minister would give us the number of bushels involved in those vessels. In addition, I should like to ask him if the government has given any consideration to having these cargoes handled at Baie Comeau or the Atlantic ports?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not believe the information would be very relevant in so far as the amount waiting to unload is concerned, but the amount of export loading that is delayed is approximately 25 million bushels. I can assure the hon. member that all the forces of the government are being concentrated on trying to get this strike settled.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Lawrence T. Pennell: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I promised to reply
[Mr. Harkness.)
to a question asked on Monday, May 30, by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning a report from the R.C.M.P. related to the filming of a C.B.C. documentary on youth.
At the request of the C.B.C., investigations were conducted by the Metropolitan Toronto police and the R.C.M.P. The result of the investigation by the R.C.M.P. was referred to the Department of Justice. An opinion was given that the report of the R.C.M.P. did not provide the basis for a charge under the Narcotic Control Act or the Food and Drugs Act. I understand that the same conclusion was reached with respect to the report of the Toronto Metropolitan police under the provisions of the Criminal Code.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. It is a question I have asked on two or three previous occasions. Is he yet in a position to indicate to the house the government legislation which it is planned to deal with at this part of the session, and will that list include medicare?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Some of the legislation in question, I am glad to say, has been dealt with. The remainder of the items which should be dealt with before we even consider any summer recess I shall be able to list at the beginning of next week. This list will certainly include medicare.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Having in mind the wage dispute between Air Canada and certain of its employees which may threaten the operations of Air Canada, can the minister say whether he has yet received the report of the conciliation board? If so, is the appointment of a mediator under active consideration?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I have been getting this same question more or less regularly each day for the last three or four days. I did not get it yesterday. If I had received it yesterday I would have said
June 1, 1966	COMMONS
that the report had been received and was being dispatched immediately to the two parties concerned, as is required by the act. I understand they are meeting today to discuss the report.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Lennox):: My question is for the Minister of Public Works. When will construction begin on the new Millhaven penitentiary?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL DELIVERY QUOTAS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lawrence Watson (Assiniboia):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. On May 17 I asked him a question pertaining to quotas. He said he would look into the matter and make a report to the house. I wonder if he is ready to give that report now.


Mitchell William Sharp: I have been in communication with the wheat board on a number of occasions about the equalization of quotas. It is my understanding that the board itself is issuing a statement about its intentions and its objectives very shortly. If that statement is not issued I will give one in the house myself.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoit (Danforlh):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour in his capacity as spokesman for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Can we at this session expect legislation implementing the government's election promise that National Housing Act financing would be extended to older homes?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I do not recall any such election promise, but I can assume that when government policy in this matter has been settled, it will be announced in this house.


Reid Scott: At ten o'clock I will read the minister the election literature.
DEBATES	5827
Inquiries of the Ministry COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS



INQUIRY AS TO CONFERENCE OF PRIME MINISTERS THIS SUMMER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Can the Prime Minister say whether the fact that one or two or more prime ministers have indicated they expect to be in London in July has anything to do with the prospective prime ministers' meeting to be called in connection with all the matters that are ordinarily dealt with at this conference, but in particular the Rhodesian situation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as my right hon. friend knows, at the conference in Lagos last January it was agreed that there should be a resumption of meetings, in certain circumstances, in London in July. So far as I know these meetings will still take place in London in July. Although some members of the commonwealth feel that September would be a better date for the talks, and exchanges have been going on as to whether they should be postponed, there has been no proposal for postponement yet.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the Prime Minister in a position to say whether progress has been made during the informal-if that is the appropriate expression-negotiations which have been going on between the representatives of the British government and Prime Minister Smith's regime?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the talks that have been going on should not, I think, be designated as negotiations. There have been, as my hon. friend the Secretary of State for External Affiars has pointed out, talks to see whether negotiations would be productive, and whether there is a basis for any such negotiations. They are talks about talks, in other words. The talks that took place in London I believe are about to be resumed shortly in Rhodesia, but the preliminary character of the talks still persists.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am very sorry to say that the question period has expired.
5828	COMMONS
Supply-Labour SUPPLY
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Batten in the chair.



DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR

[Stage Direction]
1. General Administration, including grants as detailed in the estimates; the expenses of the International Labour Conferences and the promotion of labour-management co-operation $4,569,100.
The Chairman:: Shall vote No. 1 of the main estimates of the Department of Labour carry? This item appears on page 200 of the blue book of estimates, and was under consideration on Friday, May 27 last.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Minister of Labour said earlier today that he would be prepared to make a statement about the labour dispute which is now causing a good deal of dislocation in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec.
I wonder if the minister wants to make a statement at this time?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, my recollection of what I said yesterday, confirmed by a reference to Hansard, is that I would give consideration to the suggestion that was made, and that I might make a statement on motions today. I have considered that suggestion.
I intimated earlier this afternoon that the mediator has been working with the parties since nine o'clock this morning. Part of the difficulty, and I am sure that this is not through any lack of confidence on either side, is lack of communication in this particular field. The discussions taking place today are of the nature of an educational process, and communications between the parties are progressing within a more relaxed environment than previously, without the pressures that existed over the weekend. While these negotiations are progressing I do not think the minister ought to make a statement which might be taken out of context and might add to the difficulties that now exist.
My hon. friend sought to move a motion to adjourn the house. Nevertheless the estimates are before us. My hon. friend or any other member of the house may wish to comment, or make suggestions respecting this particular matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister's reticence at this time is rather difficult to understand in view of the fact that he has already made some statements, giving only part of the

DEBATES	June 1. 1966
story, with reference to the dispute now taking place within the port facilities of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec. I had hoped that the minister would take this opportunity of making a full and complete statement as to the basic causes of the strike.
Yesterday, when my friend and deskmate, the hon. member for York South asked the minister certain questions, the minister said that they would take too long to answer on orders of the day. Now that he has an excellent opportunity to give answers, he seems reluctant to do so.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)
We want to know, Mr. Chairman, what is the major cause of this strike? The minister in his statement to the house on Monday last, May 30-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. gentleman. Respecting the telegram that the hon. member questioned me about yesterday, may I point out that I did receive one telegram the day before yesterday. I think that the telegram the hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam received illustrates the point I have just tried to make. Some of the persons interested in this matter have failed to appreciate suggestions which have been made to them. In that connection I think it might help if I read a wire that went off this morning, for use by the mediator, if helpful. That wire is to Mr. Tremblay to whom the hon. member referred yesterday. Mr. Tremblay is the Atlantic coast district vice president of the ILA. My wire reads:
Retel 31 May during the further discussions taking place today I have asked that your representations be given consideration regarding the older longshoremen who would be affected by reduction of gangs with a view to devising arrangements that would accommodate them. Would also say that my statement in the House of Commons was subjected to observations and inferences that were unwarranted and out of context. There was no prejudicial reflection on my part on the position of your organization.
Because of that communication, and others, I feel that a statement by me as minister at this time would not be opportune or advisable.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I must respectfully differ with the minister. It seems to me that a statement would be very much in order, particularly if it were to clarify some of the statements which he made on Monday, which statements in my opinion were highly inaccurate.
June 1, 1966

It is not a matter of being out of context. The first telegram dated May 30, which the minister received from the Gerard Tremblay pointed out to the minister that the main obstacle to the settlement of the longshoremen's strike lay in the fact that the shipping federation insisted on reducing gangs, and only guaranteeing job security to 85 per cent of the workers. This meant that 15 per cent of the workers would be laid off.
When I asked the minister about that, what was the minister's reply? At page 5675 of Hansard he said this:
The shipping federation offers job security for all the people who had worked for more than a given period of last year; in fact they offered job security for all those who had worked, I think, for more than 15 or 16 weeks. That was put forward for consideration. This is where the figure of 85 per cent comes in. I am advised that the other 15 per cent or less comprises the casual groups such as the taxi drivers, students and those who work for a limited period each year.
That was the minister's statement. The fact is, as was pointed out in the telegram sent to the minister by Mr. Gerard Tremblay, that these are not casual workers, taxi drivers and students; they are longshoremen who, because they have not yet reached the age of 65, are not old enough to receive a pension. But they are too old to work the entire shipping season. They do not work part of the time on the docks and part of the time at something else. They work part time on the docks because they do not have the physical strength and stamina to work full time. They work part of the day and go home for a rest. Remember, this is exacting, physical labour. The minister gave the house and the country the impression that these men-the regular longshoremen-would not be kicked out and that this proposed lay-off of 15 per cent would apply only to casual workers such as taxi drivers and students.
The union is contending that these older men who are not able to work the whole shipping season should not be thrown into the discard. It is not only a matter of losing a job. If an older worker who yet has several years to go before retirement, is thrown out at this time, he will not be eligible for a pension at the age of 65; he will lose all the benefits and pension rights he has built up for 20 or 30 years. This is a fundamental point. The rest of the longshoremen are fighting a battle, not for themselves but for this 15 per cent of the older workers who cannot work full time and who would not only be out of a job but completely without security at the 23033-3701
Supply

Labour
age of 65, should they be callously discarded now by the shipping federation.
Surely the Minister of Labour must be aware that a couple of years ago his predecessor appointed Judge Lippe as a commissioner of inquiry to look into the matters which were disturbing the smooth operation of port facilities, particularly in Montreal. In the course of this inquiry Judge Lippe recognized the existence of this problem involving the older workers. He recognized that where such heavy physical labour is demanded the retirement age ought to be lower -probably 60 years-but that in the meantime some agreement for the partial retirement of these men in the 60-65 age group should be brought about.
Had the government acted on this recommendation which, I understand, Judge Lippe made, the problem would not now have arisen. But it exists, and instead of recognizing it and trying to get the shipping federation to accept a solution, the minister informs the house that all is well-that there is really no problem and that the 15 per cent who are to be thrown out of work are students, taxi drivers and people who are not really longshoremen at all. Well, the information I have is that they are longshoremen-men who have spent the best part of their lives working on the docks and who are entitled to some job security and protection.
When I asked the minister whether the Freedman principle ought not to apply, the minister answered, as reported on page 5676 of Hansard:
-even Mr. Justice Freedman did not suggest that casual employees should be looked after in the way suggested in the telegram.
My understanding of the Freedman proposal was that where technological change makes it desirable to reduce the work force, this should be a matter for negotiation and that some of the benefits of technological change should be passed on to the workers and used to provide retirement benefits for those thrown out of work by automation. Mr. Speaker, if ever there was an example of a need to apply the Freedman formula, surely it is in this instance.
The other question which has not been clarified by the minister has to do with wages. I asked the minister a question about this on Monday last, in reply to which he said, as reported on page 5675:
As I have said, very substantial increases-some say fantastic increases, I would suggest-in pay were offered. In return for these, the shipping federation has suggested, and I think properly, that they

June 1, 1966
Supply-Labour
might expect increased productivity during the second year of the agreement.
I think the house has a right to know the extent of these so-called fantastic increases.
My hon. friend from York South (Mr. Lewis) tried to find this out. He asked the minister yesterday whether the offer which was submitted to the longshoremen was a figure submitted by the minister as a bargaining basis or whether it was a figure which had been accepted by the shipping federation and which the hon. gentleman had been authorized to offer to the longshoremen. It was at this point that the minister said it would take too long to give an answer on the orders of the day.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
They are quite within their rights in suggesting, whatever wage increase is offered to them, that before they agree to any reduction in the work gangs they have a right to some assurance that this 15 per cent of the workers who are to be displaced will be given proper job protection and proper security in their old age.
My reason for raising this matter today is that I think that the longshoremen have a right to have their case presented fairly and properly. I do not suggest that I can present it fairly and properly. I have not taken part in the negotiations. I do not know what wage increases have been offered to them. All I have seen is an exchange of telegrams-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Does the hon. member not think that an experienced counsel in the field of labour relations, who has been with this matter for several weeks, is in a better position to explain this situation to his clients with the assistance of the mediator, rather than a discussion in this house?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, the experienced counsel is not in this house. What I am seeking to do is to point out that the only information that has been given to the house regarding this labour dispute has come from the minister, and his statement of Monday last sounded like a press release from the shipping federation.
If the minister wants to pose as the spokesman for the employers, then let him get into a department where he will be such a spokesman for the employers, and not stay in the

labour department where he is supposed to be unbiased and impartial. I am saying that the longshoremen have a right to have their case presented fairly. It has not been presented fairly by the minister, and that has been shown by the telegrams exchanged between himself and Mr. Gerard Tremblay.
The minister has not given the house the facts. It is from the statements of the minister that the people will gather their impression as to the reason for this labour dispute. The minister has not told the house all the facts with reference to the 15 per cent of the men who are to be thrown out of jobs. He has not told the house and the country what sort of wage offer has been made, and whether it has been made by the employers or merely made by him as a basis for negotiations.
In the telegram which the minister received from Mr. Tremblay, the latter stated that the longshoremen have not yet received a written reply to the offer they submitted to the shipping federation. That is why we want to know whether this wage offer is a definite offer, made in writing, to which the shipping federation is committed, or are these merely figures which the minister is using in the process of negotiation? Until we have this kind of information we do not know what is the real cause of the dispute.
The people of Canada are naturally concerned about this strike. It is doing great harm to our export trade. The Minister of Finance has already told us that some 25 million bushels of grain which should be shipped are held up. The public is going to become increasingly annoyed at the delay in shipping.
As a member of the house I am anxious to know where the responsibility lies. Does it lie with the men? Are the men being unreasonable in their demands? Are they asking too much? Or, does the responsibility lie with the shipping federation? Is it trying to use this present situation as an excuse for throwing 15 per cent of its employees out of jobs merely because those employees have become older and less able to work? Is it trying to use this situation to get rid of employees to whom it will have to pay a pension in a few years? Is it trying to use this situation as a means of cutting down overhead and avoiding obligations with reference to some of its workers who have been working for it for over a quarter of a century?
We want to know. The country has a right to know. The whole issue has been befogged
June 1. 1966

and beclouded by the statements of the minister. Today the minister is very reticent, but he was not so reticent on Monday when he was presenting the employers' side of the case. There is no reason why he should be so reticent today.


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


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Napier Turner: Does the hon. member think he is contributing to the settlement of this strike by questioning the impartiality of the Minister of Labour?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Graffley:: The same old cry.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, this is the first time I ever knew that statements of ministers have become sacrosanct.


John Napier Turner: You are questioning the impartiality.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am saying that any person who will read the minister's statement of last Monday, which I put on the record, will recognize whether or not the minister has been partial in this matter. The minister makes the statement that a proposed increase is fantastic, and then refuses to tell the house whether or not this was an actual increase offered by the management.
A minister who describes 15 per cent of the people who are being laid off, not as longshoremen but as taxi drivers and students, without having checked the records in the central bureau of the St. Lawrence river ports, and a minister who quotes figures on the basis of the information given to him by the shipping federation, certainly in my opinion is not acting in an impartial manner.
I am not raising this in order to make a settlement more difficult. I am raising it because I do not want the Canadian people to be under any misapprehension as to the cause of this strike. If there is information we have not got, then let the minister give it to us. But I am saying that in so far as the limited information I have, which is merely in the telegrams that have been exchanged between the vice president of the I.L.A. and the minister, it would indicate that the basic problem has to do with the reduction of work gangs, that the people being displaced are in a great many cases long service longshoremen, and that the only reason they are able
Supply-Labour
to work for only part of the shipping season is because of their age and infirmity.
And I say that if those facts are correct, the longshoremen are fully justified in saying that those men ought to have some consideration, and that merely paying the younger and able bodied workers a little more money does not give the shipping federation the right to toss the old men out on to the scrap heap.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this dispute is only one of many that are on the horizon. The seaway employees, disputes in Air Canada and the C.B.C. are only the ones that have come under federal jurisdiction, but there is hardly a province of Canada in which there are not labour negotiations proceeding, and threatened strikes. I am sorry that in many cases where they come under his jurisdiction the results of these labour disputes will be placed on the doorstep of the Minister of Labour.
For over two years we in this party have been trying to warn the government that these labour disputes will become more common and more violent unless the government faces up to two problems. First there is the steady increase in the cost of living, and every increase in the cost of living is inevitably followed by a demand for increased wages. That is only natural. Unless the government is prepared to bring down some program that will meet the difficulty of the rising cost of living, they can expect more labour disputes and not less.
The other problem which we have pointed out to them is that automation is going to be an increasing factor in causing economic dislocation. The investigation by Mr. Justice Freedman laid down the principle and that principle now has to be worked out in terms of practical legislation. The government now at long last is getting around to the setting up of a department of manpower, and talking about re-training. But three valuable years have been wasted. Little or nothing has been done to set the stage for the problems of automation and the solutions which must be found to those problems.
Last Friday, at page 5632 of Hansard, the minister made what I thought was a most amazing proposal. He said:
I have not been in this office long enough to be able to say whether the solution lies in the establishment of arbitration or of labour courts, such as those that have been set up in Australia and other countries of the world. The answer may lie in that kind of action because, while they have had divided success, on the whole they have been successful.

June 1, 1966
Supply-Labour
I throw that idea out as something that merits the serious consideration of all members of this house and of all Canadians.
Well, Mr. Chairman, surely this is a policy of despair when a government, which says it cannot do anything about the rising cost of living, is prepared to do something when workers demand increased wages to meet the rising cost of living. What is proposed? It proposes that it may set up courts for compulsory arbitration so that it may say to the worker: "Somebody other than you will determine the price of your labour." The government is not prepared to determine the price that the Steel Company of Canada, Limited, will get for steel or that General Motors Corporation will get for a car, or that Canada Packers Limited will get for a pound of bacon; but the government is prepared to consider setting up an authority which will determine what price the worker will be paid for his sweat and his toil.
Surely the government does not think they can get away with that. The setting up of the kind of court which the minister has proposed is simply an indication-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Yes.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Are you suggesting that I proposed such a thing? Did I not also ask the advice of the house on the question of some other possible solution? Will the hon. member please read another passage which will show that the remarks he quoted were taken out of context. I refer to the passage at page 5636 of Hansard, where the very item to which he is referring was raised in a question by the hon. member for Middlesex West. I think one of the difficulties in respect of taking statements out of context is that it gives rise to trouble. I would appreciate it if the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam would read the question and answer at page 5636 of Hansard.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be very glad to read the question, but I should like to point out to the minister that in addition to the statements which he made in the house last Friday, he has been making statements outside the house along this line. I listened to one of them myself when he appeared on television. The minister may say that he is not making this as a firm proposal, but I certainly would suggest to him in all kindness that he cannot blame the public if they gain the impression that he is trying to condition public thinking to the introduction

of such a policy. The general feeling of many of us is-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, is the hon. member not going to read the passage?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Surely. I was going to say to the minister that I get the impression that he is flying a kite to see what public reaction will be to compulsory arbitration.
The minister at page 5636 of Hansard was asked a question by Mr. Thomas (Middlesex West), and the question is:
Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question while his mind is still on the point. Has consideration been given by his department to the use of compulsory arbitration as a means of settling disputes, rather than resorting to strike action, as has been the case for many years?
Then the minister said:
I am going to suggest that I take note of questions and deal with them perhaps at the end of the period. However, I think this particular question merits a special answer and I would be glad to give one.
Very serious consideration has been given to this matter by the department and by experienced departmental officials over a period of several years. As a member of cabinet I know something of the difficulties that we have had in trying to work out and find an acceptable formula. If you really believe, as I happen to, in the importance and the significance of collective bargaining, which enables management and labour to sit down on opposite sides of the table and unburden their hearts and take strong positions if necessary, it is difficult to say in all cases compulsory arbitration would be necessary, or advisable.
I ask the minister to look at that.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Please read the next paragraph.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister said that it would be difficult to say in all cases compulsory arbitration would be necessary or advisable. Is he saying that in some cases it would be necessary?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Just read the next paragraph please, and do not stop in the middle of the excerpt.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will read the next paragraph to the minister. It would be much better for him to make a speech, but if he wants me to make it for him, fine.
On the other hand, I think-and I am speaking only for myself, certainly not for the government, nor do I even express the consensus of my department-there are many cases where the national interest is at stake. I can think of safety and security in the air line industry, for instance, where weather services have to be maintained. Then there is the movement of passengers and freight in many cases on our railroads. It is just as Important perhaps,
June 1, 1966

In my view, to have compulsory arbitration in these fields as in certain aspects of civil service activities, as proposed in the legislation that is now before this house.
The minister certainly has not helped anything by asking me to read. The fact that he now enumerates some of the economic activities in which he would support compulsory arbitration-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would you read the next paragraph please.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Before I go on to read the other paragraph which the minister wants read, may I point out that since he already has dealt with the handling of freight and the operation of the railways, I suppose the loading of ships comes in much the same category. Do I take it that he is now going to include the longshoremen among the categories which should come under compulsory arbitration? I will read the last paragraph:
I cannot give the hon. member a definite answer, but I can assure him-and this is why I made the appeal earlier today-that any constructive suggestions, which any member of this house or any other person may have to make as to how we might solve this extremely difficult question, when our national interests and economy are at stake, would be very welcome.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to be unkind to the minister, but I want to say that I am sure if the Liberal government had gone to the country last November and said to the people, "As soon as we assume office we will generally advertise, asking anyone who has any idea about how to run this country to please submit it and it will be received, but in the meantime we have not the remotest idea what we are going to do about this matter," they would never have been elected. I am sure that if they had said, "As soon as we get into office we will open a special mailbox to receive-"


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. gentleman another question. Is he suggesting that a minister of the crown should not invite the views and opinions of members of this house. I thought that was one reason why we were having a debate this afternoon.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to the minister's asking for suggestions. As a matter of fact, I will make some in a moment. What we are saying is that surely there ought to be some leadership given by this government. Surely a government that asked the people of Canada to elect
Supply-Labour
it to office should give some leadership. Surely a party that has talked about 60 days of decision should not be now saying: We do not know what to do about rising prices, automation and labour discords such as have occurred as a result of our inaction and inertia. Surely a government after dawdling for three years, doing nothing about rising living costs, and doing nothing about bringing in legislation to resolve the problems created by automation and technological change ought to give us something better than a statement by a minister to the effect that as soon as the people tell them what they should do they will do something.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired.
Sone hon. Members: Carry on.


Maurice Rinfret: Is it agreed that the hon. member should be allowed to continue his speech?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a few more minutes, but I might say that at least one quarter of my time has been spent in reading the minister's speech for him, at his request.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Is that not a penalty you must pay when you read excerpts from Hansard?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The minister has spoken about suggestions that might be made. Let me inform him that he did not have to wait until now for suggestions. We on this side of the house have been making suggestions to the government for the past three years, pointing out that this country, along with the rest of the western world, has now embarked upon a great scientific revolution, and that technological change is taking place altering our whole way of life, and will alter it even more in the decades that lie ahead.
This country must adapt itself to completely changed conditions and entirely different situations. The old techniques will not suffice, and it will not do for the government to sit with its eyes shut to a steadily increasing cost of living, and do nothing. The government has done nothing about automation in the past three years but now comes to us and says it is in a mess because workers want more wages because it costs more to buy groceries in the stores. The government has said that workers are out on strike because

June 1, 1966
Supply-Labour
some employers want to throw 15 per cent of their employees on the scrap heap, but that if the people have any suggestions, they would like to hear them. Surely that is not good government.
This government has known for three years that these problems existed, but they have swept them under the rug and turned a blind eye to other major economic problems which face this country. The government is now wallowing in a mess, yet the very best it can say is: We would be glad to have some suggestions from the opposition.
Let me conclude by returning to my original point. I hope the minister will now make a statement clarifying the situation with reference to the strike taking place at the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec, and that he will tell us exactly what the employers have offered in writing, and what the employees are demanding. I hope he will tell us what steps the government is taking to try to resolve the difference that may exist between the positions taken by the two disputants. If the minister can give us that kind of information we will then be in a better position to assess where responsibility lies and decide what steps must be taken to reach a solution.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, I think there will be general agreement with the views expressed by the hon. member who preceded me, that there has been gross delay and inactivity on the part of this government. The strike has gone on now for several weeks, since May 9 or 10, and regularly we have been led to believe that everything was being done by the government that could be done to bring about a solution to this strike, which is becoming more serious with the passing days.
Let me quote the words of the Minister of Trade and Commerce in answer to a question posed by the hon. member for Lisgar. The minister is reported at page 5743 of Hansard for May 31 as follows:
-I can say the matter is of the very greatest concern to the Canadian Wheat Board.
The situation is of concern to the farmers in the province of Quebec who need feed to operate their dairy farms. This is something that concerns law and order in every part of Canada, particularly when one realizes that in order to divert a new waterfront eruption 300 policemen are on duty, and that in spite of this fact violence has already taken place. The only answer we can get from the government takes the form of a suggestion that
[Ur. Douglas.]
nothing is being done about it, but ultimately it will disappear. That is a strange proposition.
Perhaps some explanation can be found in the fact that after this government has been in office for three years individuals like the president of the professional association of millers of Quebec do not even realize that there has been a change of government. This fact indicates the tremendous impact that has been made by the present government.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Would the right hon. gentleman permit a question? Does he not regard that as a compliment to him?


John George Diefenbaker: It certainly does not indicate a compliment as far as the government of Canada today is concerned. The president of that association of millers sent me a telegram in which he said:
Have just heard on radio that you stated that we could pick up the feed grain with trucks at the port elevators. What about the stevedores who will not allow the trucks to get to the elevators and also will not allow non-striking port employees to get to their work. This is what is happening at the elevators in Quebec. For the last time, accept your responsibilities before it is too late.
He did not even know that the Minister of Labour was around or that this government was in office, because he put the blame on us. What is the government doing about this situation? Are they waiting and hoping, and like Barkis, willin'? While the government waits, making the kind of equivocal statements to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, things are becoming worse and worse.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
All of us have heard the old legend about Rome burning and Nero fiddling. One has only to think of the activities of this government to realize that this example does not begin to describe the indolence, inactivity and inaction of this government. I listened with interest to what the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam said as to what could be done. He was in office in the province of Saskatchewan. That was of course before there was any alliance with any great labour unions. But I recall that there were strikes when the C.C.F., the parent body of the N.D.P., was in office. I remember even in 1953 that the provincial transportation system was tied up because of a strike.
As I listened to the hon. member-and this seems to be a characteristic of that group as they wrap about themselves the mantle of perfection-I recalled something of the cost of
June 1, 1966

living within the province of Saskatchewan. After all, action on price fixing is a matter for the provinces, except in an emergency, and then only in circumstances permitted under the War Measures Act. As the hon. member spoke a moment ago as to action that might be taken, I recalled so well that in 1946, I think it was, the government of Saskatchewan, the socialist government of Saskatchewan, passed legislation that all prices in Saskatchewan had to be approved, that increases in prices that could not be justified could result in action being taken. I have said before that the legislation was never brought in, because it had to be proclaimed and they never proclaimed it. I have often mentioned the fact that if they had brought it in there would have been only three classes of persons in Saskatchewan: those in jail, others waiting to get in, and the rest waiting to be tried. They did not bring it in, but they have the solutions now. I would like to know what those solutions are.
They talk of the results of automation, and certainly automation is one of the most tremendous challenges throughout the free world. But how are you going to meet it? Not by the kind of generalizations that were mentioned today; not by rising and simply saying, "We have in our minds what could be done"; not by an alliance with great labour unions. Indeed, alliances of that kind are now being frowned upon in the United States. Only a few days ago Mr. George Meany, head of the A.F.L.-C.I.O., enunciated the principle of the danger of a great union's being allied with a political party. That union of his was part and parcel of the Democratic party; it won a couple of elections as a result. But the other day he expressed grave fears as to whether there should be any continuance of that alliance. Indeed, I interpreted his remarks to mean that no labour union of any importance should again find itself in a position of being allied with a political party: for after all, all of us have done our part for labour; none of us has any monopoly.
I look at my hon. friends opposite, and they give the impression as they speak that only they have any affection for labour. Well, Mr. Chairman, I am not going to review the years and go back over history, but the very foundation of trade unionism was under Macdonald in the face of great trouble, difficulties and opposition; and through the years no political party has had a monopoly of the desire that labour should receive its fair consideration. That has been the history of
Supply-Labour
this matter. But when I listen day after day to the unctuous pronouncements of my hon. friends to the left, I ask myself, "Do they mean it? Are they as sincere as they appear? Has sincerity become something that only they possess in this regard?" I give my hon. friends the opportunity of clarifying this, and I am sure they will; they are great debaters.
I have heard these things over and over again, sir, and this afternoon I feel compelled to say a word in this regard. They often lead us to believe that there is something wrong with parliament, and that if only we had a socialist government things would be so different. We had a socialist government in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Bur-naby-Coquitlam was the premier of that province, and with distinction. They had such bitterness in the legislature of Saskatchewan that the leader of the opposition sued the premier of Saskatchewan and they went through to the Supreme Court of Canada. Of course, that is in the past.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am simply pointing out that I remember so well the debates in Saskatchewan, and the legislature then was not always that peaceful, namby-pamby kind of institution which they today would indicate the rest of us should make the House of Commons. They are only human beings and they are following the usual ways of human beings. I thought I ought to point this out because, Mr. Chairman, week after week they rise, they speak, and sometimes as I listen to them I think of the words of Agrippa, "Almost thou persuadest me..." It might be that I could be persuaded if I had not had the experience in Saskatchewan.
However, I know they will understand that I was just provoked into this and thought I should make a few references to this matter, because we have listened now for three years to this kind of thing. While I have every regard for the contribution that was made by the socialist government of Saskatchewan in social welfare, I am not unmindful of the fact that our province went back economically and in population during the days of socialism.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Chairman, could I ask the Leader of the Opposition a question?


John George Diefenbaker: Certainly.


Harold Edward Winch: Could I ask the Leader of the Opposition if it is possible for him to lower

June 1, 1966
Supply-Labour
his halo a little bit, and will Diefenbaker the almighty now tell the government and this house how to handle the situation in Montreal, with which we are most concerned?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman's halo choked him long ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you now advise the house how to handle the problem?


John George Diefenbaker: I am asking the government now to give us some idea of what they have in mind.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I was quite surprised to find the Minister of Labour coming out so strongly in favour of compulsory arbitration. He asked the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam to read on. As he did this I was reminded of Right Hon. Mackenzie King. You could never catch him: Of course he was the hon. member for Prince Albert. If you quoted anything that he had said, he would tell you "Read on". Sooner of later you could be absolutely sure to find the very reverse of what he had said earlier. Apparently the Minister of Labour is also of that school; he says "Read on".


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the right hon. gentleman? Is it not a fact that he said on more than one occasion he was a great admirer of prime minister King as a political tactician in the house? Does the same compliment apply to the Minister of Labour?


John George Diefenbaker: All I can say is that whatever were his powers of extraterrestrial communication, often he came up with the right answer. I must say that the Minister of Transport also possesses ability in that direction. I think the Minister of Labour might consult him and find that answers will be forthcoming, such as they may be.
I wish to ask the minister whether or not the views expressed in the several telegrams that have been sent by Gerard Tremblay are in fact borne out by the facts? I have received a telegram which I will read to you and I will ask the minister to give us his answer to this. It says:
We disagree with claim that shipping federation has offered to guarantee employment for all regular longshoremen-
Will the minister say whether regular longshoremen will be guaranteed employment?
[Mr. Winch.3
Will they be guaranteed their pension rights? It goes on to say:
It is not true that all longshoremen who work 750 hours or less in navigation season are casual employees. Many of them are longshoremen who are too young to die or to receive a pension at age 65 and too old to work.
Will the minister clarify this? Will he place facts before the house and the country? It goes on to say:
Recommendations of Judge Lippe when he was commissioner in inquiry ordered by your predecessor Hon. MacEachen concerning St. Lawrence river and maritime ports re some sort of partial retirement prior to pension that can only be obtained at age 65. Urge you to examine statistics available from central records bureau for St. Lawrence river ports . . . Regret that you qualify employer's offer as fantastic.
That was the wage offer.
Will the minister say what this "fantastic" offer was? Up to the present time all we know about it is the generalization. For weeks on end there has been a cavalier disregard by this government. They say "All will be well. We cannot act now because something will interfere with this action." My hon. colleague, the former minister of labour, asked the following question which appears at page 5743 of Hansard:
I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the difficulties that are now being experienced... will the Prime Minister call the parties involved to Ottawa, to bring them into a different atmosphere so they may proceed to a settlement through the collective bargaining arrangement, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Marchand), who has a great deal of experience in this type of work?
This is amazing. Mr. Marchand-and I use his name only because of the reference I intend to make rather than referring to his constituency-is a man with wide experience in labour matters. Why is he not brought into this? The Minister of Industry has not had much experience in this field. The hon. member for Verdun-I am sure has had experience. But what about the Minister of National Health and Welfare? He should be in on this as he is a man of great experience.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: I am always willing to speak of the qualities of any minister opposite, and I wonder why he was not used. It would have been a great opportunity to use his experience. What they did is to get only the Minister of Industry, because he comes from Montreal, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour, the hon. member for Verdun. Why did they not bring in someone with experience? I am glad to
June 1, 1966

hear the applause that greeted the mention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It indicates there is agreement over there that he should do something. Why was he not called in? Why did they simply bring together the lame and the blind to deal with this problem? This is something I would like to know.
The Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, everything that can be done is being done to bring this strike to an end. The Minister of Labour is in touch with the situation, as my hon. friend knows, and if and when the time comes that the minister who is dealing with the matter feels the intervention of the Prime Minister would be helpful, naturally he will let me know.
How long must the shipping transportation of Canada be held up before the government believes that some action should be taken?


An hon. Member:: They want 60 days for decision.


John George Diefenbaker: I said to the Prime
Minister that in view of the request which the Prime Minister received from the Montreal port council, the council stated that any further delay in settlement would be "catastrophic". Think of the tremendous loss each day. The Wheat Board is piling up wheat which cannot be shipped. The Minister of Trade and Commerce says it is a very trying and difficult situation, and yet there is nonchalance and an easy-going uncertainty on the part of the government. They are in a rut. After all, there was always support in the house from some hon. gentleman to the left. Why has some action not been taken?
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)
The hon. gentleman for Burnaby-Coquitlam said there would be an increasing number of strikes unless action is taken. What does this mean? He said that one of the reasons is the tremendously high cost of living, which goes up continually. There has been no action, nothing but wait and hope. They expect charity to come to their rescue. If ever there was an example of the inertia of a government, this is one. I repeat that three weeks, 21 or 22 days, have passed and the answer is: We are thinking about it. While the wheels of commerce cease to turn, the government of Canada refuses to take any action whatever. Surely if ever there was a problem that should be dealt with in part by the proposed department of manpower, this is one. What about the great Mr. Kent? You recall his name. He is the head of the war on poverty. We have not heard of him, but he ought to be in on this problem.
Supply-Labour
Again, I say why has not the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the minister of manpower to be, been called upon? If the statements made in the telegram from the workers, from Gerard Tremblay, are correct, then the workers have some justification for what they are doing. Before any of us can prescribe we have to know the facts. I now ask the minister to absolve himself from his vow of silence, and if he can get any help from the President of the Privy Council I will not object to hearing from him. He comes from Montreal-and that is the No. 1 qualification because no one can get into these discussions unless he comes from Montreal. This is what barred the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.


Mr. Starr:: What about the Minister without Portfolio; he is from Montreal?


John George Diefenbaker: Well, he has other responsibilities. Let us hear from the minister, and then I will have something further to say. In all seriousness, sir, can you not see yourselves if you were sitting over here, and we were in the government? The hon. member for Ontario, and I never said this about him before, was a minister of labour who understood matters and got things done. But if a strike continued even for a few days, the virulence of the attack that was launched on uj was something to behold.
I do not say that the present minister is not acquainted with the problems of labour. As a corporation man throughout the years he dealt with labour. He has about him a kindliness that should certainly have results if given an opportunity to operate. Before having anything further to say on this matter, I ask the minister to dispel this aura of silence that seems to have gripped the government with regard to this problem, and let us know the facts.
This is not something like mounted police records that can be spread about, as in the Vachon case. They are pretty good at that-spreading about slander, and destroying. This is a practical thing. I hope the minister will be prepared now to place the house in possession of the facts, and will be able to do that which will be almost impossible: to explain how the government of which he is a member has sat, considered, examined and done nothing effective for so long.


Mr. Mackasey:: I have to admit, Mr. Chairman, it is difficult to follow the Leader

June 1, 1866
Supply-Labour
of the Opposition. I enjoyed his speech because I realized that the greater part of it was delivered with tongue in cheek.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I particularly appreciated his remarks, which I thought were so accurate, not pertaining to the strike but pertaining rather to the sanctimonious attitude of the socialist party which sits in this house. As a labour man-and I consider myself a labour man-I do not apologize to the Leader of the Opposition for having participated in the discussion on the week end. I can recall in 1942 supplementing my income when I was in university by working as a longshoreman on the Montreal waterfront. I became aware of many of the problems that labour is discussing in 1966 because they existed even then in 1942 and 1943. I sympathize with labour on many of the aspects of this situation.
As a labour man I was somewhat appalled at the efforts of the leader of the New Democratic Party earlier in the day when, under the guise of being concerned for labour, he callously rose in this house to demand an emergency debate on the longshoremen's strike, knowing full well, or at least he should have known as a labour representative, that a debate confined to that particular strike could have gone a long way toward jeopardizing, indeed neutralizing, much of the progress that had been made over the week end. There has been progress made today in Montreal.


Harold Edward Winch: Will you report on that progress?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: More and more, I get a little nauseated at the sanctimonious attitude adopted by the socialists in so far as labour is concerned. I think it is time they started showing some responsibility in the house and stopped jeopardizing the cause of labour under the guise of being the spokesmen for labour in the House of Commons. Knowing most members of the house as I do, I find no shortage of spokesmen for labour in our party or in the ranks of the official opposition.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
What this situation needs is more frankness and blunt talk, and less hypocrisy. I know that the minister will be speaking later in this debate, and I will leave it to his good judgment to divulge to the house what he

thinks should be divulged of the in camera sessions of Friday, Saturday morning, all day Sunday and Monday morning.
I should like to express my views as to some of the problems preventing the settlement of this costly strike on the waterfront. It is not a question any more of dollars and cents. It is no longer a question of how much management should pay or how much labour wants. The leader of the New Democratic Party was accurate in his assessment that we are now entering a new phase of management and labour relations. This country, now an industrial nation, can no longer afford the luxury of having segments of society pulling against each other, if we are to continue prospering.
The problems and aspirations of management must be the problems and aspirations of labour, and vice versa. Judge Freedman recognized this in his historic document. Similar to the document drawn a decade ago by Judge Rand, I believe the one drawn by Judge Freedman will, in time, be incorporated into the dictionary of labour terms. [DOT]
In all fairness to the present Minister of Labour, he was one of the first both inside and outside this house to endorse, espouse and advance the philosophy of Judge Freedman. Only last month in a speech in Vancouver, not to labour but to manufacturers, he warned the manufacturers association of the moral obligations they had to the people working for them, a moral obligation put on paper by Judge Freedman, a moral obligation which management must realize more and more.
Underlying this strike, Mr. Chairman, is the concept of the moral obligation management has to longshoremen who suffer from arthritis, heart attacks, fractured limbs, colds, exposure to the elements, and from 10, 15 or 20 years on the waterfront loading and unloading ships under the crudest of circumstances. Management has a responsibility to these people. The Minister of Labour made that abundantly clear to both parties in this dispute.
Many people in my constituency are longshoremen. Stripped of the propaganda of what is sometimes an unfriendly press, stripped of the gangster elements that periodically infiltrate the waterfronts around the world, the average longshoreman emerges, in the ports of Montreal, Trois-Rivieres and Quebec as an average and decent man, wanting no more for himself and his family than I, or you, Mr. Chairman, or any other
June 1, 1966

Canadian would want. My sympathies lie with the longshoreman and I do not hesitate
to say so.
We must expect management to accept the philosophy of the Freedman report, just as we must expect management of a railway, when a line is abandoned, to accept its legal and moral obligations to all those who lived in the towns or villages, whose lives have been disrupted by the unilateral decision of the railway.
On the other hand, labour must realize its responsibilities to management, if there is to be teamwork. We must develop and encourage in Canada co-operation between management and labour, so that if management recognizes its responsibilities under the Freedman report, labour must realize that if this country is to maintain its competitive position in the markets of the world, it cannot resist technological changes, new inventions, or new ways and means of increasing productivity per manpower hour.
This fundamentally is the issue. In all fairness to management, to the shipping federation, and to labour, this is a new concept which has been introduced into the scheme of things for the first time. Perhaps the parties have been tardy; but after all, free bargaining between management and labour is going on. Perhaps I am revealing secrets out of school but, under persuasion by the Minister of Labour, management has accepted responsibility to the people dislodged by automation, and labour has accepted its responsibility to co-operate in ways and means that will increase productivity, in the final analysis making our products exportable and not subject to inefficiency and high shipping costs.
It might asked, why, if both sides have accepted such principles, this strike has not been settled? I submit it is because this is the first time that such a concept has been introduced in this area of labour relations. There are differences of opinion between management and labour as to what the moral obligations on either side are. Those moral obligations have not been set out before in written form. It is only logical and normal, therefore, when you are dealing with six locals, and with a multiplicity of shipping concerns, that there should be differences of opinion.
Labour in the Montreal area is represented by a very efficient and responsible legal adviser, who has the respect of the minister, as well as of management. It is significant that the only point of difference at the moment
Supply-Labour
between the parties is not a question of wages, salaries, or costs per hour, but what are the moral obligations of the parties, and to whom those apply.
I do not feel that anyone can evaluate moral responsibility toward longshoremen in terms of the number of hours that have to be worked in one year. I think it is necessary to go into the histories of people. In case any hon. member asks for information. I might point out that labour had tentatively consented, provided everything else meets with their approval, to the appointment of a conciliator whose role it would be to see whether work gangs could be reduced moderately-not immediately but, say, in one year from now.
Labour has said in return: If we accept such a proposition, which would mean that possibly 200 or 300 men in total would be out of a job, in the interest of increased efficiency, what would happen to such men? Management has said: We will see that they have a job.
In any event, attrition will take its toll of the 200 or 300 men. Really the difference of opinion involves the definition of a longshoreman as opposed to someone who works periodically, either at the week end or in the evening, moonlighting in the labour market. A distinction exists, and must be resolved.
On the other hand, and here I do not speak on behalf, or with the authority of the Department of Labour, my sympathy lies with the longshoreman who, when struggling to work 500 or 600 hours, which is not very much by our standards-


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breion South):: Would the hon. member permit a question? Am I to understand from his last remarks that the longshoremen's union, in the three ports involved, permits moonlighting on the job?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I know the hon. member who has asked the question is a labour man. You can define it any way you like. One of the paradoxes and hypocrisies of the labour movement is the willingness on the part of its members to fight each other, or anybody else, over certain aspects of labour; and yet, after a man has worked for 40 hours in one industry, he can stop working in that industry, and go somewhere else to work as scab labour. That happens all the time.


Malcolm MacInnis: Does the constitution of the longshoremen's union permit a man to go to another union and moonlight?

June 1, 1966
Supply-Labour


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: These questions would be fine if we were in a standing committee. It is obvious the hon. member is not familiar with the practice in the Montreal area. Thousands of part-time workers are required in the Montreal area to help when times are busy. The point being discussed between management and labour is this: Into which category do these particular workers fall? Are they genuine longshoremen, or people who earn their living as watchmen, trainmen, railway-men or postal workers, and who go down to work on the docks during periods of peak activity?
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
The difference of opinion arises because management is trying to define a longshoreman on the basis of the number of hours he works. I think this is wrong. A longshoreman who presently works only 500 or 600 hours a year may have worked 3,000 hours a year a few years ago when he had the vigour to do so. It may be his health has been ruined by his employment-by the almost inhuman working conditions to which he has been subjected. I do not think we should say, dietatorially, that because a man worked only 200 hours in a particular year he should not be entitled to job security. To do so would be cruel and inhuman; it would be in conflict with the Freedman principle.
Since there are comparatively few people affected, some four or five hundred, I suggest it might even be necessary to prepare a case history of each of these men. It might well be found that a man who had worked only 500 hours in the year just ended had worked on the waterfront for 20 years and should certainly be considered as a legitimate longshoreman.
These are some of the problems which representatives of labour and management are discussing today in Montreal under the guidance of an experienced mediator, Judge Lippe. I would suggest to those Who are genuinely interested in the attainment of a settlement-I exclude those who are more interested, for political reasons, in embarrassing the minister-that it is not in the best interests of these negotiations, or of the parties concerned in them, that the terms offered by management and suggested by labour, be made public in the House of Commons before those who are directly involved have had an opportunity to delve deeply into their differences. This is the reason for the minister's reluctance to go into detail concerning the

dispute at this particular point in the negotiations.
Hon. members who speak from the far corner, labour lawyers and others who have worked within unions, such as the hon. member who asked me a few questions several minutes ago-know how quickly the whole aspect of a labour dispute can be changed by a wrong word or an incorrect report. These things can happen. Why force the Minister of Labour into a position where his words may be misconstrued, where certain adjectives can be added, or deleted, or honestly misunderstood? I am not especially concerned about the Minister of Labour. He is big enough to shoulder his own responsibilities and suffer his own embarrassments. But I am interested in the thousands of longshoremen who are out of work at this moment and who, contrary to public opinion, are not hoodlums, gangsters or bums but, for the most part, decent, honest labouring people who fear automation.
Somehow, through the efforts of the mediator and of the Department of Labour, management has to make them understand that they have nothing to fear. Management must itself be given to understand that it has a moral responsibility to those who have worked so hard on its behalf in all kinds of weather for so many years.
In conclusion I would humbly ask, as one who was privileged to sit in on some of these discussions, that in discussing the estimates of the Department of Labour we in this house should refrain from yielding to the temptation of embarrassing the minister and at the same time jeopardizing the results of the negotiations which are going on at this very moment.


Mr. Mongrain:: Mr. Chairman, I am one of those who would have preferred not to take part in this debate because I am convinced that while conciliation is under way, it might be wiser not to mix things up.
The fact remains just the same that I represent a city and a region which are vitally concerned by this problem and, for over a week, I have been getting urgent representations which force me to intervene in the debate.
I state beforehand, of course, that I will abstain from making any criticism of representation which could create problems for the conciliation board now sitting.
June 1, 1966

Before getting to the heart of my remarks, I will say just the same that I listen with great interest when the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Douglas) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) discuss in the house problems which concern us because of their great experience and deep knowledge of all the aspects of such a problem.
As far as the leader of the New Democratic Party is concerned, I admire his statements and stands much more when he forgets to indulge in partisan considerations. This means that most of the time when he speaks outside the house they detract from his views a little, because we in this house, who try to approach the discussion in the most independent manner, feel all the time undercurrents of partisanship against the party in office.
Kindly note that, up to a certain point, I admire not only the leader of the New Democratic Party but his party's philosophy which I am studying conscientiously.
As far as the Leader of the official Opposition is concerned, Mr. Chairman, he is interesting for another reason, because what he says constitutes a kind of entertainment for the house.
When you hear him speak, you realize that there is an expert on things parliamentary and a first class performer in the art of make-believe. He takes an argument which might seem worthless and he puts on an extremely impressive show which probably does not help to solve problems as important as the ones we have been considering this afternoon, because in the end the economy of Canada as a whole is concerned and it is such an urgent question that I think we should all concentrate on working out a solution and forget partisan considerations.
Personally, Mr. Chairman, for a week I have been aware of the reactions in my riding from the employers, not only in the maritime transportation industry but also in all the industries in my region which are affected by those problems. I know the reactions of the leaders of the longshoremen and I feel I can say that, all in all, until now, we are perfectly happy-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Five o'clock.


Maurice Rinfret: In order that the house may proceed to the consideration of private members' business, it is my duty to
Supply-Labour
rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again at the next sitting of the house.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: When
shall the committee have leave to sit again -next sitting of the house?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or later this day?


An hon. Member:: Carry on.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it might not be the wish of the house to continue this discussion until six o'clock and waive the private members' hour? If this is the wish of hon. members it is agreeable to us on this side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been agreement on this.


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that private members' hour be deferred and that we proceed in committee with the estimates of the Department of Labour?


Mr. Bigg:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Reynold Rapp: Five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: As there is not unanimous consent-


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: I think I should advise the house that word has been received which may necessitate my being in Montreal tomorrow.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we might not appeal to those who have refused to give unanimous consent. Some of us have not had a chance to speak in this debate and it seems reasonable to me to continue it until six o'clock and set aside private members' hour.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: As there is no unanimous consent, it being five o'clock the house will now proceed to consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Private Members' Notices of Motions:
That, in the opinion of this house, immediate steps should be taken by the government to arrange for
June 1. 1S66
5842	COMMONS
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada a federal-provincial highway building conference at the earliest possible moment in order that a national highway building program be instituted with special attention in such a program to be given to access roads in the northern areas and lesser developed areas of the nation-Mr. Howard.
Stanley Howard Knowles: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), was one of those who agreed that the private members' hour might be postponed. He is out of the chamber at the moment. Therefore I wonder if in his absence this motion could be considered as not having been called?


Mr. Stewart:: What the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says is quite correct and I concur in his request.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is there unanimous consent that the motion stand?


Stanley Howard Knowles: As if it had not been called.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Eric Stefanson (Selkirk) moved:: That, in the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of establishing an inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton, via the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan River.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I first placed this motion, which requests the government to give consideration to the advisability of establishing an inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton, via the Red River, Lake Winnipeg and the Saskatchewan River, on the order paper in March, 1962. Each year subsequently I placed this private members' motion on the order paper, but was never lucky in the draw and the motion never reached the floor of the house for discussion. Naturally I am happy that it has now been called and an opportunity given to members to discuss it.
I was first prompted to introduce this motion by the promotional efforts of the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce who have been advancing this project for some years. The late Mr. J. F. (Fergie) Cunningham, who resided at Selkirk, Manitoba, was employed with the federal government's public works department and was in charge of dredging operations for the federal government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and the Northwest
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]

Territories, was actually the author of the project. Mr. Cunningham had done a lot of research work on this proposed project. He had outlined it to members of the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce. I likewise had many personal discussions with Mr. Cunningham about it.
Subsequently the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce took over the promotional work for the project. They sponsored resolutions at the annual convention of the Manitoba Chambers of Commerce and at the annual meeting of the Hudson Bay Route Association, advocating an inland waterway in western Canada.
The Selkirk Chamber of Commerce prepared a brochure for a western inland waterway, which they subsequently distributed to members of the Manitoba legislature, members of the Saskatchewan legislature, members of the Alberta legislature, to all the chambers of commerce in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to all the daily and weekly papers in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, to the radio stations, T.V. stations, and to others. In 1962 I distributed this brochure to all members of parliament and all senators on behalf of the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce. The Selkirk Chamber of Commerce and I received many acknowledgements and some very interesting comments.
The purpose of the proposed waterway is to provide another means of transportation. It is natural that those who are already engaged in transportation will be opposed to it, and may even endeavour to ridicule the proposal. I believe that this western inland waterway will reduce freight costs from the prairie provinces, will accelerate development in northern areas, and will encourage production of minerals, as well as agricultural and forest products. It will open new frontiers to recreation and will encourage tourists to come to these areas. It no doubt will bring in much needed American dollars. In addition to this, it will shorten the distance for building roads to resources and will create substantial additional employment.
There are those who say that our population at present is too small for this type of project to be feasible. They say that when our population reaches 50 million this project will be both desirable and feasible. The population of Canada has now reached a total of 20 million people. From now on it will increase at a much faster rate than hitherto, and it will not be very many years until the population reaches the 50 million mark.
June 1, 1966
Where will this extensive growth take place? I believe it is a foregone conclusion that a lot of the growth will take place in the three prairie provinces. This is a natural area for industry to move to, and a western inland waterway will help bring about this expansion.
In the period from 1870 to 1917 the following boats travelled the Saskatchewan river system:	the Northwest, the Marquis, the
Northcote, the City of Edmonton, the Alberta, the Baroness, the Medicine Hat, the Manitoba, the Alberta, the Nipawin, the Strathcona, the City of Prince Albert, the Saskatchewan, the Lilly, the Commissioner, the Cumberland, the C. R. Smith, the Assiniboine, the Omega, the La Fleur, the Minnow, the Minasin, the Le Pas, the Notin, the Klondyke, the John Bull, the Archibald, the Sam Briskin, the Dispatch, the Emma E and The Pas. These boats ranged in length from 43 feet to 202 feet and travelled the river system without any expenditure for river improvement. Since some of them were 202 feet long they were not small boats, and they managed to travel the river system for all those years without any improvement being made to it.
An extensive detailed investigation to ascertain the feasibility and cost of providing a navigable waterway for vessels and barges from Edmonton to Lake Winnipeg was made between June, 1910 and October, 1915. The report of this investigation was submitted complete in November, 1917 by the chief engineer of the dominion public works department.
This report, based upon a minimum of six feet of water at mean low water levels from lake Winnipeg to Edmonton, estimated the cost as follows: dredging and channel improvement, $6,200,000; seven locks and dams, $14,565,591; for a total of $20,765,591.
When this report was received world war I was in progress. Then came the post-war years, and subsequently the second world war, but still no action was taken on the report. In those years, and up to recent times, the prairie region was mainly a grain economy, but now western Canada is becoming industrialized and this industrial development will grow at a rapid pace. It is therefore essential to have competitive transportation systems which will be able to provide low-cost transportation services. In my opinion a multi-transportation service will be needed to serve the needs of the people, and this will include truck, rail, air and waterways.
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada (5:10 p.m.)
Following the second world war, tremendous developments of waterways have taken place in the United States, in Europe, and in other parts of the world. The St. Lawrence seaway was built after world war II which now permits ocean liners to sail from Fort William and Port Arthur. In the United States the Mississippi river system has been developed into an inland waterway; the Missouri river is now an inland waterway. Another tremendous development is the Ohio river navigation system of 981 miles, with 53 locks and dams. Towns along these waterways have increased in size and have prospered.
Travel on inland waterways in Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, the Netherlands, the U.S.S.R. and other countries has increased considerably since the end of the second world war. Recently, new inland waterways have been developed in Italy, Germany, France, the U.S.S.R., Luxemburg, and so on. The Moselle waterway, a 170 mile link between the steel producers of Lorraine and the Rhine, was officially opened in the spring of 1963. The construction of the waterway was an engineering feat of some note and the cost was shared by three countries^-France, West Germany and Luxembourg.
This inland waterway enabled the French steelmakers to ship steel to prospective customers in southern Germany more cheaply than before. It also enabled them to bring in coal by barge from the Ruhr area and the Dutch ports and this means lower freight rates. This inland waterway is helping the economies of the three participating countries.
The proposed inland waterway from Winnipeg through Selkirk to Edmonton is approximately 1,200 miles. We are not talking in terms of seaway similar to the St. Lawrence seaway. The inland waterway which we are proposing would be suitable for tugs and barges.


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question. I am sorry I missed a portion of his address. Could he repeat what average drafts he would anticipate for the channel, compared to those in the United States and in Europe.


Eric Stefanson: These all are different types and some of them are shallow draft of eight feet or so. They are used by barges, including the new type of push-barge. They are operated under shallow draft of anywhere from six

June 1, 1966

Navigable Waterway in Western Canada to ten feet, the same as in this waterway I am proposing.
During the past six or seven shipping seasons, there have been modern tugs and modern barges operating on lake Winnipeg. I am told that this is the most up to date equipment of this kind anywhere on the North American continent. This equipment moved a large volume of material and equipment during the construction of the Grand Rapids hydro power development. During the past two or three seasons, this equipment has moved considerable pulpwood to the pulp and paper mill at Pine Falls, Manitoba, located on the Winnipeg river. This equipment has hauled pulpwood from along the Nelson river and has gone approximately 60 miles beyond Norway House. This type of equipment would be ideal for operating on an inland waterway such as the one I am proposing. It is capable of moving a great deal of freight and can be operated on an economic basis.
With the limited time at my disposal, I am unable to go into any great detail regarding the construction of this proposed waterway nor have I time to deal with the commodities which can be transported along this waterway. I am convinced that such a waterway would provide a low cost transportation system which would be of benefit to the Canadian economy as a whole. I would suggest, wherever future hydro developments take place, that provision be made that all these rivers will likely be water routes in the not too distant future.
Speaking in the House of Commons on February 19, 1962, page 1031 of Hansard. I said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a copy of the Selkirk Enterprise dated March 8, 1961. The heading on page 3 is "Cunningham Visualizes Edmonton to Selkirk Water Highway."
Mr. Cunningham is a resident of Selkirk, Manitoba, and until his recent retirement was in charge of all dredging operations for the federal government in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories.
Mr. Cunningham, when speaking to the Selkirk chamber of commerce, outlined his plan for a water highway from Edmonton on the Saskatchewan river to Grand Rapids, down lake Winnipeg and up the Red river to Selkirk and Winnipeg. It was evident that Mr. Cunningham was talking about a subject with which he is familiar, and also that he has carried out a great deal of research work on this topic. It is also a topic in which he believes, and he feels it would be practical to make it a reality.
Whenever new ideas are advanced there are some who immediately say that those ideas are ridiculous and nonsensical and that the man responsible for them is a day dreamer. I am sure that when the St. Lawrence seaway was suggested

there were those who said the project was nonsense. After the idea had been advanced it no doubt took a long time to stir up interest in it and to convince people of the possibilities. Later, extensive surveys were required to determine whether the project would be of sufficient benefit to warrant the spending of public money. I have no quarrel with that. I do think it is important that this type of project be given careful study. I agree one has to be convinced of the over-all benefit to the country as a whole before public moneys are spent. I merely point this out because I am sure that throughout history whenever a progressive idea has been advanced there were those who referred to it as absurd. However, one should remember that the man advancing the idea has given study to the topic while those who criticize have usually not given the matter any thought or consideration, which is why they offer the kind of criticism I have mentioned. I am one of those who believe that whenever someone suggests a project, particularly when that project is imaginative and visionary, one should look at it carefully and give it every consideration.
The suggested program of Mr. Cunningham is one which. I believe, comes in that category. It certainly is imaginative; likewise, it is visionary. One can visualize this type of project leading to the development of the northern ports of the three prairie provinces. It is essential that we should provide all practical forms of transportation. Since Canada is a growing nation with an expanding economy and the likelihood of a greatly increased population in the years to come, I think it will be desirable to have varied forms of transportation so as to serve Canadians wherever possible. The presence of rail, freight, truck transportation, air lines and water transportation would tend to establish competitive freight rates which could not help but be beneficial to people in general.
I still hold the views which I expressed on that occasion and firmly believe that the time has come for the government to explore the cost and the feasibility of such a waterway.
I want to read one of the letters I received after distributing the brochure prepared by the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce. It is from the minister of public works of that time, and is as follows:
I was very interested in the brochure enclosed with your letter of March 15, 1962, describing a waterway between Winnipeg, Selkirk and Edmonton. Mr. J. F. Cunningham, the author, was an employee of the department for many years until his retirement a year or so ago.
The improvement of the various waterways of Canada is of continuing interest to myself and the members of the department. I have watched with interest the increasing use of such rivers as the Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio rivers of the United States and the rivers of Europe, where barge traffic has become a very important element in the national transportation system.
There appears to be two main requirements for an economic use of river waterways; these are, a large population and a mature industrial development. I am certain that in the future the area which would be served by the proposed Winnipeg-Selkirk-Edmonton waterway will have a large increase in population with many industrial centres.
June 1, 1966

When this has come to pass, I am sure that the vision of the Selkirk Chamber of Commerce and the people of the west will have become a reality.
In this letter Mr. Walker refers to two main requirements for an economic use of river waterways-a large population and a mature industrial development. We are gradually approaching both these requirements. We can dream a little further and again, looking into the past, we will realize that Selkirk and Winnipeg need not be the eastern terminal of this inland waterway. With channels of 100 to 150 feet wide having a mean depth of six to eight feet, large loads can be taken clear from lake Winnipeg to the Great Lakes via the routes of the old explorers, up the Winnipeg river Lake of the Woods system to the Great Lakes.
One can dream a little beyond even that and envisage the day when a seaway will also be built down the Nelson river to connect Hudson bay and Lake Winnipeg. Then western Canada would be connected by a seaway to the Atlantic ocean and Hudson bay.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
I wish to quote from an article which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press in March of this year under the heading "Winnipeg Seen as Seaport". The article reads as follows:
By the year 2000 large ocean-going ships could be loading cargo at the port of Winnipeg.
In fact Winnipeg might well be the busiest seaport in the western hemisphere, with water traffic pulling into her docks from the south, north, east and west.
According to Edward R. Trapnell, of Washington, D.C., a consultant on water policy for the Ralph M. Parsons Co. of Los Angeles and New York, a $100 billion water conservation and distribution program for North America could result in several Canadian inland cities becoming water transportation centres.
Mr. Trapnell spoke in Winnipeg at the Winnipeg Chamber of Commerce national farm and business forum in March of this year. He dealt with a massive North American water and power project conceived by engineers of the Ralph M. Parsons Company. Mr. Trapnell dealt with the need for making use of all the fresh water instead of having it drain into the Arctic ocean. He said it made sense to start planning now, that if this proposed project were completed, Canada would be in a position to sell water and power south of the border, irrigate large areas of the prairies, have inland waterways for transportation and have increased recreation areas.
DEBATES	5845
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada
1 urge the government to make the necessary plans now, to be ready to undertake the construction of this proposed inland waterway just as soon as our population and industrial development make this project feasible, which will be of economic benefit to the people of Canada.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to compliment the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stenfanson) upon introducing this private members' notice of motion. I think the government should consider the advisability of establishing several inland waterways, and studies to this end might well be launched soon. However, I would urge that there are other priorities, and I want to speak briefly this afternoon about other waterway developments which I think are more important to the country. They are certainly more important from an economic point of view and would affect many more people in the short run.
I want to speak essentially about waterways which would be utilized by small pleasure craft, and to a lesser extent by small craft used by fishermen and other types of commercial operators.
For many years, indeed for many decades in the United States the federal government of that country has taken a determined and substantial interest in the development of what might loosely be referred to as small craft harbours and their development, and certainly in the construction of harbours of refuge along rivers, lakes, and the coast line of the United States. There is a very large population of small craft owners in the United States. Apparently one out of every three home owners in river or coastal locations, now has a small boat used for recreational purposes. These people spend a great deal of money on these boats, both in the purchase of them and in the maintenance and supplying of fuel and other materials.
This industry has grown to major proportions and is one which will become increasingly important in Canada. Some measure of the importance of it, at least in the eyes of the federal government of the United States, is indicated by the following figure. Last year alone the United States government through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers spent $50 million in the construction of small craft harbours on the west coast of the United States.
June 1, 1968
5846	COMMONS DEBATES
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada
On a pro rata basis, if Canada were to undertake a similar program of this kind on a proportionate scale, it would mean an expenditure of $5 million on the west coast of Canada. So far, at least to my knowledge, not one nickel has been spent on small craft harbour development on the coast of British Columbia, around the islands or on the mainland. I think this is very shortsighted.
A policy that was announced some years ago leading to a program under which some $200,000-not $200 million, but one thousandth of that-would be spent for works which would be of some benefit to small craft owners across Canada. This was the amount budgeted for this type of work all across the nation, and as I understand it much of that money was spent to build small craft loading ramps where small craft could be run down and launched or brought out of the water. A sizeable proportion of this money was spent in the Ottawa area and I have no doubt that the civil service, which is always on its toes in matters of this kind, did very well in this regard. We saw very little of that money on the west coast.
We need more facilities of that type, but that is not the type of facility which the government should provide, and in my opinion it is certainly not the type-


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While it is true hon. members are allowed a great deal of latitude during the private members' hour, the proposition which is now before us relates to western Canada in general. If the hon. member wishes to go far afield of that subject, I suggest that he sponsor a bill in order that he may discuss the matter to which he is now referring. An hour is not a very long period in which to discuss the possibilities of a western Canada waterway, and I suggest to the hon. member that he direct his attention to that subject.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will endeavour to do that, but in my opinion any waterway in this country will eventually link up with both our coast lines. We have a very substantial waterway along the west coast, between the islands and the mainland west of the mountains. I focus my attention on this area, because that is the area from which I come. What I say in respect of that area applies to the small craft industry anywhere in Canada.
The policy which was announced last year in respect of facilities for small craft, and basically apply also to small craft using inland waterways across the prairies, would

also apply in respect of navigation through the lake areas, where harbours of refuge could be built. I think harbours of refuge would be an integral part of such a development.
I am not arguing for small boat loading ramps and so on, because they represent a very minor item, but I am arguing for federal money for navigation in respect of harbours of refuge, essentially, and the clearing of channels creating facilities which are in a sense an improvement on nature.
In the Vancouver area, for example, there are more than 50,000 small craft, the craft running up to as large as 100 feet in length.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As has been pointed out, the subject matter under discussion is an inland waterway from Winnipeg west by the Red river, lake Winnipeg to the Saskatchewan river. The Vancouver area, important as it is, does not come within this particular debate. I suggest that hon. members be restricted to this subject because there are other members who wish to speak about it. If any government member is afraid that this subject will not be discussed for the complete hour I can assure him that it will, but let us confine our remarks to the subject now before us.


John (Jack) Davis: Let me continue to refer to the policy announced last August by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and subsequently detailed by the federal Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith). This policy relates to the construction of facilities which could be built on inland waterways. I know that there are a number of members interested in projects of this type which could be located on inland waterways.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The notice of motion before us refers to an inland waterway from Selkirk to Edmonton. That is the subject of this debate and we ought to stick to it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order, please. The hon. member has heard the observations of several members of this house. While he obviously wishes to speak in general terms about inland waterways I think he is going beyond the terms of this motion, and suggest that he confine his remarks to the subject immediately at hand.


John (Jack) Davis: I agree, Mr. Speaker; but perhaps you will allow me to complete my reference to the policy announced last August and let members then judge whether the proposed
June 1. 1966	COMMONS
items would be of interest to or associated with inland waterways.
I contend that these projects are precisely the type in respect of which private enterprise, the public, in the sense of municipalities and provincial governments, would benefit in terms of not simply thousands of dollars, but millions of dollars from the federal treasury in dredging and the construction of breakwaters. These works are part and parcel, certainly, of inland waterways, particularly where they cross large lakes, and this type of investment is essential. This is one way-it may not be the most substantial way but it is a significant way-in which the federal government of Canada can assist inland waterway development.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
I would suggest that this policy can also be used in helping to improve our existing-some of them ancient-canal systems, which could be eventually used as toll facilities, if you like, used largely by pleasure craft. I suggest this will be the principal source of revenue of many future inland waterways.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. I think the hon. member is indulging in a debate in general terms in connection with inland water policy, and I think he should speak specifically to the notice of motion that is now before the house.


John (Jack) Davis: Then I will be quite specific, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: The Liberal party had better recognize the prairie provinces for once.


John (Jack) Davis: I have mentioned the $200,000 ramp program, which is ancient and not effective. The second proposal-and I am quoting from the announcement of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Mcllraith) of last August-is:
Where an economic appraisal of present and potential traffic requires the development of additional harbour facilities, the federal government is prepared to undertake the construction of navigation facilities, such as breakwaters to protect shore installations and the dredging of main channels in harbour areas.
Surely this has relevance to waterways anywhere in Canada.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has set out deliberately to abuse the privileges of the house. He is defying Mr. Speaker's ruling. He is talking about harbours and such matters in connection with an
DEBATES	5847
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada inland waterway, and he is making no secret of the fact that he is defying the Chair.


John (Jack) Davis: I will leave it to the Chair to decide whether I am defying Your Honour's prerogatives. I certainly do not wish to do that and I will abide by any direction you may give me, Mr. Speaker. The third proposal is:
The provision by the federal government of capital works would be contingent on firm commitments by other interests to the establishment of onshore facilities, such as wharves, marinas, living facilities and municipal services such as roads, water supply and power as well as the provision of sites where required for the area development.
Then this is another item.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I cannot see how he can relate these remarks to the specific notice of motion that is now before the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Recognize the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson).


John (Jack) Davis: Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me deal quite specifically with the waterway across the prairie provinces.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Which is a Liberal desert.


John (Jack) Davis: I realize that there have been many proposals along these lines, and increasingly in recent years an interest has been expressed in this regard both in Canada and from south of the border. I refer for instance, to the so-called Parsons plan, the NAWAPA project, the North America Water and Power Alliance proposal, which is little more than a sketchy plan; it is actually a public relations effort on the part of a large engineering firm based in California. This envisages a waterway for carrying commercial traffic, freight as well as smaller craft, across the prairies. I think this plan suggests that in the long term it would involve transportation by water right across Canada of traffic of this type.
This is a visionary proposal and I doubt very much whether it will ever be implemented in anything like the detail that is suggested by the plan. But personally-and I think the hon. member for Selkirk would agree-we should be looking at possibilities like this. I do not mean that we should be looking at the water export aspects of the NAWAPA plan very seriously, but certainly we should contemplate other benefits which will result from the development of rivers on the prairies. We should be considering the
June 1, 1966

Navigable Waterway in Western Canada navigational benefits, as well as schemes which might take some water from power production, and make available improved irrigation facilities, because I think these will be essential in the long run. I believe the federal government would be very remiss if it did not seriously consider, even in its earliest exploratory studies, long term possibilities of this kind.
Perhaps I might conclude, Mr. Speaker, by again saying that the hon. member for Selkirk has brought a very important topic to the attention of the house. I have veered off in the direction of smaller craft and smaller people, but I believe that small people as well as big people, small interests as well as big interests, will also use navigational facilities of this type.


Mr. Johnston:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John (Jack) Davis: Yes.


Howard Earl Johnston: If the hon. member is so interested in small facilities and small people, I wonder if this means that the Department of Public Works is about to reverse its decision not to reconstruct the wharf at Canoe on the Shuswap lake,


John (Jack) Davis: I do not have any intimate knowledge in this connection, but I certainly hope the department reverses its decision in respect of a breakwater in my area which I deem to be essential to protect life and extend the waterway away up our west coast. The cost would be a quarter of a million dollars, but it would be a quarter of a million dollars well spent, especially when one compares this development with, for instance, the Centre for the Performing Arts on Elgin street in this city, or the marina to be included in the 1967 Exposition.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to identify myself with this motion. The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) may live at one end of the waterway about which he talks, but I live at the other end, because the headwaters of the waters involved in this motion take their origin in my riding. Because of this, and because of my familiarity with the entire watercourse, I must give my support to this motion as being something that is very vital to the economy of western Canada.
I hope my remarks are more relevant than those of the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis), and I would say to the hon.

member for Selkirk that if all the consideration the government is going to give this motion has been indicated by the remarks just made by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano, we might just as well have gone on with the discussion of the estimates of the Department of Labour as they relate to the longshoremen's strike in Montreal.
Water transportation in our country has played a very important role in the past and I believe it is going to play an even more important role in the future. Whether we are discussing the NAWAPA plan or this motion specifically, I am sure that water transportation and the benefits that accrue therefrom will continue to play an important part in Canada's economy. I am thinking specifically of inland waterway systems such as that proposed in this motion.
I would say to the hon. member for Selkirk that I would have been more happy if he had proposed the other end of this system to be at the old fort of Rocky Mountain House, which was in existence long before Fort Edmonton, and was the western terminus of the old fur trade route and which will be the beginning point of the centennial canoe pageant which will start at Rocky Mountain House, in the foothills of the Rockies on the North Saskatchewan river, and end at Expo '67 in Montreal.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, could I ask
the hon. member how large the craft will be that get from Rocky Mountain House to Expo '67?


Robert Norman Thompson: I would say, very large. I happen to have paddled every foot of this route and can say that barges of considerable size could be moved up the river without even building any dam structures, which might be necessary farther down river as far as maintaining the necessary flow level in the river is concerned.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
I would also say in this regard, however, that in the whole question of water conservation in the west, as water from the Arctic is diverted into the waters that go across the prairies, waters from the Peace river and from the Athabaska, which will form part of any over-all water conservation plan to the east are going to add to the flow of the water in this system we are talking about here. I believe that water conservation and water transportation are an integral part of the future development of our water resources. It is therefore imperative that the government
June 1, 1966	COMMONS
of the day begin not only the specific co-ordination of water conservation but also the co-ordination of studies which relate to water transportation. I believe that the two are inseparable.
The historical past of Canada is inseparably linked with this inland waterway from Winnipeg to Rocky Mountain House. It was the highway in the early development of this country, as were the waterways elsewhere in the west and the east a century or two ago. It is true that down through the years the importance of water transportation to the economy of the nation tended to fade away. This is true as it relates to the building of the railroads. However, with the increasing cost of the operation of the railroads, with the increasing development of the west-and this applies not only to agriculture but also to the industrial development of the west-I believe that waterways such as this come right back into focus again.
I can only support the remarks of the hon. member for Selkirk-and I think we owe a debt of gratitude to him for bringing this up-that the government should initiate a study on this immediately, and that it should be co-ordinated with the study that is concerned with water conservation and which I hope is taking place in more than just the prairie provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak on this motion any longer except to add that I believe the subject matter of this motion is more important to the economy of our country, is more vital to the economy of western Canada, than any of us in this house really realize. If the reports that have been referred to by the hon. member for Selkirk could be studied by every member in this house, I believe that each one of us would realize just what potential is involved in this lake Winnipeg, North Saskatchewan and even South Saskatchewan water system.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will take under serious consideration this study that is proposed. I am a little discouraged when I hear remarks like the ones we have just heard made by the preceding speaker, which tend to make light of or ignore the value of such recommendations. I must say to the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) that I expected more from him as a westerner. Some of us who have been fighting for this kind of project and who have been struggling to get consideration from the government of Canada, to convince the people in the east that projects
DEBATES	5849
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada such as the Alaska highway are vital to the economy of the whole nation, find it difficult to understand why those who surely intimately and personally know the value of this project might not have taken a more constructive attitude. Nevertheless this does not detract from the importance and value of the subject matter of this motion and the recommendation by its mover that the government take serious consideration of the project.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I rise mainly to compliment the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) upon having introduced this proposal. I think it could be a very valuable one. In his notice of motion he asks the government to give consideration to the establishment of this inland or prairie waterway, and I think that is a most reasonable request. I would like to see the government take real notice of it and study it, particularly if it does so in line with an over-all study of our Canadian water resources and their employment. It may be that the hon. member's vision of Winnipeg's becoming a great waterfront metropolis may not be too promising, but I think we cannot be regional about this. I, as a member from British Columbia, would very much like to see the government give at least serious study to the hon. member's proposal. I am hopeful that it might come to some resolution this afternoon, so I will confine my remarks to what I have said.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Mr. Speaker, it gives me considerable pleasure to support this motion from the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson). As you well know, I am the member for Athabasca. The Athabaska is the link between the proposed prairie waterway and the Arctic. Speaking of the present water system, I will say it is one of the longest river systems in the world, and I cannot exaggerate the importance of the Athabaska and the Mackenzie systems.
It was just 100 years ago on Monday that the first permanent settlers started the city of Prince Albert, which is approximately half way along this proposed waterway. I think the passage of this motion would be a very fine way of honouring these early pioneers. They did not lack vision or foresight. They certainly did not lack the courage to make the long and hazardous journey by water from Winnipeg to Prince Albert. It does not take a great deal of imagination to see that we have wasted this waterway, the first
June 1, 1966
5850	COMMONS
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada highway across the prairie. Now that water conservation has become so important to the whole of North America, I think we would be remiss in our duty to the coming generations if we did not take this step now, which is perhaps in some respects tardy, to preserve the great water resources which we have in the northern half of the American continent. Not only do we owe it to ourselves in Canada but the great republic to the south is already aware of the great danger in the present lack of water.
Not only do I support this as the water highway across the prairie, but I also think the waters of the Saskatchewan river are being wasted at the present time. They are flowing into Hudson bay quite unused, particularly with respect to power. Many years ago the city of Prince Albert went deeply into debt in attempting to dam the river just below Prince Albert. They were laughed at with scorn, in the same way in which this proposal was jeered at today in the house. And yet the engineers say now, some 50 years later, that had the city of Prince Albert gone ahead and dammed the North Saskatchewan river at La Coll falls, the whole economy of Saskatchewan might well have been changed.
I for one do not think we should wait until we have a complete plan for water conservation. Here is something which, with the outlay of a few million dollars, could repay us in water alone, not to mention transportation and power. Today water is a commodity, and we are certainly remiss in our duty if we do not take immediate steps to preserve this great waterway of ours.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
I do not know whether Winnipeg will ever become a great ocean seaport, but certainly in a very few years, for the expenditure of a small sum of money compared with the results of extending the canal system across the prairies, we might have a link with Hudson bay. It is true that the present shipping season is short. This has been used as an excuse for not developing the Hudson bay route, so far as rail and ocean transport is concerned. I do not believe it is at all out of the way to suggest that the day is not too far off when we will see atomic energy being used to change the temperature of Hudson bay and this whole canal system. Then we can well imagine a shipping season of 10 or 12 months on this canal.
I do not want to be responsible for talking out this motion, which I think is a very


important one. I would be pleased if the house would pass it. The motion does not commit the government to spending large sums of money unless they approve the project. Certainly I put it forward as a worthy project. I am sure if we pass this motion now people will look back and say that in 1966 we had the same vision our ancestors had when they first stopped off half way along this ancient waterway in the city of Prince Albert.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson) for his patience and his determination in bringing this motion forward after waiting three years. It is a dream which may well come to pass within this century. The suggestion of an inland waterway from Winnipeg though Selkirk to Edmonton is not a new one. In fact it is an old idea which has been discussed and studied for a number of years. An engineering survey of this project was first made by the Department of Public Works more that half a century ago, during the years 1910 to 1914, as pointed out by the hon. member who introduced the motion. Then the first great war broke out and the scheme was abandoned for the duration of the war. Other things happened to curb the enthusiasm of those few who favoured the idea at that time.
However, the idea has persisted. The interesting scheme to pipe water across the prairies to the cities of Moose Jaw and Regina, which had been suggested by Professor Hind of the University of Toronto in the 1870's would have meant the construction of a dam and a diversion at the Elbow river. The possibility was envisaged of travelling by boat all the way from Winnipeg to Calgary. This proposal by Professor Hind was knocked out by the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Then, there was the plan of Mr. John R. MacNicol, a member of parliament. His plan was to make the old fur trade route navigable for coal and oil transport which the hon. member for Selkirk seems to be advocating. In 1961 the premier of Manitoba requested a review of the information obtained in the survey made before 1914. The former minister of northern affairs and national resources also became interested in reviving the possibilities of the scheme.
This time the review concerned the engineering and economic problems associated with the canalization of the Saskatchewan
June 1. 1966

river, was restricted, as was the original study, to a determination of the justification for a detailed engineering study including a field investigation, preliminary design and cost estimates. The conclusion reached in 1961 was that there would not be sufficient volume of traffic to provide significant transportation savings to set against the heavy capital and operational costs which would be involved for the federal government in the construction of such a waterway. The assessment showed, moreover, that road and rail transportation systems now in existence would appear to be capable of meeting foreseeable future requirements.
It must be remembered that the transportation facilities in the prairie provinces are vastly improved now over the facilities available in the early days of this century when this project was first suggested. Then, the railways and waterways were the main transportation systems. Now, the Trans-Canada highway provides a direct first class route for interprovincial truck and passenger traffic and our air lines offer speedy passenger, freight and air express service between all major points.
Although the 1910-1914 engineering survey was confined to the route from Edmonton to Winnipeg and did not investigate the potential of the South Saskatchewan for navigation, it is still considered adequate for determining the order of magnitude of the costs involved in developing either or both the north and south branches of the Saskatchewan river for navigation purposes.
At this point I had hoped, if time permitted, to quote from a reliable publication a summary of the potential and weaknesses of the Saskatchewan river, as it was at the time the survey was made and as it existed until recently prior to the advent of the building of the Saskatchewan dam. I think a recital of the history of this famous river's behaviour is useful for the purpose of our discussion which concerns, of course, whether or not such a scheme as envisioned in this motion is economically practical. Thus it can be seen that this proposal, if judged by the standards set for the original engineering study, appears to be reasonable for the probable barge traffic that might be expected to use the river today. These provide for a channel depth of six feet and a width of 150 feet. The original study estimated the costs of providing navigation facilities from Edmonton to Lake Winnipeg at approximately $20 million. Using the quantities and designs of the early study 23033-371
DEBATES	5851
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada and revising costs to meet present day circumstances, it was estimated that approximately $100 million would have been the cost if the work had been started in 1961. It is extremely doubtful that present circumstances would result in a substantial downward revision of these costs.
One estimate made by a non-federal agency of costs for providing navigation facilities for lake Winnipeg to Empress on the South Saskatchewan river exceeded $250 million. This latter estimate, in the opinion of the engineers of the Department of Public Works, is excessive. It might be noted that one estimate is for a navigation route using the North Saskatchewan, and the other is for a navigation route using the South Saskatchewan. However, the review carried out in 1961 for the previous Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources found that it was reasonable to assume that a minimum cost of developing a navigation route originating on either the North or South Saskatchewan river and ending at lake Winnipeg would be in the neighbourhood of $100 million, and could possibly cost $250 million.
It follows that if the expenditure of $100 million cannot be justified on the basis of potential transportation savings, further study at the present time is not warranted. Let us look at the economic factors. The range of capital costs has been estimated to run from $100 million to $250 million. In the lower figure if amortized on a 50 year basis, the equivalent annual costs, including interest and amortization, would be some $5,500,000. On the higher figure, the annual costs would be $13,750,000.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. It being six o'clock, the hour for private members' business has expired.


Mr. Deachman:: Mr. Speaker, it is apparent the hon. member has gone to considerable lengths to prepare some valuable material on this subject, so I wonder if he could be granted just a few minutes at this time?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is he for the thing or against it?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Is it
agreed that the hon. member be allowed to continue?


Gordon Minto Churchill: How much longer?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: I am
informed that the hon. member's speech will last for five minutes more.
June 1, 1966
5852	COMMONS
Navigable Waterway in Western Canada


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hubert Badanai: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I intimated, on the higher figure, the annual costs would be $13,750,000. Neither of these amounts include maintenance for operating expenses.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)
The physical capacity of the locks in the proposed system was estimated at nine million tons of freight annually, on the assumption of equal traffic in both directions. However, it would be possible to handle only 4.5 million tons one way, and it would be highly improbable that the locks would be in continuous operation. Therefore a more realistic estimate of the capacity of the system would be in the order of 3 million tons a year.
It appears that by far the greatest volume of traffic that would move on such a waterway would be bulk cargoes such as coal, petroleum products and grain. These would be the only ones having any possibility of economic movement on the waterway during the estimated seven-month season. As I said before presumably the main movement would be from west to east, with little apparent backhaul traffic in sight.
In connection with the movement of coal by barge along the proposed waterway, the Manitoba Hydro-Electric Power Board has estimated that in 10 to 20 years, the coal requirements for its Selkirk plant will average 1 million tons annually. This is assuming that natural gas would not provide a cheaper B.T.U. base-an assumption that is open to question. As to grain and petroleum products there is nothing to indicate at the present time that the proposed water system would be competitive' with present rail rates for eastward movement.
Summing up, on the basis of these preliminary studies there would appear to be little justification for expenditures on works of the order of $100 million to $250 million in the interests of navigation on the Saskatchewan river. Hence it would seem doubtful that there is any reason to quarrel with the 1961 finding, which was that a large outlay on engineering investigations is probably not warranted at this time. If it is considered desirable some day to pursue the matter further it is believed that studies should be made first of all on the economic side and involve a more detailed analysis of traffic potential.
It may sound unpleasant to have to be realistic and dash cold water on such a
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret).]

romantic suggestion as a waterway through the heart of our great prairies. It would be much more pleasant to be able to agree with Professor Edward Kuiper of the University of Manitoba who, in a paper prepared for the 1961 Resources for Tomorrow conference said that a similar development would turn Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta into "the Garden of Eden of North America". Dr. Kuiper was of course referring not only to a waterway but to a full irrigation system that could be developed with it. Such a system, he said, would mean the end of drought for all time in the prairie provinces.
Dr. Kuiper's proposals were more ambitious than those of the hon. member for Selkirk. He also suggested the canalization of the Nelson river in northern Manitoba. Such a development, he said, would make it possible some day for Winnipeg residents to travel by boat deep into the heart of Alberta and, for a change, come back by a different route-through the Saskatchewan wheat fields to Hudson bay. He thought it would be a simple matter from a technical viewpoint to build ship locks in conjunction with future dams on the Saskatchewan and Nelson rivers.
However, the results of the preliminary investigations I have described to you indicate, I believe, that although it may be simple from a technical viewpoint, the capital expenditures involved would be very considerable, while the economic justification has not been firmly established in any of the investigations that have been carried out to date. In other words, there is little evidence to indicate that the results of the review carried out by the previous government in 1961 do not still apply.
Nevertheless, great changes have taken place in the prairie provinces in recent years in industrial and natural resources development, as well as in transportation. And in view of this growth and development, I would not want to suggest that the Win-nipeg-Edmonton waterway will not be built some day, nor for that matter that even Dr. Kuiper's more extensive proposals will, in the light of future development of the west, prove to be impossible. I trust, none the less, that this is a dream that the hon. member for Selkirk will see come true in the end.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. The hour for consideration of private members' business has now expired.
June 1, 1966



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder if we could know the order of business for tomorrow. Are we carrying on with the Department of Labour estimates?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Tomorrow we shall proceed with the estimates of the Department of Industry, Defence Production, Citizenship
Business of the House
and Immigration, with Privy Council legislation, and with the Department of Veterans Affairs. We always reserve the right to change the order, if necessary.


Gordon Minto Churchill: You do that in any case.


[Stage Direction]
It being six minutes after six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
5855